the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reconstruction and Spatiotemporal Analysis of Global Surface Ocean pCO₂ Considering Sea Area Characteristics
Abstract. The partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) on the surface of the ocean is crucial for quantifying and evaluating the ocean carbon budget. Insufficient consideration of the effects at the sea area scale makes it difficult to comprehensively evaluate the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics and variation patterns of pCO2. This study constructed a pCO2 evaluation dataset based on LDEO measurement data and multi-source data. After conducting correlation testing on a global, far sea, and near sea scale, a ocean surface pCO2 evaluation model was constructed using multiple linear regression, convolutional neural network, gated recurrent unit, long short-term memory network, generalized additive model, extreme gradient boosting, least squares boosting, and random forest. Performance evaluation indicates that the random-forest model consistently achieves the best accuracy across all spatial scales, yielding a global RMSE of 6.123 μatm and an R² of 0.986. In the open ocean, RMSE decreases to 4.699 μatm and R² rises to 0.988, whereas in coastal waters RMSE increases to 8.044 μatm and R² declines to 0.972. Based on this, the annual sea surface pCO2 distribution of 0.25° × 0.25° from 2000 to 2019 was reconstructed. The reconstructed field shows a typical equatorial high/polar low pattern, as well as an overall upward trend consistent with independent observations, with acceleration particularly evident in specific regions of subtropical coastal oceans.
- Preprint
(5684 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4792', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4792/egusphere-2025-4792-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-4792-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunlong Ji, 08 Nov 2025
reply
Point by point response
Major Points:
Thank you for your very constructive and detail comments concerning our manuscript.
Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Introduction, Line55: It is necessary to clarify the scientific issues existing in previous studies on pCO2.
Response: The clarification content has been marked in red font in the article ‘Through summarizing previous research, it has been found that existing achievements mostly focus on independent analysis of local sea areas or zones, lacking a global perspective, and modeling methods do not fully consider the interactions between sea areas, which affects the accuracy of overall assessment.’
Line 94: pCO2600 µatm is considered an outlier in the article, but sufficientliterature support or physical mechanism explanation is not provided.
Response: Corrected, please see lines 98, Corresponding references have been added.
- Results and discussion: During the discussion, it is suggested to supplement some references and compare and discuss the results of this paper with those of previous studies.
Response: Corrected, please see lines 300,we have undertaken a thorough comparison of our model outputs with the datasets from Zhong et al. (2022) and the Copernicus Marine Serviceproduct.
- Line 150: The transition between Section 3.1 (Correlation Detection) and Section 3.2 (Model construction and evaluation) feels somewhat abrupt. To enhance the logical flow, it would be helpful to briefly state at the beginning of Section 3.2 how the findings from the correlation analysis informed the subsequent modeling step. Response: Done, please see lines 195.
- Line 275: Describe missing and blank values in multi-source data
Response: Done, please see lines 283-286.
- Line 290: To better showcase the novelty of your work, please add a direct comparison with the cited studies (Zhong et al., 2022; Chau et al., 2021)..
Response: Corrected, please see figure 9.
Line 320: Regarding the description of Figure 12, do the influencing factors of PCO2in nearshore areas take into account river inputs or anthropogenic CO2emissions?
Response: We fully agree that river input and anthropogenic CO2 emissions are key processes affecting the carbon cycle in nearshore waters. In the global scale modeling framework of this study, due to the significant regional heterogeneity of the above process and the lack of continuous and consistent observational data support on a global scale, it was not included as an independent driving factor in the random forest model. It should be noted that the biogeochemical parameters (such as pH, chlorophyll concentration, etc.) used in this model as comprehensive environmental indicators have indirectly responded to environmental disturbances caused by river inputs and human activities. Therefore, the reconstruction results of the model in nearshore areas have to a considerable extent reflected the comprehensive effects of these local processes.
- Line 376:The text beginning at line 376 should be moved to a new "Conclusion" section. As this content serves as the concluding discussion for the entire study.
Response: Done, please see lines 389.
Some minor suggestions:
- Line 14: It is recommended to correct the indefinite article for grammatical accuracy. "a ocean surface..." should be changed to "an ocean surface..."
Response: Done, please see lines 14.
- Figure1: It is suggested to supplement the longitude and latitude
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. However, during the revision process, we have attempted to overlay latitude and longitude grids with scale markings. However, the research area has a large span and dense sub regions, and the newly added values significantly obscure the details of the original data and route information. As a result, the map tends to be cluttered and the readability significantly decreases.
- Figure3: The variable represented by the horizontal coordinate needs to be marked
Response:Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have examined Figure 3, where the x-axis represents the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). This statistic is a dimensionless indicator defined within the [-1,1] interval, used to measure the strength and direction of monotonic relationships between variables. Therefore, according to the prevailing display standards in this field, physical units are usually not labeled.
- Line 120: “d represents the level difference of the variable”, d should be corrected to D.
Response: Done, please see lines 126.
- Figure 3: o2 in the coordinate axis needs to be corrected
Response:Done, please see figure 3.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunlong Ji, 08 Nov 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 37 | 13 | 190 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 37
- XML: 13
- Total: 190
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1