A Computationally Efficient Approach for Resampling Microwave Radiances from Conical Scanners to a Regular Earth Grid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well writen. Suggest to be published after minor revision.
1,The paper mentioned that the slight different geolocation of different channels, but I didn't see the method the correct this bias. For most microwave imagers, there are only 1 or 2 channels have geolocation infomation, we asume other channels have the same geolocation, but this is not correct. how to fix this error?
2,The antenna pattern that we can get is simulated form ground near-field measurement. This result is not very accurate compared with space result. Is there any analysis for this difference?
3, Sea ice do not acts similar to a blackbody, for different frequency different sea ice type, they have very different emissivity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the manuscript did a decent job describing their methodology and presenting their results. Below are few minor comments:
1) I feel that the title has a missing word. Maybe it was meant to read: " A computationally Efficient Approach ... "
2) It would be great to show the difference between results obtained using the described method, and those obtained using bilinear interpolation directly. Something similar to Fig. 9. (labeled as Fig 19 in the manuscript).
3) Is it possible to use a padding technique to overcome the degradation of performance near swath edges?
Minor editing English language required. For example:
1) Page 2 line 74: Fix sentence " distances that are less typically less than 10%"
2) Page 4 line 156: A period is missing after "quadrilateral".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript proposes a method for resampling microwave radiances. As described in the title and the introduction, this method is convenient for presenting the data on fixed Earth grids, which leads to more significant comparisons with other types of information.
The authors describe their work as a two-step method, employing the Backus-Gilbert method and interpolation. The results are supported with tables and figures to understand the efficiency of the proposed method.
I recommend publishing this article after some minor corrections. These corrections are described in the attached document.
Additionally, I would expect a side-to-side comparison of Figure 1 with the same figure but after applying your method. I am aware of the comparisons you made in Figure 4 and Figure 8, but I hardly appreciate the advantage of your method over others.
You also said in the introduction that presenting the information in a format ready for surface maps could be beneficial. My question regarding this statement (please, point me out to the answer if it is already in the manuscript):
- Which method is currently used to resample the microwave data into a fixed Earth grid?
- What is the advantage of your method over others?
- Is this method currently employed in another field or it is brand new?
- Could you include a figure to represent this? For example, Figure 1 is the surface map without resampling, Figure 2 is the surface map with the current method, and Figure 3 is the surface map with our method.
I believe this will highlight the importance of your work and make it understandable for a broader audience.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are some minor English mistakes in the manuscript. I also pointed out them in the attached file, but I suggest a review of the whole document to fix spelling and format inconsistencies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Attached please find the comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
My concerns have been carefully considered in the revision. I have no more questions.
