Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.
Data Processing Strategies for Marine Gravity Using Gravity Anomalies and Gravity Disturbances: A Case Study in the Southern Baltic Sea Region
Krzysztof Pyrchla,Gabriel Strykowski,Kamil Łapiński,Jonathan Kirby,and Jerzy Pyrchla
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.
Received: 09 Apr 2025 – Discussion started: 23 Jun 2025
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
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.
Researchers from the Gdansk University of Technology conducted marine gravity campaigns in 2021 and 2023. Together with scientists from the Technical University of Denmark, they proposed an interesting interpretation of recorded gravity data, which enables direct comparison of gravity measurements to quasi-geoid models. The proposed interpretation provides useful information for geodesy, geophysics, and navigation.
Researchers from the Gdansk University of Technology conducted marine gravity campaigns in 2021...
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.