Improving Sea Level Anomaly Precision from Satellite Altimetry Using Parameter Correction in the Red Sea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "Improving sea level anomaly precision from satellite altimetry using parameters correction in the Red Sea" by Ahmed M. Taqi et al demonstates the application of improved FSM method for geophysical and environmental corrections to enhance the final product of the along track Jason-2 SLA data. The extension near the Red Sea borders was also shown to be applicable.
That is why I support the publication in Remote Sensing after some improvements of the manuscript (listed below) and after the following small recommendations are considered by the authors.
1)Considering the numerical methods in the Introduction and the data processing along with algorithms the Authors should add the Refs
[JETP Letters 108 (5), 312-317], [Journal of Communications Technology and Electronics 59 (9), 914-919] and [JETP letters 102 (3), 142-147] along with the Ref [11,12]. Among these suggestions it could be others that the authors might want to look more into the literatures.
2) The ref (Bloomfield 2000; Thomson and Emery 2014) before Eq. (3) should be cited in the Ref list as [#] if it is needed in accordance with the journal rules.
3) The Authors show the correlation with the coastal tide measurements and the description of the comparison and correlation with the known methods for general reader will help to understand key benefits of the applied and proposed method.
I hope these corrections will improve the manuscript.
Author Response
The response reviewer comments are attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments
This manuscript is interesting with a focus on improving altimeter sea level anomaly (SLA) precision. In general, Authors need to spell out acronyms before using them, explain clearly what is the “Jason-2 SLA” given the availability of different SLA products within the US and abroad (AVISO). Also, this manuscript has a false reference to level 0 altimetry data which should be corrected, since those data are on lock down and thus available only to a few. The basis of this comparison is flawed in that the OGDRs are well known to be different from the IGDRs and the GDRs. Stating that the OGDR results agree more with a OGDR US NASA SLA product that with a GDR product from AVISO does not imply better results/methods. The two are different GDRs to begin with. Members of the Ocean Surface Topography Science Team (OSTST) met regularly before releasing the GDRs and the GDRs were not released without quality control, which is not the case for the OGDRs. AVISO delayed time SLAs are based on the science quality data, the GDRs. A comparison with like OGDR products would make sense, which is not the case in this work. Access to level 0 data may be the way to assess meaningful corrections for coastal areas. However, this is not what is done in this work. It is recommended that the authors compare different flavors of OGDR products and show improvements based on their method to the OGDR product or work with a team to use the level 0 data. Operational data are used for a variety of reasons and improved operational products are useful, which would make a more focused manuscript.
I recommend that this manuscript be rewritten with the above comments in mind.
Specific Comments
Lines 10, 11,15, 16, … (See Abstract and body of manuscript). Authors need to spell out acronyms before using them.
Lines 105 and 130. Are you using level 0 data? Check your resource and find out if you are using level 2 or level 3 data.
...
Author Response
The reply to reviewer comments are attached
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very important and directed to improve satellite monitoring data in coastal zones. In these areas, due to intense dynamic geophysical and hydrophysical processes, it is very difficult to interpret satellite monitoring data. The authors tried to improve the capabilities of this monitoring. they succeeded it in some degree. The significant correlation coefficients between various methods are obtained. but there are some comments: 1. Show the workability of this method in other regions of the Earth. If there are no data, then this remark is removed. 2. Give the accuracy of measurements with which satellite data are compared. 3. increase statistics on ground measurements. If there are no stations at specific points, you can use the method described by Dolgikh G.I., Fishchenko V.K., and Goncharova A.A. Potential for recording of waves and sea level fluctuations in the World ocean coastal areas by internet video analysis // Doklady Earth Sciences. 2019. vol. 488. part 2. pp. 1264–1267, which makes it possible to get convincing results on good cameras at the locations of water bodies (dams, yachts, etc.). According to these data, it is possible to estimate with high accuracy the dynamics of the water surface (tides, seiches, wind waves, infragravity sea waves, surges, etc.).
The work may be published after taking into account the comments above.
Author Response
The reply to reviewer comments are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Improving sea level anomaly precision from satellite altimetry using parameters correction in the Red Sea.
General Comments.
This paper introduces a method to use Fourier series model to enhance the Jason-2 satellite SLA data around Red Sea, etc. I have reservations about this manuscript. The manuscript is confusingly written, and these shortcomings should be addressed by revision. I think this manuscript should be given “major review” for publication in Remote Sensing.
Major comments
English editing requiredThere are lots of errors related with the typo, overall expression in this article seems not to be scientific and professional. The author should define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text.
I am confused about this method. Your first step is “Correction< =mean±3σ”, since you will remove the anomalous from the correction data, are you sure that the anomalous is due to bias? Or due to real high SLA, for example, rapid changes in sea level? Line 136:The equation discussed in line 136 is not complete, missing )
Line 157:What is “Rane” in your figure 1? It should be “Robs”
Line 213:(see section 5). There are only four sections in your paper.
Minor comments:
Line 10:
Define abbreviation “FSM” as “Fourier series model”. The first time when it is used in the text.
Line 11:
Define abbreviation “SLA” as “sea level anomaly”. The first time when it is used in the text.
Line 16:
“show” should be “shows”
Line 20:
“show” should be “showed”
Line 27:
“ a cornerstone any monitoring system”
this sentence is unclear and must be rewritten
Line 27:
“ altimeteric” should be “altimetric”
Line 33:
“face” should be “faces”
Line 35:
“and” should be “ , ”
Line 37:
Put “ . ” before “Additional”
Line 41:
“is” should be “are”
Line 51:
“ there were excellent enhancements have been made for the data processing”
this sentence should be rewritten.
Line 65:
Are there any references for “R&D project”
Line 65:
Define abbreviation “OSTST” .
Line 75:
“to improve” should be “improving”
Line 75:
Define abbreviation “SSH” .
Line 81:
“connect” should be “connection”
Line 97:
Remove “(”
Line 98:
“retrieving” should be “to retrieve”
Line 100:
“represent” should be “represents”
Line 117:
“(H) the satellite” should be “H is the satellite” or “H represents the satellite”
Line 117:
“R is corrections” should be “Rs are corrections”
Line 126:
“a very few studies” should be “very few studies”
Line 185:
“source” should be “sources”
Line 190:
“which will enhances” should be “which will enhance”
Line 193:
“waveform that cause” should be “waveform that causes…..”
Line 208:
“With magnitude” should be “With a magnitude”
Line 209:
“range depend on” should be “range depends on”
Line 228:
“are” should be “is”
Line 237:
“addition” should be “additional”
Line 245:
“Figure 8 show” should be “Figure 8 shows”
Line 247:
“produce” should be “produces”
Line 313:
“new” should be “newly”
Line 415:
“show high correlation” should be “shows high correlation”
Author Response
The reply to reviewer comments are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made some changes to improve the manuscript. Per my previous comments"..Access to level 0 data may be the way to assess meaningful corrections for coastal areas."
Reviewer 4 Report
I am happy with all the changes made by the authors, and am glad to see that they all my suggestions were included in the new version of the paper.
