the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 Mar 2024
Long-term changes in the ocean tide at Port Louis, Falkland Islands
Abstract. The historic tide gauge measurements at Port Louis in the Falkland Islands made by James Clark Ross in 1842 have been used to see whether there have been long-term changes in the ocean tide at that location. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for any significant change, which contrasts with tide gauge findings from other parts of the world over similar timescales. As by-products, the study has also been instructive in providing an example of how to obtain accurate tidal information from tabulations of high and low waters and from short tide gauge records.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2569 KB)
-
Supplement
(918 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2569 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(918 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-510', Christopher Jones, 12 Mar 2024
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
14 May 2024
Here are the review comments on this paper, each of which is followed by my responses in capitals. I am grateful to both reviewers for the time spent on this.
RC1: Christopher Jones
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
FIXED.
RC2: Anonymous Reviewer
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change.
After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there
which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes
this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
I AGREE THAT THE METHODS USED ARE IMPORTANT, AS THE REVIEWER SAYS, AND I HAVE TAKEN HIS ADVICE TO HIGHLIGHT THEM FURTHER IN THE INTRODUCTION IN A REVISED VERSION. HOWEVER, THE RESULT (OR NULL RESULT ONE MIGHT SAY) ON CHANGES IN THE TIDE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, GIVEN THAT CHANGES IN TIDES HAVE BEEN REPORTED ELSEWHERE.
AS FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE ROSS MEASUREMENTS, IT IS INTERESTING THAT BY MAKING SEA LEVEL MEASUREMENTS USING EYEBALL READINGS OF A TIDE POLE (OR STILLING WELL), AS ROSS WILL HAVE DONE, ONE CAN ESTIMATE TIDAL PARAMETERS ACCURATELY (SAY TO THE CENTIMETRIC LEVEL). THAT IS BECAUSE HARMONICS SEPARATE OUT FROM A NOISY TIME SERIES. OR AT LEAST, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION IF ROSS'S ORIGINAL HALF-HOURLY VALUES HAD SURVIVED. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT, BUT THAT WE HAVE ONLY THE HIGH AND LOW WATER VALUES AVAILABLE, ADDS AN EXTRA COMPLICATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER. I HAVE ADDED A PARAGRAPH TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE. BUT WE ARE NOT CLAIMING MM CONSISTENCY, AS THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS, THE OLD AND NEW MEASUREMENTS COMPARE AT APPROXIMATELY THE CM LEVEL AS SUMMARISED IN THE CONCLUSIONS.
Editorial Request
AS REQUESTED IN EMAIL OF 21 FEBRUARY FROM THE EDITORIAL OFFICE, TABLES 3(A,B) WILL BE SPLIT INTO TABLES 3 AND 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-510', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Apr 2024
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change. After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.
Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
14 May 2024
Here are the review comments on this paper, each of which is followed by my responses in capitals. I am grateful to both reviewers for the time spent on this.
RC1: Christopher Jones
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
FIXED.
RC2: Anonymous Reviewer
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change.
After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there
which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes
this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
I AGREE THAT THE METHODS USED ARE IMPORTANT, AS THE REVIEWER SAYS, AND I HAVE TAKEN HIS ADVICE TO HIGHLIGHT THEM FURTHER IN THE INTRODUCTION IN A REVISED VERSION. HOWEVER, THE RESULT (OR NULL RESULT ONE MIGHT SAY) ON CHANGES IN THE TIDE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, GIVEN THAT CHANGES IN TIDES HAVE BEEN REPORTED ELSEWHERE.
AS FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE ROSS MEASUREMENTS, IT IS INTERESTING THAT BY MAKING SEA LEVEL MEASUREMENTS USING EYEBALL READINGS OF A TIDE POLE (OR STILLING WELL), AS ROSS WILL HAVE DONE, ONE CAN ESTIMATE TIDAL PARAMETERS ACCURATELY (SAY TO THE CENTIMETRIC LEVEL). THAT IS BECAUSE HARMONICS SEPARATE OUT FROM A NOISY TIME SERIES. OR AT LEAST, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION IF ROSS'S ORIGINAL HALF-HOURLY VALUES HAD SURVIVED. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT, BUT THAT WE HAVE ONLY THE HIGH AND LOW WATER VALUES AVAILABLE, ADDS AN EXTRA COMPLICATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER. I HAVE ADDED A PARAGRAPH TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE. BUT WE ARE NOT CLAIMING MM CONSISTENCY, AS THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS, THE OLD AND NEW MEASUREMENTS COMPARE AT APPROXIMATELY THE CM LEVEL AS SUMMARISED IN THE CONCLUSIONS.
Editorial Request
AS REQUESTED IN EMAIL OF 21 FEBRUARY FROM THE EDITORIAL OFFICE, TABLES 3(A,B) WILL BE SPLIT INTO TABLES 3 AND 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-510', Christopher Jones, 12 Mar 2024
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
14 May 2024
Here are the review comments on this paper, each of which is followed by my responses in capitals. I am grateful to both reviewers for the time spent on this.
RC1: Christopher Jones
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
FIXED.
RC2: Anonymous Reviewer
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change.
After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there
which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes
this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
I AGREE THAT THE METHODS USED ARE IMPORTANT, AS THE REVIEWER SAYS, AND I HAVE TAKEN HIS ADVICE TO HIGHLIGHT THEM FURTHER IN THE INTRODUCTION IN A REVISED VERSION. HOWEVER, THE RESULT (OR NULL RESULT ONE MIGHT SAY) ON CHANGES IN THE TIDE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, GIVEN THAT CHANGES IN TIDES HAVE BEEN REPORTED ELSEWHERE.
AS FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE ROSS MEASUREMENTS, IT IS INTERESTING THAT BY MAKING SEA LEVEL MEASUREMENTS USING EYEBALL READINGS OF A TIDE POLE (OR STILLING WELL), AS ROSS WILL HAVE DONE, ONE CAN ESTIMATE TIDAL PARAMETERS ACCURATELY (SAY TO THE CENTIMETRIC LEVEL). THAT IS BECAUSE HARMONICS SEPARATE OUT FROM A NOISY TIME SERIES. OR AT LEAST, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION IF ROSS'S ORIGINAL HALF-HOURLY VALUES HAD SURVIVED. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT, BUT THAT WE HAVE ONLY THE HIGH AND LOW WATER VALUES AVAILABLE, ADDS AN EXTRA COMPLICATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER. I HAVE ADDED A PARAGRAPH TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE. BUT WE ARE NOT CLAIMING MM CONSISTENCY, AS THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS, THE OLD AND NEW MEASUREMENTS COMPARE AT APPROXIMATELY THE CM LEVEL AS SUMMARISED IN THE CONCLUSIONS.
Editorial Request
AS REQUESTED IN EMAIL OF 21 FEBRUARY FROM THE EDITORIAL OFFICE, TABLES 3(A,B) WILL BE SPLIT INTO TABLES 3 AND 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-510', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Apr 2024
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change. After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.
Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
14 May 2024
Here are the review comments on this paper, each of which is followed by my responses in capitals. I am grateful to both reviewers for the time spent on this.
RC1: Christopher Jones
Line 198, minor typo:
"But if one if the other four in the group"
should read
"But if one of the other four in the group"
FIXED.
RC2: Anonymous Reviewer
In this paper the author sets out to compare the tidal information in Port Louis (Falklands) reported on by Ross in the 1800 with contemporary data to see if there has been any change.
After reading the paper through to results my initial thought was “so what have we learned?”. The discussion, however, swings things around and there is a good context for the work there
which I suggest is highlighted further in the introduction. Apart from showing that the tide in the area hasn’t changed much, which is of some interest, the methodology presented makes
this worth publishing. Consequently, I recommend publication after very minor revisions.Comments:
As mentioned above, I would like a better motivation in the introduction, including all points made in the discussion. The methods is what is most valuable here, in my mind.
Minor point: Do we really have enough accuracy in the data, especially the 19th century data, to talk about changes on mm scale? A comment on accuracy of the measurements would be good.
I AGREE THAT THE METHODS USED ARE IMPORTANT, AS THE REVIEWER SAYS, AND I HAVE TAKEN HIS ADVICE TO HIGHLIGHT THEM FURTHER IN THE INTRODUCTION IN A REVISED VERSION. HOWEVER, THE RESULT (OR NULL RESULT ONE MIGHT SAY) ON CHANGES IN THE TIDE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, GIVEN THAT CHANGES IN TIDES HAVE BEEN REPORTED ELSEWHERE.
AS FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE ROSS MEASUREMENTS, IT IS INTERESTING THAT BY MAKING SEA LEVEL MEASUREMENTS USING EYEBALL READINGS OF A TIDE POLE (OR STILLING WELL), AS ROSS WILL HAVE DONE, ONE CAN ESTIMATE TIDAL PARAMETERS ACCURATELY (SAY TO THE CENTIMETRIC LEVEL). THAT IS BECAUSE HARMONICS SEPARATE OUT FROM A NOISY TIME SERIES. OR AT LEAST, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION IF ROSS'S ORIGINAL HALF-HOURLY VALUES HAD SURVIVED. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT, BUT THAT WE HAVE ONLY THE HIGH AND LOW WATER VALUES AVAILABLE, ADDS AN EXTRA COMPLICATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER. I HAVE ADDED A PARAGRAPH TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE. BUT WE ARE NOT CLAIMING MM CONSISTENCY, AS THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS, THE OLD AND NEW MEASUREMENTS COMPARE AT APPROXIMATELY THE CM LEVEL AS SUMMARISED IN THE CONCLUSIONS.
Editorial Request
AS REQUESTED IN EMAIL OF 21 FEBRUARY FROM THE EDITORIAL OFFICE, TABLES 3(A,B) WILL BE SPLIT INTO TABLES 3 AND 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-510-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 14 May 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 191 | 47 | 21 | 259 | 20 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 191
- PDF: 47
- XML: 21
- Total: 259
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2569 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(918 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper