the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 06 Oct 2025
Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland
Abstract. An ongoing and maturing Sea Surface Temperature time-series from Ballycotton in the south of Ireland has been created from deployments of high precision and accuracy sensors and made openly available for download. There is data at the location starting in 2010, with mostly-continuous data since 2016. A data managed process flow, quality control routine and metadata documentation are in place for this sea surface temperature dataset. Alongside this time series is a co-located tide gauge which together allow for a more comprehensive study of the coastal area and the changes occurring there overtime. The sea surface temperature time series is made available through the Marine Institute’s ERDDAP server and has been assigned a citation and DOI (https://doi.org/10.20393/A7545AB4-3F9B-4CF5-97D7-98784B9B8D8C; Marine Institute, 2025a).
- Preprint
(1036 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-589', Giuseppe M.R. Manzella, 16 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Daves, 29 Oct 2025
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and engagement with our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and made some revisions that we believe enhance the quality and clarity of the work. Your feedback was instrumental in guiding these changes. Below, we outline the modifications made in response to your suggestions.
In response to general comments, specifically a minimal discussion on spatial representativeness: please see our additions to the text at lines 165 – 167 of the revised manuscript, where we caveat the inshore location but add the monitoring of Marine Heatwaves as follows: "...and although it is fixed at an inshore location it can be utilised for analysing the warming trend in the greater area or, for example, in identifying and monitoring marine heatwaves and their increasing prevalence in the Celtic Sea."
To address some of the specific comments made:
Line 37: We have now included some of the processes in lines 38 – 40 of the revised manuscript: "For example, temperature and biogeochemical parameters can be used to investigate the types of phytoplankton transported along the coast by seasonal currents, some of which may be harmful to humans and downstream aquaculture sites"
Line 70: On line 72 of the revised text, we have explained the SOP acronym.
Figure 3: There is a gross range check completed as an automated QC step through the dashboard. The range for this check is set to -5 to 40 °C for all of the data input using this dashboard. As the data is also visually checked before publishing, any anomalous points or ‘fine check’ will be flagged before any data is published for open use. Through the visual check, data stewards can ensure that data is accurate to the location in which it was collected. Details have been added to the sentence on line 83 as follows: “...such as spike identification and gross range checking (-5 - 40 °C),...”
Line 118: The trend analysis carried out for this manuscript was intended to simply showcase how an ‘immature’ time series like this can start to tell us about trends. The authors feel that further detailed analysis would need a longer dataset and would merit publication in a research type paper rather than a data paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Daves, 29 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-589', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2025
The paper "Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland" presents the time series of ocean temperature measurements carried out in
the period 2010 to present at Bollycotton.Although the data are potentially interesting, there are several aspects that need to be better addressed. Without additional information
there are potential drawbacks which may prevent a reliable use of the data.In particular, additional information on the potential influence of local effects should be provided, and some analysis on the
representativeness of the measurement site should be carried out.Figure 1 shows that the sensor is installed inside the port, apparently close to docked ships. What is the water depth at the measurement site? Is there any influence from the closeby ships? Is the temperature affected by the pier structure/illumination/temperature?
Is the measurement representative for the open ocean? For the inside portion of the port only? Is there any influence of local circulation?
What is the reason for the average difference of 0.479°C between in situ and OSTIA SST for contemporaneous data (see line 128)? What is the variability of this difference?
Apparently, one of the ojectives of the data collection is to provide information for aquaculture/fisheries. Are the data suitable for this purpose?
How do they relate wth the temperature of the Celtic sea?The applied procedures for quality control need to be better detailed and explained. How are spikes identified, and what is the applied temperature range?
Is it the applied temperature range seasonal/annual? Additional information on the sensors' calibration may also help assessing the accuracy of the measurements.
For example, what is the difference in the instrument calibration coefficients found in subsequent calibrations? What is the temperature difference between the two sensors deployed in parallel after 2024?A very basic trend analysis is reported in section 4.1. How these data compare with annual averages at a regional/larger scale? Did the authors try to identify occurrence of temperature anomalies or marine heat waves on time scale shorter than 1 year?
Additional comments.
The introduction is very general. The paper would gain from a more detailed discussion of regional and local aspects, and the motivation which led to the
deployment of the sensor at Bollycotton.l. 70: please, define SOP
l. 88: Maybe better "Uncertainties" instead of "Error"?Section 4.2. As stated above, for most of these applications a study on the representativeness of the collected data should be carried out.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Daves, 02 Dec 2025
We thank Reviewer #2 for the detailed and insightful review of our manuscript. The clarifications and updates made in response to your comments have strengthened the dataset description, improved transparency, and enhanced overall readability and value. We appreciate your contribution and hope these revisions adequately convey the nature of this long-term time series, including its utility and limitations. Details of the changes made in response to your suggestions are outlined below, along with our responses.
The paper "Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland" presents the time series of ocean temperature measurements carried out in the period 2010 to present at Ballycotton.
Although the data are potentially interesting, there are several aspects that need to be better addressed. Without additional information there are potential drawbacks which may prevent a reliable use of the data.
In particular, additional information on the potential influence of local effects should be provided, and some analysis on the representativeness of the measurement site should be carried out.
This feedback is most welcome and has motivated further analysis and an added paragraph that improves the fidelity of the manuscript. Although lack of data prevents more in-depth analysis, the results convey how Ballycotton SST data are only somewhat representative of the wider surrounding seas. Please see P.4, L.76 – L.88 and new table 1. As mentioned above for Reviewer #1, we have also reduced our claims of representativeness in the intro section by changing the words: “…provide valuable information… on the shelf processes in the Celtic Sea” to: “…provide valuable information… on the coastal, inner-shelf processes in the Celtic Sea” (P.2, L.44).
Figure 1 shows that the sensor is installed inside the port, apparently close to docked ships. What is the water depth at the measurement site? Is there any influence from the closeby ships? Is the temperature affected by the pier structure/illumination/temperature?
The depth of water below MSL (or LAT) changes at the site due to siltation (mentioned in the text) and occasional dredging, so we cannot define a water depth. Nor can we measure the effects of nearby vessels. We believe that the sensor, housed inside a metal tube and braced to, but not in contact with, the pier structure, will not suffer temperature discrepancies caused by the pier itself (or nearby vessels). It is positioned below LAT and never dries out. Being usually over a metre deep except very low tides, Illumination should not affect the readings any more than it will the surrounding water.
Is the measurement representative for the open ocean? For the inside portion of the port only? Is there any influence of local circulation?Please see previous responses which deal with representativeness. Although understanding local circulation would be of high benefit to the dataset, unfortunately, we do not have the resources to carry out a field survey, nor have availability of existing data that would inform of same.
What is the reason for the average difference of 0.479°C between in situ and OSTIA SST for contemporaneous data (see line 128)? What is the variability of this difference?The reasons would be varied and most difficult to constrain. We feel that, for the purposes of generating a long-term climatology, using (an adjusted) OSTIA model, that is already published, is the best approach to calculating anomalies, and superior to using only the short-term Ballycotton data itself. We have added a sentence and a standard deviation of differences to qualify this. See P.8, L.155: “Although there were differences found between the two datasets, with a number of potential reasons varying from proximity to the nearest OSTIA node, lack of model assimilated data in the area or local inshore effects, the model was deemed sufficient to generate a long-tern climatology for the locality.” See P.8, L.158: “...with a standard deviation of 0.924 °C.”
Apparently, one of the objectives of the data collection is to provide information for aquaculture/fisheries. Are the data suitable for this purpose?In the long-term we believe so. There is a lack of long-term monitoring sites in the region, and this one will grow in value once maintained into the future. Including this detail in the text is helpful. On P.2, L.46, we have added the words: “… especially in long-term trends,…”.
How do they relate with the temperature of the Celtic sea?Please see response to comment on representativeness above and additions to the text.
The applied procedures for quality control need to be better detailed and explained. How are spikes identified, and what is the applied temperature range?
In response to Reviewer #1 above we have now added details of the gross range check. Please see P.6, L.106: “…and gross range checking (-5 - 40 °C)…” Any spurious readings are flagged through careful visual screening detailed in the text. Please see response to Reviewer #1 above. We don’t actually do a spike check on SBE39 data (we do for our conductivity sensors), this was entered erroneously, and we have now removed the words ‘spike identification’, see track changes on P.6, L.105.
Is it the applied temperature range seasonal/annual? Additional information on the sensors' calibration may also help assessing the accuracy of the measurements.
For example, what is the difference in the instrument calibration coefficients found in subsequent calibrations? What is the temperature difference between the two sensors deployed in parallel after 2024?One of the sensors in 2024 was somewhat spikey and displayed a maximum difference from the primary sensor of 0.68 °C (with a 12-minute time offset), although mean difference (0.003 °C) and standard deviation of difference (0.05 °C) were small. This is the reason for having two sensors, and having explained this in the text, we feel the manuscript will not benefit from including these results. We are happy to take direction from the editor here, if these should instead be included.
Our pool of SBE39 instruments service multiple deployment sites and platforms. An instrument is not tied to a site. Monitoring and correcting for drift using before and after calibration coefficients for all of our temperature sensors is outside the scope and resources we have. We send all instruments back to factory for servicing and calibration, in almost all cases annually. Using arguably the best sensors available on the market, along with a manufacturer’s stated drift of 0.0024 °C per year, we believe instrument accuracy to be ample for its given application in Ballycotton.
A very basic trend analysis is reported in section 4.1. How these data compare with annual averages at a regional/larger scale? Did the authors try to identify occurrence of temperature anomalies or marine heat waves on time scale shorter than 1 year?
We refer to the response to reviewer #1 above at Line 118. The trend analysis carried out for this manuscript was intended to simply showcase how an ‘immature’ time series like this can start to tell us about trends. The authors feel that further detailed analysis would need a longer dataset and would merit publication in a research style paper rather than a data paper.
Additional comments.
The introduction is very general. The paper would gain from a more detailed discussion of regional and local aspects, and the motivation which led to the deployment of the sensor at Ballycotton.
We thank Reviewer #2 for this comment, and having acted on it, the additional paragraph added to the introduction section adds important oceanographic context and improves the usefulness of the introduction section. See P.1, L.23 – L.29.
Our motivations were not explained adequately in the original text, and we are grateful for this feedback and opportunity to add them. Back in 2010, the motivation was opportunistic, but driven by foresight, and on a shoestring it was added to the tide gauge installation. To address this, we have added on P.1, L.33: “…and was aimed at expanding SST monitoring efforts geographically.” And on P.1, L.35: “…and, under guidance from the then Marine Institute Climate Team, was placed alongside the tide gauge, which already had location agreements in place with local stakeholders.”
Line 70: please, define SOP
Line 70: On P.5, L.95 of the revised text, we have explained the SOP acronym.
Line 88: Maybe better "Uncertainties" instead of "Error"?Agreed, this is uncertainty analysis, so we have changed the sub-section title and replaced the word ‘error’ with ‘uncertainty’, where appropriate throughout the text.
Section 4.2. As stated above, for most of these applications a study on the representativeness of the collected data should be carried out.
Please see previous responses and additions which deal with representativeness.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Daves, 02 Dec 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-589', Giuseppe M.R. Manzella, 16 Oct 2025
Comments to: Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland
Two papers were simultaneously submitted to ESSD on temperature time series from several Irish ports (the present ESSD-2025-589 and ESSD-2025-555). The data are important, and therefore publication of the paper falls fully within the scope of the journal.
- General Comments
The authors justify the observations 'valuable' (line 37) as a source of information for coastal processes and changes in fisheries. I would have expected some information on how temperature observations can complement other types of data for both coastal erosion and fisheries, taking into account an ecosystem approach for the latter. The paper highlights only the aspect of long-term temperature change in a coastal area.
It is possible that temperature measurements in the port could be indicators of changes at a non-local scale, so I would also expect a minimal discussion on the spatial representativeness of these measurements.
- Specific Comments
Line 37. "The temperature data collected there provides valuable information on shelf processes in the Celtic Sea". It would be interesting to know what the main processes in this area are beyond coastal erosion.
Line 70. SOP is an acronym that needs to be explained.
Figure 3. A flow element contains a 'visual quality check and flagging of data through a dashboard'. I would expect minimum and maximum 'gross check' values and some indication of a possible 'fine check' for the area under consideration.
Line 118. Interannual, decadal, and longer-term warming. An analysis that is too much partial. I would have expected a spectral analysis of low-frequency phenomena (for example, storm scales and thei influence on annual signal, if any).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Daves, 29 Oct 2025
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and engagement with our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and made some revisions that we believe enhance the quality and clarity of the work. Your feedback was instrumental in guiding these changes. Below, we outline the modifications made in response to your suggestions.
In response to general comments, specifically a minimal discussion on spatial representativeness: please see our additions to the text at lines 165 – 167 of the revised manuscript, where we caveat the inshore location but add the monitoring of Marine Heatwaves as follows: "...and although it is fixed at an inshore location it can be utilised for analysing the warming trend in the greater area or, for example, in identifying and monitoring marine heatwaves and their increasing prevalence in the Celtic Sea."
To address some of the specific comments made:
Line 37: We have now included some of the processes in lines 38 – 40 of the revised manuscript: "For example, temperature and biogeochemical parameters can be used to investigate the types of phytoplankton transported along the coast by seasonal currents, some of which may be harmful to humans and downstream aquaculture sites"
Line 70: On line 72 of the revised text, we have explained the SOP acronym.
Figure 3: There is a gross range check completed as an automated QC step through the dashboard. The range for this check is set to -5 to 40 °C for all of the data input using this dashboard. As the data is also visually checked before publishing, any anomalous points or ‘fine check’ will be flagged before any data is published for open use. Through the visual check, data stewards can ensure that data is accurate to the location in which it was collected. Details have been added to the sentence on line 83 as follows: “...such as spike identification and gross range checking (-5 - 40 °C),...”
Line 118: The trend analysis carried out for this manuscript was intended to simply showcase how an ‘immature’ time series like this can start to tell us about trends. The authors feel that further detailed analysis would need a longer dataset and would merit publication in a research type paper rather than a data paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Daves, 29 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-589', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2025
The paper "Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland" presents the time series of ocean temperature measurements carried out in
the period 2010 to present at Bollycotton.Although the data are potentially interesting, there are several aspects that need to be better addressed. Without additional information
there are potential drawbacks which may prevent a reliable use of the data.In particular, additional information on the potential influence of local effects should be provided, and some analysis on the
representativeness of the measurement site should be carried out.Figure 1 shows that the sensor is installed inside the port, apparently close to docked ships. What is the water depth at the measurement site? Is there any influence from the closeby ships? Is the temperature affected by the pier structure/illumination/temperature?
Is the measurement representative for the open ocean? For the inside portion of the port only? Is there any influence of local circulation?
What is the reason for the average difference of 0.479°C between in situ and OSTIA SST for contemporaneous data (see line 128)? What is the variability of this difference?
Apparently, one of the ojectives of the data collection is to provide information for aquaculture/fisheries. Are the data suitable for this purpose?
How do they relate wth the temperature of the Celtic sea?The applied procedures for quality control need to be better detailed and explained. How are spikes identified, and what is the applied temperature range?
Is it the applied temperature range seasonal/annual? Additional information on the sensors' calibration may also help assessing the accuracy of the measurements.
For example, what is the difference in the instrument calibration coefficients found in subsequent calibrations? What is the temperature difference between the two sensors deployed in parallel after 2024?A very basic trend analysis is reported in section 4.1. How these data compare with annual averages at a regional/larger scale? Did the authors try to identify occurrence of temperature anomalies or marine heat waves on time scale shorter than 1 year?
Additional comments.
The introduction is very general. The paper would gain from a more detailed discussion of regional and local aspects, and the motivation which led to the
deployment of the sensor at Bollycotton.l. 70: please, define SOP
l. 88: Maybe better "Uncertainties" instead of "Error"?Section 4.2. As stated above, for most of these applications a study on the representativeness of the collected data should be carried out.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Daves, 02 Dec 2025
We thank Reviewer #2 for the detailed and insightful review of our manuscript. The clarifications and updates made in response to your comments have strengthened the dataset description, improved transparency, and enhanced overall readability and value. We appreciate your contribution and hope these revisions adequately convey the nature of this long-term time series, including its utility and limitations. Details of the changes made in response to your suggestions are outlined below, along with our responses.
The paper "Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland" presents the time series of ocean temperature measurements carried out in the period 2010 to present at Ballycotton.
Although the data are potentially interesting, there are several aspects that need to be better addressed. Without additional information there are potential drawbacks which may prevent a reliable use of the data.
In particular, additional information on the potential influence of local effects should be provided, and some analysis on the representativeness of the measurement site should be carried out.
This feedback is most welcome and has motivated further analysis and an added paragraph that improves the fidelity of the manuscript. Although lack of data prevents more in-depth analysis, the results convey how Ballycotton SST data are only somewhat representative of the wider surrounding seas. Please see P.4, L.76 – L.88 and new table 1. As mentioned above for Reviewer #1, we have also reduced our claims of representativeness in the intro section by changing the words: “…provide valuable information… on the shelf processes in the Celtic Sea” to: “…provide valuable information… on the coastal, inner-shelf processes in the Celtic Sea” (P.2, L.44).
Figure 1 shows that the sensor is installed inside the port, apparently close to docked ships. What is the water depth at the measurement site? Is there any influence from the closeby ships? Is the temperature affected by the pier structure/illumination/temperature?
The depth of water below MSL (or LAT) changes at the site due to siltation (mentioned in the text) and occasional dredging, so we cannot define a water depth. Nor can we measure the effects of nearby vessels. We believe that the sensor, housed inside a metal tube and braced to, but not in contact with, the pier structure, will not suffer temperature discrepancies caused by the pier itself (or nearby vessels). It is positioned below LAT and never dries out. Being usually over a metre deep except very low tides, Illumination should not affect the readings any more than it will the surrounding water.
Is the measurement representative for the open ocean? For the inside portion of the port only? Is there any influence of local circulation?Please see previous responses which deal with representativeness. Although understanding local circulation would be of high benefit to the dataset, unfortunately, we do not have the resources to carry out a field survey, nor have availability of existing data that would inform of same.
What is the reason for the average difference of 0.479°C between in situ and OSTIA SST for contemporaneous data (see line 128)? What is the variability of this difference?The reasons would be varied and most difficult to constrain. We feel that, for the purposes of generating a long-term climatology, using (an adjusted) OSTIA model, that is already published, is the best approach to calculating anomalies, and superior to using only the short-term Ballycotton data itself. We have added a sentence and a standard deviation of differences to qualify this. See P.8, L.155: “Although there were differences found between the two datasets, with a number of potential reasons varying from proximity to the nearest OSTIA node, lack of model assimilated data in the area or local inshore effects, the model was deemed sufficient to generate a long-tern climatology for the locality.” See P.8, L.158: “...with a standard deviation of 0.924 °C.”
Apparently, one of the objectives of the data collection is to provide information for aquaculture/fisheries. Are the data suitable for this purpose?In the long-term we believe so. There is a lack of long-term monitoring sites in the region, and this one will grow in value once maintained into the future. Including this detail in the text is helpful. On P.2, L.46, we have added the words: “… especially in long-term trends,…”.
How do they relate with the temperature of the Celtic sea?Please see response to comment on representativeness above and additions to the text.
The applied procedures for quality control need to be better detailed and explained. How are spikes identified, and what is the applied temperature range?
In response to Reviewer #1 above we have now added details of the gross range check. Please see P.6, L.106: “…and gross range checking (-5 - 40 °C)…” Any spurious readings are flagged through careful visual screening detailed in the text. Please see response to Reviewer #1 above. We don’t actually do a spike check on SBE39 data (we do for our conductivity sensors), this was entered erroneously, and we have now removed the words ‘spike identification’, see track changes on P.6, L.105.
Is it the applied temperature range seasonal/annual? Additional information on the sensors' calibration may also help assessing the accuracy of the measurements.
For example, what is the difference in the instrument calibration coefficients found in subsequent calibrations? What is the temperature difference between the two sensors deployed in parallel after 2024?One of the sensors in 2024 was somewhat spikey and displayed a maximum difference from the primary sensor of 0.68 °C (with a 12-minute time offset), although mean difference (0.003 °C) and standard deviation of difference (0.05 °C) were small. This is the reason for having two sensors, and having explained this in the text, we feel the manuscript will not benefit from including these results. We are happy to take direction from the editor here, if these should instead be included.
Our pool of SBE39 instruments service multiple deployment sites and platforms. An instrument is not tied to a site. Monitoring and correcting for drift using before and after calibration coefficients for all of our temperature sensors is outside the scope and resources we have. We send all instruments back to factory for servicing and calibration, in almost all cases annually. Using arguably the best sensors available on the market, along with a manufacturer’s stated drift of 0.0024 °C per year, we believe instrument accuracy to be ample for its given application in Ballycotton.
A very basic trend analysis is reported in section 4.1. How these data compare with annual averages at a regional/larger scale? Did the authors try to identify occurrence of temperature anomalies or marine heat waves on time scale shorter than 1 year?
We refer to the response to reviewer #1 above at Line 118. The trend analysis carried out for this manuscript was intended to simply showcase how an ‘immature’ time series like this can start to tell us about trends. The authors feel that further detailed analysis would need a longer dataset and would merit publication in a research style paper rather than a data paper.
Additional comments.
The introduction is very general. The paper would gain from a more detailed discussion of regional and local aspects, and the motivation which led to the deployment of the sensor at Ballycotton.
We thank Reviewer #2 for this comment, and having acted on it, the additional paragraph added to the introduction section adds important oceanographic context and improves the usefulness of the introduction section. See P.1, L.23 – L.29.
Our motivations were not explained adequately in the original text, and we are grateful for this feedback and opportunity to add them. Back in 2010, the motivation was opportunistic, but driven by foresight, and on a shoestring it was added to the tide gauge installation. To address this, we have added on P.1, L.33: “…and was aimed at expanding SST monitoring efforts geographically.” And on P.1, L.35: “…and, under guidance from the then Marine Institute Climate Team, was placed alongside the tide gauge, which already had location agreements in place with local stakeholders.”
Line 70: please, define SOP
Line 70: On P.5, L.95 of the revised text, we have explained the SOP acronym.
Line 88: Maybe better "Uncertainties" instead of "Error"?Agreed, this is uncertainty analysis, so we have changed the sub-section title and replaced the word ‘error’ with ‘uncertainty’, where appropriate throughout the text.
Section 4.2. As stated above, for most of these applications a study on the representativeness of the collected data should be carried out.
Please see previous responses and additions which deal with representativeness.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-589-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Daves, 02 Dec 2025
Data sets
Ballycotton, Co.Cork, Ireland: Sea Surface Temperature data (2010–) Marine Institute https://doi.org/10.20393/A7545AB4-3F9B-4CF5-97D7-98784B9B8D8C
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 240 | 40 | 23 | 303 | 20 | 35 |
- HTML: 240
- PDF: 40
- XML: 23
- Total: 303
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Comments to: Sea surface temperature time series from Ballycotton, Ireland
Two papers were simultaneously submitted to ESSD on temperature time series from several Irish ports (the present ESSD-2025-589 and ESSD-2025-555). The data are important, and therefore publication of the paper falls fully within the scope of the journal.
- General Comments
The authors justify the observations 'valuable' (line 37) as a source of information for coastal processes and changes in fisheries. I would have expected some information on how temperature observations can complement other types of data for both coastal erosion and fisheries, taking into account an ecosystem approach for the latter. The paper highlights only the aspect of long-term temperature change in a coastal area.
It is possible that temperature measurements in the port could be indicators of changes at a non-local scale, so I would also expect a minimal discussion on the spatial representativeness of these measurements.
- Specific Comments
Line 37. "The temperature data collected there provides valuable information on shelf processes in the Celtic Sea". It would be interesting to know what the main processes in this area are beyond coastal erosion.
Line 70. SOP is an acronym that needs to be explained.
Figure 3. A flow element contains a 'visual quality check and flagging of data through a dashboard'. I would expect minimum and maximum 'gross check' values and some indication of a possible 'fine check' for the area under consideration.
Line 118. Interannual, decadal, and longer-term warming. An analysis that is too much partial. I would have expected a spectral analysis of low-frequency phenomena (for example, storm scales and thei influence on annual signal, if any).