the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jun 2025
Data Processing Strategies for Marine Gravity Using Gravity Anomalies and Gravity Disturbances: A Case Study in the Southern Baltic Sea Region
Abstract. Regional coverage of marine areas by data from marine gravity measurements is important in geodesy and geophysics. However, interpretation of recorded gravity data is still a challenge. This paper addresses the problem of interpreting gravity data using two related, but slightly different methods. The first method involves gravity anomalies, while the second employs gravity disturbances. The main objective of this paper, apart from publishing in some detail the theory behind the two methods, is to demonstrate and briefly discuss the differences in the results. The cause of these different results are mainly interpretation errors in extracting, from marine gravimeter readings, the corrected readings caused by the gravity signal. We show that when both methods are applied to the same data set, which is available at https://doi.org/10.34808/30k6-fj34 (Pyrchla Krzysztof et al., 2025), a model of the marine geoid along the survey lines can be obtained. This can be used either as a direct estimate of the geoid or as an additional constraint by which we can detect and correct the interpretation errors.
- Preprint
(1466 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Feb 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-204', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Aug 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-204', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2026
reply
I would like to thank the authors for sharing their experiences from the two campaigns performed in the Baltic Sea in the manuscript entitled “Data Processing Strategies for Marine Gravity Using Gravity Anomalies and Gravity Disturbances: A Case Study in the Southern Baltic Sea Region “. I read through the paper and I see several problems in the content and also in the formulation of the paper. Therefore, I regrettably reject the manuscript in its current shape. The authors are encouraged to work on the paper and submit the outcome in a better organized way probably in a more relevant journal. I find that the ESSD is not the most suitable journal for this work since the paper in its current form is far from being data description. Moreover, the link provided in the abstract for downloading the data is not available. This is especially important for data publication and I would have expected this to be checked already during the submission process.
In general, the authors approached from a different perspective to perform shipborne gravimetry data processing than the most recent literature. Some terminology could have been adopted from the existing fundamental literature which I am missing in the manuscript. Moreover, the objective of the study was not given clearly which I believe lead to different patches of content through the paper. Despite my familiarity with the literature, projects and campaigns performed in the Baltic Sea, it was difficult to follow the content. The ideas presented should be reordered in a more consistent way with the existing literature. I would also recommend internal iteration among the authors for the clarity of the presentation and I believe getting expert opinion from outside would also help in the next round.
I have also noticed some technical issues. The authors used “interpretation”, I believe to replace processing, correcting, and for other terms whereas to me the "gravity interpretation" leads to a different content as indicated in the referred references in the manuscript (e.g. insight from geological aspects). Apart from this, I also noticed that the authors relied on the sources related to navigation whereas I could imagine them benefiting from the literature in physical geodesy for the current topic of interest.
If the idea is to present the two methodologies, I believe the address should be a different journal than the ESSD. I would recommend to use tables to present some of the relavant content (e.g. reference points and gravity values) and related information instead of text. The paper would also benefit from a flowchart where the data processing steps are included. Introduction of the gravimeter used comes only on page 5. For such a paper, I would recommend to start with introducing the equipment used. There are various papers which investigated the Harrison effect and Eotvos effect as well as filtering. I would recommend authors to get familiar with them and define the objectives of the manuscript clearly before revising it and stay consistent with the literature.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-204-RC2
Data sets
Marine gravity data of the Southern Baltic Sea region Krzysztof Pyrchla, Kamil Łapiński, and Jerzy Pyrchla https://doi.org/10.34808/30k6-fj34
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,308 | 157 | 37 | 1,502 | 48 | 75 |
- HTML: 1,308
- PDF: 157
- XML: 37
- Total: 1,502
- BibTeX: 48
- EndNote: 75
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I have reviewed the paper on "data processing strategies for marine Gravity using Gravity Anomalies and Gravity Disturbances. A case study in the southern Baltic Sea Region" with interest. I was thrilled by the title and the content. Unfortunately, it seems like the paper could not live up to my expectations and I am rejecting the paper for two clear reasons.
1) I do not feel that ESSD is the most appropriate journal for this type of paper. The paper is accompanied by a marine gravity set of observations, which should form the base of such a descriptive dataset paper. However, the paper reads as being focused on the geodetic theory for interpreting these as gravity field anomalies or disturbances, which, to most readers, are academic and likely belong to journal which deals more with geodetic theory (i.e., journal of geodesy). I couldnt help noticing that the dataset seems to contain large unmodelled errors due to various effects like wind/waves/temperature, etc, which seem to be ignored int he paper, but these are far larger than the difference in interpretational methods, so to me as a dataset journal reader is is trange that these are not considered in any detail.
Secondly, the paper reads as if it has been rushed into submission. Before resubmitting i urge the author to submit it for internal review by a native english speaking person.