the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Greenland GNSS Network (GNET): Geodetic Grade GNSS measurements of Greenland's 3D Bedrock Displacement from 1995–2025
Abstract. The Greenland GNSS Network (GNET) consists of 71 individual geodetic-grade Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) stations mounted directly in bedrock located along the perimeter of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). The first continuously running GNSS (cGNSS) station was set up in 1995 and has been running up to date. During the fourth International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, GNET was established with the expansion of 49 stations. As of 2025, the network has expanded to include 19 town sites and 48 remote sites. Over time, the installations have undergone various updates, helping to stabilize and improve the return observations from the network. The original installations were done using Global Positioning System (GPS)-only receivers; these have, with time, been changed to receivers capable of tracking multiple constellations. Operating cGNSS stations in the remote high Arctic is troublesome, giving rise to data gaps and/or downtime for stations in the network. Here we present the most comprehensive dataset from 1995 to 2025, Receiver Independent Exchange Format (RINEX) v2 and/or v3 daily files are now available, see Table B1. Processed daily East-North-Up (ENU) time series for all sites is available at https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.31397901 Solgaard, et al. (2026), and extensive metadata logfiles documenting the entire lifespan of the specific stations can be found here Danish Agency for Climate Data (KDS) (2026). Photos of the stations can be found on (https://go-gnet.org/). Through a noise characterization analysis, we show that a fractional Gaussian noise profile is expected. Furthermore, we compare our processed ENU time series with already published subsets of the full dataset from independent processing centers. Here, we conclude that the DTU release is significantly more stable in the horizontal components compared to other publicly available products.
- Preprint
(13840 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-198', Halfdan Pascal Kierulf, 06 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-198', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 May 2026
The authors discuss a thorough reanalysis of the Greenland GNSS Network (GNET), providing RINEX files for all station from 1995-2025, corresponding log-files, photos and a 3D deformation time series. In addition, they briefly discuss their result in comparison to results of other processing centers, highlighting the quality of the result provided here. The data are FAIR accessible and ready to use. I assume that the data will be heavily used in Greenland research studies. It is nice to read that the data will be updated accordingly, and moreover, that more stations will be added. The description in the manuscript is sufficiently detailed. Figures, tables etc. support the manuscript nicely. There's not much I can criticize except a few minor and many technical/grammar issues. I am suggesting acceptance subject to minor revision to give the authors ample time for revision.
Minor
1. It is mentioned that the stations are planned to avoid heavy snow coverage (l209) but this might not be possible everywhere. Later (l248), it is stated that heavy snowfall resulted in data gaps. Please describe more detailed according to which parameters a "less snow-affected" station is selected and perhaps add a column to Table 1 which briefly states if a station is strongly or only marginally affected by snow. Also, is there any special snow treatment in the GipsyX analysis for the time series? Please explain.
2. Next to polar bears and polar foxes also birds can affect stations. Have their been any strong interactions in the more southern stations? Have their been countermeasures, e.g. dedicated radoms?
3. Regarding equipment problems due to animal activity, the authors may consider adding information to Table 1 which stations have been damaged by polar bears etc. (and when, if possible). Further, I suggest to add a figure with one or two pictures of damaged stations that one of the co-authors used to show in his conference presentations. Would be nice to share them via a then citable source.
Technical
General: The use of cite/citep/citet is spoiled in the whole manuscript, please correct!
More suggestions and remarks can be found in the attached PDF.
Data sets
Daily coordinate time series from the Greenland GNSS Network (GNET) from 1995–2025 C. Solgaard et al. https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.31397901
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 375 | 180 | 25 | 580 | 26 | 19 | 18 |
- HTML: 375
- PDF: 180
- XML: 25
- Total: 580
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The dataset presented in the paper “The Greenland GNSS Network (GNET): Geodetic‑grade GNSS measurements of Greenland’s 3D bedrock displacement from 1995–2025” is a very important and comprehensive compilation of GNSS records of Greenland’s crustal motion, covering everything from station construction and historical background to raw data, time series, and fundamental geodetic parameters.
I am impressed by the authors’ effort in bringing all of this together. I have only three minor comments.
Figure 12 compares similar parameters from different analyses on the two axes. The use of different scales on the axes is confusing and hampers interpretation.
The uncertainty estimates reported in Table A1 are at the 0.00x mm/yr level, which seems unrealistic. How are these uncertainties calculated?
The dataset is a valuable tool for studies of crustal deformation, in particular for investigating the elastic and visco‑elastic response to past and present ice‑mass changes. Separating these processes is challenging, and velocity estimates in glaciated regions such as Greenland strongly depend on the observation time span. I would like to see this discussed in more detail. For instance, the challenges associated with comparing time series with different time spans should be addressed.