This is a very good review of the AWS network and the instrumentation used in it and how the data are processed. I liked the fact that they have made it possible for users to report errors in the data that can then be checked and corrected if found to be incorrect.

This manuscript presents information about sensors, station designs, and data processing of an extensive automatic weather station (AWS) network in Greenland. It replaces a previous ESSD report by Fausto et al. (2021). I find the updated manuscript very useful, and it is certainly important to many people working with Greenlandic climate data or people using similar AWSs on glaciers worldwide. The manuscript is generally well-written and provides a nice overview of both the instrumentation and data handling. I noticed only two major issues and then I have made some minor comments for the authors. Some of these comments may be a bit picky, but since this is a significant contribution to the scientific community I feel that the authors should be given the opportunity to edit the text accordingly.

Major issues:

1. The structure of the Introduction section was not logic. The intuitive structure would be the present the development of the AWS network in chronological order, starting with the background and let it lead to “what is new”. As it stands, it is difficult to understand the “what is new” sub-section without any context to “what was before”. For instance, the very first sentence in the manuscript starts with “Compared to Fausto et al. (2021), we present …” The readers are not given any clue on what Fausto et al. (2021) is all about, unless they read Fausto et al. (2021) first, which should not be necessary. The entire “what is new” sub-section is basically meaningless unless some background context is provided. I can give many examples but here is another (L36): “The dataset has been prepared to follow the FAIR principles: …” After reading this sentence, readers may deduce that this means that Fausto et al. (2021) did not follow the FAIR principles. I would recommend that the authors switch the two sub-sections (except the last paragraph in the Background sub-section, which does not really belong in a description of the Background).
2. Section 5.2 seems to have been neglected and made in a rush. This is an important section, as it provides the authors with a fantastic opportunity to share their experiences with problem-solving in the field and during the postprocessing of data. This would indeed be valuable to many students and early-career scientists, who are getting into working with AWSs in remote or glacial regions. My recommendation is that the authors rewrite this section. Move all the bullet points to a single table. Then write a proper text focusing on sharing of experiences (How often did a specific issue occur? How did the authors deal with the issue? What were the consequences?). The text could be written in a more informal manner than the rest of the manuscript and potentially include a couple of short anecdotes, if relevant.

Minor comments:

L2: Only two AWS networks are mentioned here. What about the implementation of the GEM stations?

L2-3: “… more than 50 active and historical AWS sites …” – this could in principle be thousands of AWS sites. Be specific on exactly how many active and exactly how many historical AWS sites are included in this new network.

L13: I guess that “what is new” is a rhetorical question and should be followed by a question mark.

L13 and throughout the manuscript: Be consistent in using second-, third and fourth-order numbering of headings. This is inconsistent throughout the manuscript. Here, it should be “1.1”.

L14: This sentence is awkward. How can a presentation of the latest version of a data product be compared to a text by Fausto et al. (2021)? I of course understand what is meant, but the sentence is meaningless.

L18: Explain the abbreviation AWS.

L18: Specify when “now” is. Is it by the end of 2025?

L19: As in the Abstract. Be specific on exactly how many active and exactly how many historical AWS stations are included in this new network. Note the difference that in the Abstract, it is more than 50 AWS sites, while here it is more than 50 AWS stations. Later (L396), the authors clearly distinguish between “stations” and “sites”.

L20: What is meant by “See 1 for more information”?

L25: It is unclear what is meant by “new”? Would the alternative be to use “second-hand” batteries?

L25: Use lowercase n in “nickel”.

L25: It should be “hydride”, not “hydrate”.

L26: What is meant by “new” in “… all new stations …”? Some context is necessary. Also, how many stations are “all new”?

L30: Change to “… available in Climate and Forecast (CF)-compliant network Common Data Form (NetCDF) and comma-separated values (CSV) formats …” and then explain that the previous format was TXT.

L68: There is something strange happening with the use of brackets in this sentence and how they are placed (after “groups” and before “projects”). The first comma in “… groups (…), and (…) projects, …” should also be deleted. Should both “groups” and “projects” be plural, and what is the difference?

L70 and paragraph starting in L77: Here, the authors write about AWSs included in PROMICE in 2021 in the “Background” sub-section, but integration of AWSs in 2021 were also part of the “What is new” sub-section (L14). Please try to rewrite the text so that the story is told in a logic chronological order.

L78: Who do “… our expertise …” refer to? From reading the context, it seems that “our” refers to GEUS employees only, but the author consortium includes several non-GEUS researchers so this is confusion.

L80: Insert space before “In”, delete “the” before GEUS and insert a comma before “Department”.

L82: Insert “Gletsjer” after “Mittivakkat”, as referring to the glacier just as Mittivakkat would be slang.

L86: Again, be specific on exactly how many AWS stations are included in the network. Also, just reading the text (L65-L83) I counted mentioning of 47 AWSs, so the numbers do not seem to add up. Please check that the text includes all stations and that the text is easy to understand.

L92-L98: This paragraph does not belong to the “Background” sub-section.

L106: Consider changing “&” to “and”, unless it is required by the ESSD layout.

L108-110. There is some repetition here from L21-L22.

L111 and other sub-sections in 2.1: The descriptions of these instruments are often hard to follow, and while the readers are left confused and with a feeling that this is common knowledge for the authors. For instance, in sub-section 2.1.1 it is unclear what an OTT Lufft WS401 is, as the name is just mentioned without explanation. Therefore, it is unclear whether there are two separate barometers or one barometer located in a logger enclosure inside an OTT Lufft WS401. I think that would help to insert a sentence in the beginning of each sub-section of 2.1 that informs readers about how many instruments there are in total and where they are located before going into details about each individual sensor. Also, let someone who is not familiar with the instruments read the text to check whether it is understandable and transparent.

L119: It is great that the unit is mentioned in the beginning of each sub-section but be consistent in the use of brackets around the unit.

L119: It is unclear what the Rotronics setup refers to. In Fausto et al. (2021), it was called Rotronics assemply and it was not explained in detail either.

L124: Plural – “measurements”.

L127: Explain what Vailasa HP 155E is and that HUMICAP is the name of the sensor. Make the phrasing similar to L138.

L196: Insert unit in brackets.

L210: Insert unit in brackets.

L244-L245: This sentence and a following sentences sound as a commercial for HL Planartechnik GmbH. It is irrelevant that the company “offers a range of high-precision inclinometers”. Just mention the inclinometer that was used.

L245: Insert unit in brackets, the first time where it is relevant.

L252: Elaborate on how “all constants were determined in-house”.

L252: Reference to Table 2 seems irrelevant to the statement in the text. Delete it.

L254: Insert unit in brackets after “orientation”.

L255: Delete “see”.

L255: What are the accuracies of the inclinometers and compass?

L261: “Its accuracy is reported to be within 2.5 meters (Table 2)”. Who reported this? Insert a reference. Is the accuracy similar in all xyz-directions?

L332: “potentially reduce the quality of the measurements” – Are there any evidence in the data for this to actually happening?

L341-L347: This paragraph should be moved to the captions of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

L342: Insert OTT in front of “LUFFT” and check the use of uppercase letters.

L349: Include information about the anti-torque rod and the battery box (incl. wires) to this list.

L357: Double-spacing in front of “120”.

L369: The phrasing is a bit awkward. Consider changing to “In contrast to the previous setup described by Fausto et al. (2021), the …” or something similar.

L391: The sentence should be moved to sub-section 2.1.4. It is unclear whether the Geonor T200B is in addition to the other rain gauge or it has replaced the other rain gauge.

L409: If not done earlier, then this would be a good place to inform how many of these 52 sites are active or historic. Have any of these 52 sites been relocated up-glacier to compensate for the down-glacier transport of the stations?

L432-L433: Insert a reference to Table 2 after “time” instead of at the end of the sentence.

L434: Plural – “locations”.

L495-L499: There are some unnecessary repetitions here that should be deleted.

L514: Explain the terms “pypi” and “conda-forge”.

L632-L639: More arguments and transparency of assumptions for using the equation from Yang et al. (1999) are required. The equation is based on 12 coastal meteorological stations with gauge heights of 3 m and wind sensors at different heights but typically 10 m. Explain how these differences may influence the application of using the best-fit equation of Yang et al. (1999) on the PROMICE GC-NET AWSs. I would also recommend that the authors follow up on this issue at a later stage (not necessary for this manuscript) by recalculating the best-fit equation using data from recent decades from DMI coastal stations and, if relevant, recalculate the wind speed correction for liquid precipitation for PROMICE GC-NET AWSs.

L637: How has this assumption of hourly applicability been validated?

L645: Mention that no corrections were attempted for evaporation losses, wetting losses, and trace precipitation.

L746: Just write “AWSs”.

L772: The reference to Fig. 15 appears before references to Figs. 12-14.

L823: Delete “see”.

L827: Change “&” to “and” unless it is required by the ESSD layout and insert space in “10 m”.

L827: Plural – “Estimations” and “Calculations”.

L837 and L838: There is only one “Data Example” – singular. Is it necessary to have the heading in L838 “AWS data along  two transects”, if there are no other headings in sub-section 4.5?

Section 5.2: This sub-section must be rewritten (see my major comment #2). There is a lot to comment on in this sub-section, but it would likely be irrelevant to do so, if the text has to be rewritten anyway. I will just mention one example from L879-L880: “The list below organizes the data issues” – how is the data organized? It seems to be listed in a non-alphabetic random order (-) except for the systematic errors, which are listed by numbers, but it is unclear what this numbering means.

All figure captions: The captions are too short and must explain what is shown on the figures, including explaining all panels.

Figure 1: Ice velocity is not mentioned in the main text, so it should not be included. Also, the ice velocity color bar is unreadable – I cannot see whether white indicates negative ice velocities or whether 1 m/day is the maximum ice velocity on the GrIS. I can see an argument for including ice velocity, but then it should be easy to deduce the ice velocities at the sites and ice velocity should be presented and discussed properly in the main text.

Figure 2 and Figure 4: Be consistent in the naming of instruments in the main text and figures. For example, change “LUFFT 401” to “OTT Lufft WS401”.

Figure 2 and Figure 4: There is no mentioning of the radiometer CNR1 on these figures. Either explain in the main text or in the figure captions where CNR1 is placed and whether CNR1 is used on both types of AWSs.

Figure 3 and Figure 5: Include the dates of the photographs in the figure captions.

Figure 6: Change the adjective “Real time” to “Real-time”. Is the word “instantaneous” needed in addition to “real-time”? What does the colors indicate?

Figure 7: Explain all colors in the figure caption – it is not enough to write that “Colors indicate data sources”.

Figure 8: The caption is very short. A figure should be self-explainable, so the caption must explain what NUK_U is, what t_u is, and what the thresholds indicate.

Figure 9 and Figure 10: Same comment as for Figure 8.

Figure 14: Insert dots on the yellow line to indicate that the line between sites is an interpolation.

Table 1: The text in the table caption seems outdated and not in line with the content of the rest of the manuscript or the integrated PROMICE GC-NET dataset. Is the column “Project” needed now that the stations have been integrated into PROMICE GC-NET? And is “Project” the correct word for these research programs? What is the reference coordinate system for latitude and longitude?

Table 3: In the caption, use lowercase letters in “site overview”.

Table 5: Explain the abbreviated column names (Num_Obs, Avg_Bias, and Std_Dev) in the caption.

Table 5: Sort the list in alphabetic order. Some AWSs are not included in the list – explain why in the caption.

Table 6: The caption is too short. Explain what the Lower Bound, Upper Bound, and Season Specific indicate.

Table 7: In the caption, explain why all AWSs are not included in the list.

Appendix: The numbering of the tables in the Appendix is unclear to me, but maybe it follows the ESSD layout. The captions of the tables are too short and does not explain what is shown in the tables.

Table A.1.2: In the caption, what does “UMB” mean? Why is “UMB” not included in the main text?

Table A.9.14: Changes commas to punctuations.