2025-07-18T07:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 2025-07-18T07:41 AM by Sylvain Herlédan.)
Hi Claude,
The goal of my "next step" was
As can be seen in the last set of plots I shared (https://ftp.odl.bzh/odl/sherleda/maupiti...discarded/), the culling happened when transitioning from ssha_unedited to ssha_unfiltered, so the filter qualified as "experimental" was not the culprit. And in the plots of the last column, one can see that the removed pixels actually contain measurements of a negative anomaly.
I would of course be glad to read, and, if I feel confident, proof-read your notes.
Regarding the choice of a journal, I don't publish papers so I cannot really help with that.
Cheers,
Sylvain
The goal of my "next step" was
- to show that the removed data actually contained measurements of the lowering. If the plots ended up showing that there was only noise in these areas, or even worse, a positive anomaly, then it would weaken the claim that the algorithm responsible for rejecting data is too heavy-handed. So it felt safer to check.
- to identify "when" these data have been removed during the process which generates the nice-looknig SSHA. The SWOT files contain several variables for SSHA, corresponding to different steps of this process, ssha_unedited -> ssha_unfiltered -> ssha_filtered.
As can be seen in the last set of plots I shared (https://ftp.odl.bzh/odl/sherleda/maupiti...discarded/), the culling happened when transitioning from ssha_unedited to ssha_unfiltered, so the filter qualified as "experimental" was not the culprit. And in the plots of the last column, one can see that the removed pixels actually contain measurements of a negative anomaly.
I would of course be glad to read, and, if I feel confident, proof-read your notes.
Regarding the choice of a journal, I don't publish papers so I cannot really help with that.
Cheers,
Sylvain