3D Displacement Field of Wenchuan Earthquake Based on Iterative Least Squares for Virtual Observation and GPS/InSAR Observations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I must admit the manuscript improved. I have some minor comments that should be solved before publication, I think the editor should make sure those modifications are effectively completed. A couple of wrong statements (in red below) have been detected.

We still miss a generic map of the location of the earthquake, showing the trace of the surface rupture, some country boundaries, cities, etc.

"interpolation errors": are you sure this is what you mean to use here ? would not you prefer to say something like "interpolation complexity"? or improves interpolation performance? After all the interpolation is not wrong or right, it is as good as it can be, and from a GPS vector field, you can really say which one is good except at some locations...

Line 40: not true, it DOES depend on weather (Very much). For instance, see Houlie, Funning et al., TGRS, 2016.

Line 44: re-write it read weird.

Line 49: Reference 10 is not about fusion of dataset!! on the contrary please correct.

Lines 157: and what are those points used for ? Don't you think it would be more interesting to have more point within the deformed area?

Line 266: typo, please correct

Figure 10: we see vectors now but how is this compare with real displacements?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed a previous version of this manuscript that presents a methodology to integrate GPS and DInSAR measurements in order to calculate the three-dimensional (3D) ground displacement field. Furthermore, the manuscript applies this methodology to simulated cases, for testing purposes, and to some InSAR data of the Wenchuan earthquake to compute the full 3D displacement field of such event.

Current version has not changed much neither really improved with respect to the main criticisms I raised in my past revision, that are, lack of methodological originality and absence of new interpretative results. 

The added details in the mathematical derivations on page 3-4 just confirm that the proposed method is not original.

For these reason, I am still convinced that the manuscript is not suitable for publication on Remote Sensing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf