Coastal Mean Dynamic Topography Recovery Based on Multivariate Objective Analysis by Combining Data from Synthetic Aperture Radar Altimeter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: remotesensing-1465279
Title: Coastal mean dynamic topography recovery based on multivariate objective analysis by combining data from synthetic aperture radar altimeter
Authors: Yihao Wu, Junjie Wang, Jia Huang, Xiufeng He, Zhicai Luo, Haihong Wang
In this work authors presents an integrated methodology aimed at the coastal mean dynamic topography (MDT) refinement by using the SAR altimetry data, and the effects introduced by the SAR altimetry data are validated and quantified. Moreover, a tentative modelling of the local MDT is described based on the multivariate objective analysis (MOA) method, and independent ocean reanalysis data and buoy data are used for model assessment, based on which the MDTs modelled with and without the SAR altimetry data are discriminated. numerical results over the coast of Japan and south-eastern China are also presented and discussed.
As general remarks the manuscript is difficult to read cause authors make heavy use of acronyms. I therefore suggest limiting as far as possible the use of acronyms.
I suggest also a revision of the English language by a native speaker cause many sentences in the body of the text are unclear and must be rewritten (see for example the usage of term “a priori”).
The format of the figure captions does not seem correct.
As particular indications, I can suggest the following:
- A general definition of geostrophic velocity is necessary in the introduction.
- Many sentences are not clear/correct and must be rewritten (for example):
- At lines 64 and 87 of the introduction.
- At lines 125, 133, 138, 156, 175, 197, of the section method.
- At lines 480, 493 of the paragraph 4.3 Comparison of geostrophic velocities computed from SAR altimetry with buoy data.
- At lines 529 and 536 of the section Conclusions.
- At line 232 Figure 2 - Authors should add distance scale and orientation (North, South?) in the Figure.
- At line 480 of section 4.3, is not clear if the in situ buoy data are used for calibration. Authors must explain better,
- In the Figures 4,5,6,7,8 the physical units of the scale bars are missing, moreover authors should add scale of distances and orientation as indicated for Figure 2.
- In all the tables (I-II-III-IV) and in general in the body of the text authors should indicate measurements without the decimal place, I don’t think the proposed methodology has the resolution of one tenths of a millimeter.
- In general, the errors (RMS) represented in the tables are greater that 10% of the corresponding measurements showing a lower degree of significance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study deals with coastal mean dynamic topography recovery based on multi-variate objective analysis. Particularly, the authors study the role of the mean sea surface derived from synthetic aperture radar altimeter in the MDT recovery. The numerical experiments were carried out over two coastal areas near the coasts of Japan and southeastern China. The research is valuable as the accurate MDT recovery is crucial for different areas of coastal oceanography. Nevertheless I have a couple of remarks which may improve the manuscript.
Specific comments are given below.
Page 1, Abstract: Rewrite the abstract following the instructions of MDPI Remote Sensing. First of all, shorten it to about 200 words. Shorten information included in lines 11-17. After brief description of methods used, present main findings and indicate the main conclusions/ interpretation. In the present version clear and quantitative results and conclusions are missing. Indicate your areas of investigations (line 22).
Page 2, Lines 67-68 – poorly worded sentence
Page 2&3, Lines 79-102 – rewrite the last paragraph of the introduction section. The paragraph presenting aims of study is really hard to read.
Page 3, Lines 105-108 – as the multivariate objective analysis is used for local MDT modeling, more detailed information about this method should be presented.
Page 3, Line 140 – Figure 1 should be included in section 2.1, close to first mention.
Page 4, Line 162 and many other examples – “Equation” should be.
Page 5, Lines 200 & 207 – “Scheme 1” should be.
Page 5&6, Figure 1 – rewrite the caption under the figure according to Remote Sensing standards. Rather than the dot rectangular, I can see the dashed rectangular in the figure.
Page 6, Figure 2 – rewrite the caption under the figure according to Remote Sensing standards. Moreover, you write that your study areas are enclosed in the red dotted polygon. Did you examine land areas of China and Japan? Additionally, in my view, rather than the dotted curves, I can see the dashed ones.
Page 8, Figure 3 and many other examples – rewrite captions under figures according to Remote Sensing standards
Page 9, Figure 4 & Page 11, Figure 5 & Page 12, Figure 6 – “Scheme 1” and “Scheme 2” should be written. Add units of errors.
Page 13, Figure 7 & Page 14, Figure 8 – add units of errors.
Chapter 4 – you write that chapter 4 deals with Results and discussions. In my view, only results are presented. Build the discussion section. Discuss your results and compare them to earlier published studies.
Page 17 – format references according to MDPI standards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Coastal mean dynamic topography recovery based on multivariate objective analysis by combining data from synthetic aperture radar altimeter” focuses on the use of synthetic aperture radar altimetry data in the recovery of coastal mean dynamic topography.
The introduction seems clear. In my view, the authors present the most salient developments over the years and direct the text to the problem they address in the publication. I also believe that the methodology set out is appropriate and point 3 is also clear.
What I do not see right, however, is to have merged results and discussion in section 4. I think these sections should be separated. On the one hand, point 4 should explain the results obtained and point 5 should contain the discussion.
Since this effort is requested of the authors, perhaps it would be good if they could broaden the discussion.
Otherwise, I think the article is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editors,
As can be deduced from a rereading the authors truly improved the manuscript remotesensing-1465279 with the review process. Now the manuscript fits the high-quality standards of Remote Sensing and in my opinion is ready for publication.
Author Response
The authors would like to give our sincerest thanks to the reviewers for the beneficial suggestions and comments, and we deeply appreciate your contributions, which help us in correcting and improving the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the second version of ms dealing with coastal mean dynamic topography recovery based on multi-variate objective analysis the authors have improved the ms. Nevertheless I have still a few remarks which may improve the manuscript. Specific comments are given below.
Page 5, Lines 209-210 – what does it mean?: Error! Reference source not found..
Page 5, Line 211 and many other examples – the lack of space between “Scheme” and “1”. “Scheme 1” should be. Correct also “Scheme2”, and “Option2”
Page 9 & Page 15 – you have now two chapters “Results and discussions” and “Discussions”. Create “Results” and then “Discussion” sections.
Page 10, Figure 4 & Page 12, Figure 5 & Page 12, Figure 6 – “Scheme 1” and “Scheme 2” should be written. Add unit of errors close to color bar or in captions under figures.
Page 14, Figure 7 & Page 14, Figure 8 – add units of errors.
Page 15, Figure 9 – add units of errors. Improve quality of the figure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors:
The article is now much better structured and the modifications made have greatly improved its readability.
Congratulations on your work.
Author Response
The authors would like to give our sincerest thanks to the reviewers for the beneficial suggestions and comments, and we deeply appreciate your contributions, which help us in correcting and improving the manuscript.
