Dear authors,
We have now received two extensive reviews and two detailed answers by the authors giving rise to critical enhancements of the quality of the manuscript. Indeed, the main criticism pointed out by the two reviewers is a misunderstanding of the literature by the authors, that could be partly linked to the remote-sensing background of the authors. Geophysical knowledge in earth physics and mechanics, radiative transfer and sensoring are necessary to be able to critically assess feasibility of detecting and physically understanding infra-red thermal anomalies possibly linked to earthquake processes.
I have now read twice the original manuscript, and the response of the authors to the referees; it seems that the authors refer to many not scientifically proven theories to discuss the pros and cons of using satellite infra red sensing for crustal ruptures.
The answers provided are so far implicit and (to my point) vague. It is further difficult to decide on the publication of the manuscript while no revised version has been shared on-line by the authors.
However, I want to help the authors because I am convinced that the topic deserves a state of the art manuscript. I would suggest the authors to possibly engage discussions with seismologists or earth physicists and possibly integrate them in the authorship of the manuscript. This topic needs a real interdisciplinary discussion.
The manuscript will be reconsidered after major revisions.
Best regards,
Jean-Philippe Malet

Dear authors,
Together with a referee that already commented the Discussion version of the manuscript, we re-read the whole manuscript, and conclude that the clarity and quality has been noticeably increased. Most of the referees' comments were taken into account.
There are still a few minor corrections to handle which are annotated in the revised version by the referee. I would recommend as well to increase the
caption font size of all the figures in particular for the coordinates and names of axes on the maps/graphs.
These minor corrections being handled, I will consider the manuscript as being publishable.
Best regards, Jean-Philippe Malet

Dear authors,
The responses to the referee comments are extensive and adequate. The paper is considered as publishable. We thanks the authors for taking care of all comments.

Best regards,
Jean-Philippe Malet, Associate Editor NHESS