Epoch-Based Height Reference System for Sea Level Rise Impact Assessment on the Coast of Peninsular Malaysia
, Wim Simons 4, Marc Naeije 4, Ami Hassan Din 5, Husaini Yacob 1, Asyran Amat 1, Daud Mahdzur 1, Zuhairy Ibrahim 1, Kenidi Aziz 1, Norehan Yaacob 1, Felix Johann 6, Tim Jensen 3, Hergeir Teitsson 3, Shahrum Ses 2, Anim Yahaya 2, Soeb Nordin 2 and Fadhil Majid 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work investigated the new geodetic height reference system for the coast of Peninsular Malaysia. My feedback is positive. However, there are still some little issues:
1. How about the impact of possible systematic errors from the GPS-levelling for PMGeiod2003?
2. As the crucial factor, the evaluation of the vertical positioning component (height) for the TG-GPSBM is somewhat relative accuracy or not?
3. Please give some explanations about the layout of GTs and its impact on the results in this work.
4. How about the accuracy comparison of PMGeoid2022 fitting to different targets, including local MSL, single TG or eleven TGs?
Author Response
The responses to reviewers' comments are available in attached document.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting, it comprehensively summarizes all the influences affecting the definition of the height system.
It addresses an important topic. The exact definition of vertical datum is very important not only for practice (e.g. linear constructions), but also due to the study of changes in water level.
The definition of vertical datum is very complex - from height changes from GNSS, height from leveling, aerial gravimetry, geoid modeling.
The article contains enough abbreviations that it is difficult to read.
p. 27: It is not clear why the older date 2000 is lower than the new 2022 date when the mean sea level is rising. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
A few minor ambiguities that would be good to clarify or repair:
Port Klang or Kelang: in Figs 1 and 5, 17 is Kelang, elsewhere Klang. It would be good to unify it.
Citations 65 and 66 are out of order.
Fig 6: position outliers are marked in black, modeled seasonal signal is in red.
About self-citations: 10 out of 19 authors are cited in 20 out of 66 citations. That's not enough.
Author Response
The responses to reviewers' comments are available in attached document.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript discussed in detail the inadequacy of the Peninsular Malaysia Geodetic Vertical Datum 2000 (PMGVD2000). Based on more than 30 years of sea level data from 12 tide GAUGE stations along the coast of Peninsular Malaysia, a new epoch-based height reference system PMGVD2022 was established. This reference system overcomes the shortcomings of PMGVD2000, and its absolute accuracy has been effectively improved. The dissertation is detailed, the theoretical method is scientific and reasonable, and it is recommended that the manuscript be published after minor modification.
1） There are so many abbreviations that it is hard to remember all of them. It is recommended to add a table to illustrate abbreviations . The TVGD is used without giving the abbreviation in table1，which need to be modified.
2） The authors give repeated information in paragraph 1 in the sentence ‘LSD12 was referred to as the MSL value derived from eight（8）months…’，the eight or the 8 should be deleted.
Author Response
The responses to reviewers' comments are available in attached document.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript has been improved according to the comments. There is a small issue. Figures (for example fig.11, fig.12...) are suggested to provide high-definition version.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We have replaced figures 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17 with the higher resolution versions. These figures were produced using ArcGIS software. However, Fig. 11 which has been generated using SURFER software is the best that we can obtained.
Thank you for your comments and cooperation.
Professor Emeritus Majid Kadir
