the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Robust and Flexible Tidal Reconstruction from Sparse High Water - Low Water Observations
Abstract. Tidal analysis and prediction are traditionally based on the harmonic decomposition of continuous water-level records. This limits the applicability to sparse, historical observations of high and low waters. Here, we adopt a high–low tidal analysis (HLTA) framework that directly models tidal extrema and their temporal modulation using lunar transit timing and astronomical forcing. Two formulations are explored: a long-period harmonic (LPH) approach and an empirical–astronomical (EA) representation. Application to tide-gauge data from the Western Scheldt demonstrates that HLTA predicts tidal extrema with accuracy comparable to harmonic analysis of 10-minute observations for water levels. Performance is also largely improved for the prediction of extrema timing, and bias is reduced. In contrast, harmonic analysis applied directly to high–low data performs poorly, not only due to aliasing, but also because of broad-scale dependencies between constituents introduced by sparse sampling. The HLTA framework is robust to observational errors and can be extended naturally to non-stationary conditions by incorporating, for example, river discharge. Coupled with simple interpolation, HLTA enables accurate reconstruction of the continuous tidal signal, matching or exceeding harmonic analysis on high-resolution data in shallow systems where the tidal wave is strongly distorted. These results demonstrate that accurate tidal reconstruction from high–low observations is feasible even in strongly distorted, shallow systems, with performance comparable to modern high-resolution analyses. This enables improved use of historical datasets for applications such as storm surge analysis, sea-level rise, and the analysis of changing tides, while also suggesting potential for improved modern tidal prediction in shallow and non-linear environments.
- Preprint
(9297 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2651', Stephen Taylor, 18 Jun 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2651', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2026
reply
This paper develops new framework for sparse high-low tidal observations. The proposed HLTA framework is promising, but the current manuscript has significant gaps in verification (limited to one tidal regime), practical applicability (no tidal constant output, no minimum data length analysis), and structural clarity. If these issues are addressed, the paper would be a valuable contribution to the tidal analysis literature. My detailed comments are listed as following.
Major editorial comments:
- Section 2 is suggested to be merged into the introduction. And new section 2 aims to describe the methodology used in this paper, namely HA and HLTA. Section 2.1 should describe the equations of HA with derivation constrains. Section 2.2 can describe the limitations of HA in processing high-low data. Section 2.3 introduces the principle of HLTA, especially how HLTA solves the problems of special sampling structure and aliasing.
- In the discussion, sections should be merged and new sections should be added: One section aims to describe the advantages and the limitations of HLTA, and some summary tables can be provided. For examples, a table compares HLTA and previous methods from Horn and Lubbock, emphasize the improvements and a table compares HA and HLTA, showing how HLTA overcomes the limitations of HA. The other section aims to provide an 'Applicability Guide'—under what conditions should EA be used and under what conditions should LPH be used? Providing a decision tree or comparison table would greatly enhance its practical value. Also, this paper use 5-year data to calibration, if the users only have one-year data to calibrate or even shorter, any precautions? For short-term data (such as half year or only one-month), OLS may over-fit, and ridge regression may be applied which has been proven by Pan et al.(2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102372).
- Some figures can be moved forward. For example, figure 3 can be moved into section 4.2 to illustrate the introduction of LPH. Figure 4 can be moved into section 4.3 to illustrate the introduction of EA-HLTA.
- Revise section 4 ‘Material and Methods’ as section 3 ‘Study area, data and model setup’. Section 5.4 can be moved into previous section and section 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6, 5.7 can be merged. Section 6.1 should be moved into previous sections.
Major technical comments:
- The authors develop a high-low tidal analysis (HLTA) framework, but only test it in the Scheldt river estuary dominated by semi-diurnal tides. The performances of HLTA at two tide gauges in the Scheldt estuary are very good, but this cannot guarantee its generality in other sea areas. There are a lot of scenarios needing verification. For examples, in the deep ocean with very weak tidal non-linearity and relatively small tidal ranges, can HLTA outperform HA_derivations or they are comparable? How about the performances of HLTA in sea areas dominated by diurnal tides? (such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Tonkin). In these special sea areas, only two extremes in one day, the number of tidal observations are much less. Furthermore, in some shallow bays, due to non-linear interactions and resonance effects, M4 or M6 tides may have very large amplitudes, thus, may be more than 4 extremes in one day, the process of HLTA needs to be adjusted? In general, tidal observations in different conditions (e.g. tidal types, tidal ranges, tidal non-linearity) should be examined or at least noted in the discussion section to clarify the applicable boundaries of the proposed HLTA.
- Line 25, it seems that only HA-derivations can extract long-term changes in tidal regimes from past HW-LW data, although HLTA can better predict tidal extremes, it cannot output tidal constants of major constituents which impedes its application. If possible, can HLTA be merged into HA-derivations? As shown in Figure 5f, the main errors of HA deriv are from time (i.e. phase) because HA deriv lacks temporal constrains which can be provided by HLTA. Nevertheless, these should be noted in the paper.
- Line 51-53, it is good to explain the modifications and improvements of HLTA approach compared to previous studies. However, these are not reflected in the experiments which let the readers be confused about these modifications. For example, you should design a simple experiment in which the performances of OLS-based HLTA and IRLS-based HLTA are compared to illustrate to meaning of using IRLS. Moreover, why the authors reformulate the extrema series? To answer this question, similar comparative experiments should be conducted (not just say to improve numerical conditioning, you need to provide values).
- Line 304, the temporal resolution (10-minute) may be not enough to find accurate high-low tides since the timing errors of HLTA are close to 10-minute. May be 1-minute data is more suitable.
Minor comments:
- Line 8 in Abstract, I think ‘poorly’ is not suitable, you can say HLTA outperforms HA constrained by derivations
- Line 30-31, do not know what this sentence wants to express.
- Line 33, not Ji and Guohong, but Ji and Fang. The author’s full name is Guohong Fang, Fang is the family name.
- Line 34-35, overstate the drawbacks of HA constrained by derivations, at least in the tests provided in this paper, I think both cases (ill-conditioned and meaningless solutions) do not exist or are not severe.
- Line 51., the full name and references of IRLS should be provided.
- Line 71, not Zuosheng et al., 1989, but Yang et al., 1989. The author’s full name is Zuosheng Yang, Yang is the family name.
- Line 124, I think may be two reasons for this phenomenon: One is nowadays high-low tidal observations are rare, the other is that HA_derivation is generally usable.
- Line 125, I think ‘poorly’ is not suitable, you can say HLTA outperforms HA constrained by derivations
- Line 190-192, may be some schematic diagrams can be provide
- Line 200, you do not explain why decompose them into a mean component and a deviation. In my opinion, this decomposition can to some extent solve the ill-conditioned problem since it redistributes information from two "similar and ambiguous" variables into two "orthogonal and clearly differentiated" variables.
- (9), do not know how X(t) is generated. Also, provide some schematic diagrams to illustrate Eq.(8) since the readers may do not know related progress like us.
- Line 295-300, provide tidal constants of major tidal constituents at two stations, not only M4 and M6 amplitudes.
- Line 364, nodal corrections should be included at Bath I think.
- Figure 2a, validation period is also 2015-2019?
- Figure 3, change 14.76 d to 14.77d to keep consistent with Line 420.
- Line 421, Msf can also be generated by O1 and P1 tides, not only M2 and S2. Mm cycle can be generated by M2 and N2, not only N2 and L2. Mf can be generated by K1 and O1 tides, also K2 and M2 tides.
- Line 423, K1-O1 is unrelated to 27.3 d, but Mf tide.
- Line 508, not HW but LW.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2651-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | 17 | 2 | 53 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 34
- PDF: 17
- XML: 2
- Total: 53
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 21 July 2026. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.