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 and Data-Knowledge-Driven ConvLSTM Model
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
(5201 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(214 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4618', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2025
reply
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4618/egusphere-2025-4618-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4618 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Dec 2025
reply
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 do not provide neither the code for the models nor the data necessary to replicate your manuscript. This is something unacceptable, forbidden by our policy, and your manuscript should have never been accepted for Discussions given such violation of the policy. 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 replicate your manuscript. The reply must include the link and permanent identifier (e.g. DOI) for such repositories. Also, any future version of your manuscript must include the modified section with the new information.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4618-CEC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4618', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Dec 2025
reply
The manuscript presents an ambitious and conceptually interesting framework for sea surface temperature prediction by combining featural granularity modelling with a data–knowledge-driven ConvLSTM architecture. While the proposed methodology addresses recognized limitations of existing SST forecasting approaches, the results do not convincingly demonstrate that the method achieves meaningful forecast skill. In several cases, the reported prediction errors remain large and appear comparable to, or worse than, what could be achieved using simple climatological benchmarks, which raises serious concerns about the practical value of the proposed approach. Although the experimental setup includes multiple oceanic regions and comparisons with several baseline models, the evaluation framework is insufficient to support the claim of superior long-term predictive performance. The lack of explicit benchmarking against climatological or anomaly-based forecasts, together with the continued use of absolute SST rather than SST anomalies, substantially weakens the scientific interpretation of the reported accuracy metrics. As a result, the extended prediction horizons alone cannot be considered evidence of improved forecasting capability. In addition to these fundamental issues, the manuscript suffers from weaknesses in presentation and clarity, including overly long figures and insufficiently focused visualization of results. The reproducibility of the granulation process and the physical interpretation of prediction errors also remain inadequately addressed. Taken together, these shortcomings are substantial and cannot be resolved through minor or moderate revisions. Therefore, my recommendation for this manuscript is rejection.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4618-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4618/egusphere-2025-4618-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
-
CEC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4618 - No compliance with policy of the journal - Outstanding', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Dec 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Last 7 December I posted a comment to your manuscript on the lack of compliance with the policy of our journal. Since then, you have not solved it, and what is worse, you have answered to a comment from a reviewer, something you should not do until your manuscript is cleared for compliance with our policy, as it should have not undergone peer-review given the mentioned lack of compliance.
Therefore, I request you to take immediate action and address the lack of compliance with the code and data policy, or we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4618-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
Dear Dr. Juan A. Añel,We sincerely appreciate your prompt reminder and guidance regarding the compliance of our manuscript with the journal’s policies. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the misunderstanding in the process of handling reviewer comments and compliance issues.We would like to clarify the compliance of our code and data as follows:
- Code availability and usability: The code we uploaded to Zenodo is fully functional. It can be downloaded directly and run smoothly in the specified environment without any technical barriers. We have re-verified the access link and operation process to ensure its availability.
- Data-related instructions: All data used in this study are fully open-access. However, due to the extremely large data volume, direct uploading to the platform is not feasible. We have provided clear access links in the Code and Data Availability section of the manuscript. Any user can obtain the corresponding data free of charge by completing a simple registration through these links. The two web pages linked in the manuscript are currently accessible, and data can be downloaded normally through them. In addition, we have provided detailed descriptions of each type of data (including data sources, coverage, format, and processing methods) in the Data Introduction section of the manuscript.
At present, we are not clear about the specific aspects of non-compliance with the journal’s code and data policy. We wonder whether the journal requires us to upload the locally downloaded data files to a designated platform, despite the large data volume.We are willing to take immediate action to fully comply with all the policies of Geosci. Model Dev.. Please let us know your specific requirements and instructions. We will actively cooperate to complete all the required revisions as soon as possible.Thank you again for your patience and guidance.Sincerely,Mengmeng CaoCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4618-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Mengmeng Cao, 12 Dec 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 153 | 132 | 23 | 308 | 28 | 16 | 13 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 132
- XML: 23
- Total: 308
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is my second time reviewing manuscript, now entitled “A Novel Method for Sea Surface Temperature Prediction using a Featural Granularity-Based and Data-Knowledge-Driven ConvLSTM Model”.
Apparently, the authors do not get my points in my first review, whereas I would like to state them again.
My first concern is about the accuracy of proposed method, not about the necessity of forecasting SSTA. Specifically, in their Fig 12 (an extremely long figure, which is, by the way, not a good practice), the predicted error for Jan 2021 for the South China Sea, is minus/plus 2.5 degree. Such a low accuracy is by no means better than ‘climatological forecast’ I mentioned in my first report, in which the ‘forecast’ (which is, a very weak forecast) in the SCS has error < 1 degree. I tried to explain this issue, by explaining that the authors should use SSTA as the predicted variable. Nevertheless, failing to understand this point makes the responses pointless.
Second, my other critics are about the quality of presentation. I am disappointed to see, instead of treating them as constructive suggestions for revising the manuscript, the authors tried to argue that those points are not valid. Nevertheless, I insist on my points, that the manuscript needs to improve the way of presenting the results, which I will not re-emphasize.
Summarizing my two points, my recommendation this time is still rejection.