the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Multi-satellite U-Net for high-resolution sea surface temperature reconstruction
Abstract. High-resolution sea surface temperature (SST) products are critical for understanding ocean dynamics at submesoscales (less than tens of kilometers) and their influence on upper ocean physics. While modern infrared (IR) radiometers measure SST at high (∼ 1 km) resolution, they cannot image through clouds, resulting in large gaps in remotely sensed SST. In this study, we address the challenge of reconstructing gap-free high-resolution SST by fusing complementary observations across sensors and time using machine learning (ML). We present the Multi-satellite U-Net for SST Estimation (MUSE), a residual U-Net fuses two days (eight 6-hourly snapshots) of multi-satellite IR and microwave (MW) data into cloud-free SST, and further mosaicked into global SST fields. The MUSE model is trained on 9 months of simulated cloudy SST from the MITgcm LLC4320 1/48° SST product, and evaluated on 2 months of held-out LLC4320 data and out-of-distribution Level 3 satellite data. MUSE outperforms single-time and single-satellite baselines across error, correlation and coherence metrics, achieving a global reconstruction error of 0.035 °C on the simulated dataset. On the satellite dataset, MUSE produces results comparable to the state-of-the-art Level 4 MUR 0.01° product. Our results demonstrate the power of ML in synthesizing diverse satellite measurements, each with inherent limitations, into a submesoscale-resolving dataset that enables critical insights into ocean dynamics. Both our data fusion strategy and simulation-to-satellite paradigm can be generalized to other geophysical variables to produce high-resolution, observation-based Earth system fields.
- Preprint
(4854 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Dec 2025)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4847', Claudia Fanelli, 22 Oct 2025 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4847', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2025
reply
Authors present a rigorous methodology to reconstruct sea surface temperature (SST) from data with gaps due to the presence of the clouds. Infrared (IR) sensors which can provide high-resolution kilometre scale measurements cannot penetrate into the clouds while microwave (MW) sensors which can have much lower resolutions (~100 km). The methodology is based on modelled observations sampled from a high-resolution (1/48°) and high frequency (1h) simulation of the global ocean (LLC4320) representing IR and MW SST observations. These observations are used to train a U-Net based model (MUSE) for gap filling as well as validation and testing. Moreover, the model build is used to reconstruct satellite L3S observations to demonstrate its applicability with real observations.
The manuscript is well written. It is a timely contribution to the field by extending existing efforts to multi-sensor observations in global scales. I suggest a minor revision of the manuscript before acceptance to publication. Below are my suggestions that I hope will help to improve the quality of this work.
General Comments
Authors mentions foundation SST only once in the introduction but never in the main text. It is an important concept for SST especially if linked to the numerical model SST. I suggest them to discuss what they mean by foundation SST, how it is linked to the LLC4320 first model layer. How it is defined in L3S and L4 products used. How the diurnal cycle represented model’s hourly outputs projects onto the foundation SST?
Another point is that the study is clearly conducted for climate applications. However, using future data is a limitation for short term forecasting applications such as MHW. It would be useful to discuss if the distribution of data and the skill of MUSE would change if only the past data would be used as input. In other words, would the skill be similar if the last day of the input is reconstructed instead of the day in the middle?
Specific Comments
Fig.1 No test or validation in boreal summer? Do you expect an impact of land distribution on the separation of dataset?
L112 Is there a reason why clouds from forcing aren’t used instead of L3 product? Wouldn’t it be more consistent with the model SST during training?
L209. The middle timestep is maximally correlated to all input timesteps, so reconstructing the middle timestep is easier than reconstructing all input timesteps.
L218. Why the channel method does not learn enough deserves a more solid justification. Is it the “multivariate” nature of the channel approach that degrades the correlations? Is MW used only on the gaps or everywhere when used as a channel?
L292 the SST RMSE is 0.037°C, and the gradient SST RMSE is 0.012 °C km-1
Please discuss if these errors are realistic. Also, in L337. The RMSE using real observations instead of simulated ones are 3-5 times more. Can the degradation of the skill using real observations be due to the mismatch between the foundation SST and model SST? Would it be better in case subskin SST is used? What is the first model depth?
L324. Please explain precisely how daily L3 SST becomes an input to an 8-time model.
L341. What are other ways of mitigating OOD beyond preprocessing? If there are ways, authors should justify why they haven’t used them.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4847-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 216 | 102 | 16 | 334 | 12 | 16 |
- HTML: 216
- PDF: 102
- XML: 16
- Total: 334
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
I just want to point out that the work of Fanelli et al. (2024) does not include microwave (MW) measured SST data, but products obtained only by infrared measurements.
I hope that authors will review the manuscript accordingly.
Thank you.