the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Oct 2025
Three Historic Tide Gauge Records from Svalbard
Abstract. Three historic tide gauge records from the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard have been recently converted from tabulations more than one century old into computer files. The records are found to be good quality and capable of being used in modern tidal analysis. The analyses confirm the findings on tidal constants by previous researchers and demonstrate how little non-tidal variability in sea level there was at these times. One of the tide gauges used was a crude contraption of a design not used before or since. Nevertheless, it appears to have worked well and so deserves to be better known.
- Preprint
(1349 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(505 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hgss-2025-10', Christopher Jones, 11 Nov 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
Many thanks for taking the time to read the draft and for these comments. We'll be sure to incorporate them into a new version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-10-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on hgss-2025-10', Oda Ravndal, 14 Nov 2025
reply
The manuscript «Three Historic Tide Gauge Records from Svalbard” is a thorough, well written article on the three different measurement campaigns and resulting data. The article provides a good overview of the measurement techniques and the results from the measurements, including comparison with modern analysis techniques and tidal models. This makes the historical data relevant to modern day data collection in this harsh and remote environment.
A few specific, minor, comments regarding the manuscripts follows:
The article might benefit from a summarizing table of the three tide gauge locations, to give the reader a quick overview of the different campaigns. This table could include the location of the measurement, the date and the length of the data series, as well as the tide gauge type if relevant. The table could for instance be placed in relation to Figure 1, or in another location the authors find appropriate.
In Figure 1, a suggestion would be to write out the names of the locations instead of only the first letter. This would improve the readability of the map. In addition, I would suggest including a map showing the location of Svalbard in the Arctic - similar to the map shown by the Norwegian Polar institute in their overview on https://toposvalbard.npolar.no for the reader to more easily situate the archipelago and understand the specific challenges the different expeditions mentioned faced.
Comment related to Tables 1-3. For readers not familiar with tidal constituents, it can be difficult to understand the differences between amplitudes and phases as they are recorded in the tables. I would suggest to separate the amplitude and phases in two columns, or in another way making the difference clearer to the reader.
Line 262: There is a misspelling of the name Harris.
Line 282: I suggest that for readability, the sentence “The base was named after…” is moved up and is placed after the first sentence in the paragraph, after “from the Polhem base in Mossel Bay, only about 17km to the west (Fig. 1).”
Line 297: The words “flux” and “reflux” I assume, based on the context, are referring to high and low tide. As these are not commonly used words in this context, it would be worth explaining them to the reader.
Paragraph 382-387: Just a note, the Norwegian Hydrographic Service has also measured the water level in the Mossel Bay. Both the series from Mossel Bay and Sorgfjorden have been analysed, and although the series are short, they show similar constituents as the ones described here.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-10-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
Many thanks for these comments which we will certainly include as far as possible in a new version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-10-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
-
EC1: 'Comment on hgss-2025-10', Kristian Schlegel, 15 Nov 2025
reply
Dear authors,
as you can see, both referees have posted quite positive remarks. This is also my impression: a careful analysis and well written. Please answer both remarks carefully and take their comments/corrections into account in a final version of your manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-10-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
Many thanks for this. We agree that both sets of comments were useful and we will produce a new version of the paper as soon as possible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-10-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Philip Woodworth, 17 Nov 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 116 | 30 | 10 | 156 | 15 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 116
- PDF: 30
- XML: 10
- Total: 156
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Paragraph 145: Just a comment regarding harmonic constants from NOAA sources; these sometimes refer the phase lags as 'kappa', i.e. the local equilibrium tide meridian rather than 'g', the Greenwich meridian. This could be a source of difference in any datasets sourced from NOAA or the US Coast & Geodetic Survey.
Tables 1, 2 and 3; just a suggestion; give all phase lags as three values of degrees, i.e. 64.6° show as 064.6° etc. Maybe also add in column 1, alongside each constituent name, the titles of 'amplitude' and 'phase' to make it clearer which are the values in each row, for example the first row of Table 1:
ATT station
891 (Sorgfjord)
(*)
Present
Analysis
M2 amplitude
phase lag
28.0
064.6
28
065
27.8
065.0
29.04
058.07
Paragraph 180; might a schematic diagram of the second-stilling well type of device be helpful to visualise the set-up?
Paragraph 205: Suggest the sentence "The second record discussed in CG05 is a short one spanning 2300 hours on 8 June to 800 hours on 18 July 1897....." be re-written as follows:
""The second record discussed in CG05 is of shorter duration, commencing at 2300 hours on 8 June to 0800 hours on 18 July 1897....."
[and suggest any times are written in 24 hour notation throughout the paper, i.e. as in the '0800' shown above].
Also it could be helpful to include the time interval of these readings at this stage of the text (i.e. hourly values) - this information is provided but not until paragraph 220.
Paragraphs 235/240; Regarding the coordinate datum assumptions - given the original gauge was 1800s, this was of course long before GNSS and therefore WGS84, whereas the coordinates are related to Google Earth positions. It's worth noting as an additional uncertainty, even though the impact would be minimal.
Paragraph 255; just a question; is the ATT S2 phase lag considered incorrect for ATT port number 0895 Danskegat? (i.e. 078° in timezone -0100, converted to 048° in GMT). If so, should it be amended to 068.1° GMT (i.e. 098.1° in timezone -0100)?
Paragraph 285: it might be worth mentioning the difference between a Swedish foot and a 'normal' foot.
Paragraph 295: the phrases 'flux' and reflux'; presume these align to High and Low Water respectively? And if so, should this be pointed out?
Paragraph 365 Figures (a) and (b); would it be helpful to show the positions of the study areas on these maps of the M2 phase lag and amplitude?