the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Novel Method for Sea Surface Temperature Prediction using a Featural Granularity-Based ConvLSTM Model of Data-Knowledge-Driven
Abstract. Many data-driven methods predict sea surface temperature (SST) at specific locations using only the previous period SST values as predictors, which ignores the spatiotemporal dependencies of SST variability and the influence of multiple variables on SST patterns. Additionally, these methods have difficulty in capturing the feature dependencies involved in SST fluctuations, limiting the accuracy and horizon of SST predictions. This study proposes a new medium- and long-term forecasting model to address these issues, which includes two sub-models: a featural granularity model and a data-knowledge-driven ConvLSTM prediction model. The former restacks the one-dimensional time-series of each variable into multidimensional feature variables using an adaptive granulation-based method. The latter integrates parameters that affect ocean dynamics and thermodynamics, along with pixel-to-pixel similarity, to achieve partition predictions. The multidimensional feature variables were fed into the ConvLSTM model to exploit the feature- spatiotemporal patterns for predictions. Experiments conducted in three sea areas of the western Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate that the use of featural granularity can enhance the ability of the prediction model to capture dynamic characteristics in the time domain and internal dependencies of the features and extend prediction horizons. The combination of knowledge-driven and study area segmentation concepts can help the prediction model better capture the unique features and dynamics of the local area, further improving prediction accuracy. Validation against observations and cross-comparisons with baseline models in three different sea areas for the prediction of monthly SST with lead times ranging from 1 to 120 months demonstrate that the proposed model can generate consistent and more accurate regional SST predictions. The differences between predicted and observed values range from -0.7 to 0.7 K, with an RMSE of approximately 0.3 to 0.57 K for SST predictions. This developed model provides a promising approach for medium- and long-term sea surface temperature forecasting, which can be easily adapted to other ocean parameter prediction tasks.
- Preprint
(5123 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239', Wenbin Tang, 01 Jun 2025
This study introduces a novel featural granularity-based and data-knowledge-driven ConvLSTM model for Sea Surface Temperature (SST) prediction, a topic of significant research interest and practical application. The authors attempt to enhance SST prediction accuracy and lead time by combining featural granulation processing with a deep learning model. The paper's overall approach is clear, and the experimental design is relatively comprehensive, yielding promising results in specific sea areas.Ā
Major Concerns and Suggestions:
Impact of Information Granule Merging Operation: The paper states that after the initial segmentation of one-dimensional time series into "information granules," adjacent unequal-length information granules with the same monotonicity but different concavity-convexity are combined to form new information granules. The authors should elaborate more on the specific impact of this merging operation on the subsequent construction of the 4Ćh-D feature space (particularly the dimensions of amplitude A, duration D, curvature C, and fluctuation F). For instance, how does this merging simplify or refine the characteristics of the original information granules, and ultimately, how does it aid the model in more effectively capturing the key dynamic characteristics of the time series (e.g., turning points, trend persistence)? Supplementing this with explanations or diagrams to illustrate its rationale and advantages is recommended.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-239-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Mengmeng Cao, 04 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-239/egusphere-2025-239-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Mengmeng Cao, 04 Jun 2025
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239', Shouyi Zhong, 10 Jun 2025
This manuscript presented a ConvLSTM model for predicting the sea surface temperature and claimed that the model overperformed several baseline models. The topic is interesting. However, how the model of random forest compared with the ConvLSTM? Additionally, I would like to know how the step size in your manuscript was determined?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-239-CC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Mengmeng Cao, 20 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-239/egusphere-2025-239-CC3-supplement.pdf
-
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Mengmeng Cao, 20 Jun 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2025
The study proposes a novel approach for mid- and long-term sea surface temperature (SST) prediction by integrating granular computing with a data-knowledge-driven ConvLSTM model. The method is comprehensively validated through comparisons with five commonly used models, demonstrating its effectiveness. The research is interesting and holds substantial value. The manuscript is well-structured and presents thorough results. While I do not have major concerns, I offer the following minor comments to help the authors further improve their work:Introduction Section: The authors should provide a more comprehensive review of recent literature. This would help highlight the research gap and better articulate the novelty of the proposed method.
Line 11: It is unclear what Figure 2(a) is intended to convey. Are the two panels representing the same spatial locations? What do the pixel distributions imply? Please elaborate in the figure caption and/or the main text.
Line 87: This sentence should be revised to clearly articulate the research gap that the study addresses.
Line 94: Please define what constitutes "medium-term" and "long-term" predictions in this context.
Lines 121ā124: The rationale for selecting specific predictor variables should be supported with references. It would also be helpful to visualize the mechanistic relationship between these variables and SST (e.g., via mechanism plots). Additionally, are "sea-air temperature difference", "relative humidity" and "wind speed" included as predictors?
Line 123: Please clarify whether "SST" and "sst" refer to the same variable or different ones.
From Line 135: The description of region sub-grouping using a correlation coefficient matrix lacks temporal detail. What time period is used for calculating the matrix? Do the identified subregions change over different years?
Line 137: What is the spatial resolution of the individual pixels?
Line 171: Regarding Fig. 3, it is evident that when four variables are selected, the prediction accuracy nearly reaches its maximum and stabilizes. Including eight or nine variables might lead to overfitting and increased model complexity. The authors should discuss this tradeoff more explicitly.
Line 190: Please explain on how the parameters šš and ā j are determined.
Line 192: The authors could explain why this type of templates was chosen. It would also be helpful to discuss how this type of specific templates contributes to approximating the information granules. Could other types of templates also be used? If so, why were they not selected?
Line 196: What is SKT? Is it the same as "skt" mentioned elsewhere? Consistency in terminology is needed.
Lines 215ā216: Should the variable "i" be replaced with "t"? Please check for consistency in notation.
Line 217: Are "m_t" and "m_tā1" correctly written? Please verify and ensure consistent use of subscripts throughout the section.
Lines 346ā350: Consider summarizing the three types of inputs into a table for clearer comparison and explanation.
Lines 375ā377: These lines could be deleted, as the same information is already presented in the figure caption.
Figure 11: The color scales used for temperature in different panels are inconsistent, even within the same time period for predicted and observed values. This limits direct visual comparison across columns 1 and 2. A consistent colormap should be used.
Line 416: What is the rationale for comparing results between 2020 and 2021 specifically? Clarifying this would help contextualize the results.
Line 477: The expression "-0.7ā0.7K" is confusing.Ā
Line 486: I guess the word āaperiodicā should be deleted, right?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-239-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Mengmeng Cao, 31 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2025
This paper proposed a featural granularity-based and data-knowledge-driven ConvLSTM model for medium and long-term SST prediction. The paper is well written in general with clear structure, as well as extensive experiments performed in 3 different areas. Some comments for the authorsā reference are listed below.
- It seems that the title has grammatical mistakes as the ādata-knowledge-drivenā is an adjective but not a noun. Maybe it can be revised to āA Novel Method for Sea Surface Temperature Prediction using a Featural Granularity-Based and Data-Knowledge-Driven ConvLSTM Modelā.
- The baseline models adopted in the experiments are a little bit out of date. Itās suggested that the SOTA models, i.e., transformer and GCN etc., be added for comparisons.
- More literatures concerning the SST predictions in the period of 2022 ā 2025 should be reviewed in the introduction section.
- The structures and parameters of the baseline models could be given.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-239-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mengmeng Cao, 31 Jul 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Jun 2025
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Mengmeng Cao, 31 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-239/egusphere-2025-239-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Mengmeng Cao, 31 Jul 2025
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-239 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio AƱel, 21 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlin your "Code and Data Availability" statement you cite two sites for the code availability: one of them does not work, and the other (a Zenodo repository) only contains an empty file. Also, for the data used to produce your manuscript, instead of providing repositories for them, you cite two papers.
I am sorry to have to be so outspoken, but this is something unacceptable, and your manuscript should have never been accepted for Discussions given such lack of compliance with the policy of our journal. Our policy clearly states that all the code and data necessary to replicate a manuscript must be published openly and freely to anyone before submission.
Therefore, we are granting you a short time to solve this situation. You have to reply to this comment in a prompt manner with the information for the repositories containing all the models, code and data that you use to produce and are necessary to replicate your manuscript. The reply must include the link and permanent identifier (e.g. DOI). Also, any future version of your manuscript must include the modified section with the new information.
Note that if you do not fix these problems as requested, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. AƱel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-239-CEC1 -
CC4: 'Reply on CEC1', Yibo Yan, 22 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-239/egusphere-2025-239-CC4-supplement.pdf
-
CC4: 'Reply on CEC1', Yibo Yan, 22 Jun 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
667 | 107 | 32 | 806 | 8 | 28 |
- HTML: 667
- PDF: 107
- XML: 32
- Total: 806
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1