the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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 26 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-204', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Aug 2025
reply
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.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-204-RC1
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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
191 | 45 | 25 | 261 | 15 | 29 |
- HTML: 191
- PDF: 45
- XML: 25
- Total: 261
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1