A multilayer approach and its application to model a local gravimetric quasi-geoid model over the North Sea: QGNSea V1.0

Wu, Yihao; Luo, Zhicai; Zhong, Bo; Xu, Chuang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4797-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4797-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4797-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 12

Development and technical paper

|

03 Dec 2018

Development and technical paper |

| 03 Dec 2018

A multilayer approach and its application to model a local gravimetric quasi-geoid model over the North Sea: QGNSea V1.0

Yihao Wu, Zhicai Luo, Bo Zhong, and Chuang Xu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 03 Dec 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Jan 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'gravimetric geodesy', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jan 2018
- AC4: 'Response to the comments of Referee #1', Yihao Wu, 24 Jun 2018
SC1: 'Comment on: A multilayer approach and its application in modeling QGNSea V1.0: a local gravmetric quasi-geoid model over the North Sea', D.C. Slobbe, 20 Feb 2018
- AC3: 'Response to the Comments of Referee #3 (Cornelis Slobbe)', Yihao Wu, 24 Jun 2018
RC2: 'Comments to "A multilayer approach and its application in modeling QGNSea V1.0: a local gravmetric quasi-geoid model over the North Sea"', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Apr 2018
- AC1: 'Response to the comments of Referee #1', Yihao Wu, 24 Jun 2018
- AC2: 'Response to the Comments of Referee #2', Yihao Wu, 24 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (26 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Jul 2018) by Lutz Gross

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (29 Jul 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Authors used the multilayer approach to model QGNSea V1.0 based on SRBF from the local terrestrial and ship-borne gravimetric data in the manuscript. The English writing should be further improved. The results may be of geodetic science sense by comparing with the local gravity data, GPS/leveling data, and the Earth gravity field models.
[1] Section 2.1 Study area and data. Here the local terrestrial and ship-borne gravity data are used in the study. Why not use the airborne gravity data and the satellite altimeter data? These data ever were used in Wu et al. 2017. Dr Wu is the first author in the manuscript. The results in the manuscript may be worse than those in Wu et al. 2017. More data can help to improve the resolution and the precision of QGNSea model. How to unify the datum of all data in the study?
[2] Section 3 Numerical results and discussion. The full flow chart to build QGNSea model should be shown in detail, which can make readers to understand the technological idea in general.
[3] Section 3.1. What algorithm can be used to estimate automatically the order of wavelet analysis? What criterion can be used to judge the optimal order?
[4] Figure 1. What geological structure and geophysical mechanism are corresponding to each layer?
[5] Table 3. Please show the detailed algorithm and method to determine reasonably the depth of each layer.
[6] Section 3.3. We all know that the precision of terrestrial gravity data is better than that of ship-borne gravity data. But 1.45 mGal is for the terrestrial gravity data and 1.30 mGal for the ship-borne gravity data. Why?
[7] Figure 5. How to reduce effectively the edge effects for the local model?
[8] Table 5. Why all means are 0 in the table?
[9] Page 22. The degree for EGM2008 is up to 2190, but the order for EGM2008 is not up to 2190.
[10] Figures 7 and 8, Table 7. Why remove the mean differences?
[11] Figure 8. We can see the systematical differences in the figure. Why?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Aug 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Aug 2018) by Lutz Gross

AR by Yihao Wu on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Oct 2018) by Lutz Gross

AR by Yihao Wu on behalf of the Authors (15 Oct 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Nov 2018) by Lutz Gross