Dataset of daily vertical displacements observed by GPS between 1994 and 2023 for hydrogeodetic studies over Europe
Abstract. Europe is currently the fastest-warming continent in the world, and it has experienced frequent and severe weather events, which have led to extensive droughts and floods, with consequences for ecosystems, health, economy, and other sectors. During the past two decades, these hydrological extremes have been quantified using Terrestrial Water Storage (TWS) changes obtained from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission and its successor GRACE Follow-On. Unfortunately, GRACE/-FO-derived TWS changes do not have sufficient temporal and spatial resolutions for detailed analysis of sub-regional patterns or sub-monthly TWS changes over Europe, e.g., at the Eurostat NUTS 2 or 3 level. We suggest that both spatial and temporal resolutions could be enhanced in the future by using displacement time series observed at more than 6,000 permanent Global Positioning System (GPS) European stations. However, to turn this network into an observing system for TWS anomalies, GPS displacements must be carefully prepared in advance, and no useful dataset is available to our knowledge. Here we provide, for the first time, a quality-controlled dataset of long daily vertical displacement time series observed at 4,443 GPS antennas in Europe and surrounding regions between 1994 and 2023, after preprocessing and preselection to remove displacements seemingly unrelated to hydrospheric loading. We classify stations that pass our procedure as reference time series (benchmark datasets) with respect to hydrospheric changes. Three benchmark datasets are provided for use at different temporal scales: long-term (>1.1 years), seasonal (from 4 months to 1.4 years) and short-term (from 2 days to 5 months), even for the period of 8 years prior to GRACE (Klos and Bogusz, 2026). We show in this study that the displacements recorded by GPS stations included in the benchmark datasets (1) are to a great extent coherent with hydrological models, reflect accumulated precipitation records, and clearly reflect the influence of climate modes, (2) are mutually highly consistent on a regional scale and also consistent with the displacements determined by the InSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar) technique, (3) allow for the estimation of high-resolution TWS changes at all three temporal scales well, which matches closely with GRACE and ERA5-Land, potentially allowing for a better understanding of regional changes in the European hydrosphere.
General comments:
The paper entitled "Dataset of daily vertical displacements observed by GPS between 1994 and 2023 for hydrogeodetic studies over Europe" by Kłos et al. proposes a quality-controlled, three-tier (short-term, seasonal, long-term) benchmark dataset of daily GPS vertical displacements for 4,443 stations across Europe, derived through a rigorous pre-processing and wavelet-decomposition procedure, and validated against hydrological models, InSAR, SLR+DORIS, GRACE, and ERA5-Land. Overall, the dataset is valuable, as it could be used by the hydrogeodesy, remote sensing, and water-resources communities to derive high-resolution terrestrial water storage (TWS) estimates at sub-monthly and sub-regional scales that are currently unattainable from GRACE alone, and it extends the observational record by 8 years prior to the GRACE mission. However, to make the proposed dataset valuable for a wide range of users, the authors could, but are not obligated to, release the cleaned, non-decomposed daily displacement time series in addition to the three temporal-scale benchmark products to increase reusability beyond the authors' specific decomposition scheme. That said, a moderate revision is recommended, as the underlying dataset and validation are scientifically sound and represent a genuinely novel and useful contribution to ESSD. Below are some points the authors can consider in a revised version of their study.
Specific comments:
1. Sect. 2.1: Albeit the tidal (IERS2010, permanent tide retained) and non-tidal atmospheric/oceanic loading (GFZ/ECMWF-MPIOM) and GIA (ICE6G-D) corrections are clearly stated, and InSAR is explicitly tied to IGS14 (p.7, lines 247–249), the reference frame origin convention (CM, CF, or CE) used for the Love-number/Farrell (1972) forward modeling of hydrological, SLR+DORIS, GRACE, and GLWS displacements is never specified. Since NGL/IGS14 GPS coordinates are nominally CM-referenced while Farrell-type load Green's functions are conventionally formulated in CF, please confirm/state that all forward-modeled series share a common frame consistent with the GPS solution, or apply a degree-1 (geocenter) correction, otherwise a frame mismatch could bias the reported comparisons, especially the trend/long-term signals.
2. Step 1 (~line 150): Step 1 (~line 150) fixes the pre-processed set to 4,443 stations. Step 17 (~line 190) states that requiring >1 year of overlapping hydrological-model coverage "reduces the number of stations to 4,117." However, Figures 5 and 6 both report trends that are "estimated for 4,443 GPS locations." The trend maps should align with the two figure captions in Step 17. Furthermore, Step 1 (~line 150) needs clarification; it says, "It is worth mentioning that only 60 of these stations have a length of less than 3 years," which is unclear whether "these stations" refers to the 4,443 retained stations or the full 6,259 candidate set. Please specify the figures explicitly and revise them, i.e., 6259, 80%, 60, and 4443.
3. Step 6 (~line 170): The authors are encouraged, not obligated, to release the cleaned, non-decomposed daily displacement time series (post outlier/offset/loading correction, pre-wavelet-decomposition) referenced in Step 6, in addition to the three temporal-scale benchmark files. It could also contain the formal uncertainties for each epoch. I believe this would increase the dataset's reusability beyond the specific decomposition scheme proposed.
4. Lines ~290: Some sentences are slightly repeated. Where it reads "It is also worth noting that trends observed via GPS encompass all phenomena... reflect only hydrological loading" is just restated as "It is also worth noting that GPS-observed trends include local ground subsidence, while GRACE-derived and GLWS-predicted trends represent hydrospheric loading only." Keep one version only by merging them.
5. Lines 330–345: The sentence "After this drought, we see a decrease in GPS-observed displacements and a wet period from 2003 to 2007..." through "...but not fully captured by SLR and DORIS-based water storage" is almost a repetition of the preceding sentences, which read "After the drought, we see a decrease... All datasets remain consistent until 2007..." This might be a leftover editing, and please revise that.
6. Trend estimation / dataset files: The dataset does not report uncertainties (e.g., standard errors) for the GPS or GIA trend estimates in "Trend GPS & GIA.txt," nor for the displacement values in the three benchmark folders. Since trends are derived via least-squares, please add a column with formal trend uncertainties (ideally accounting for the noise model, e.g., power-law + white noise) or explicitly state in the readme why they are omitted. This is important for users to assess the significance of subsidence/uplift signals.
7. Data availability: No repository name, DOI, or file format/naming convention is provided in the text, as ESSD requires per journal policy. Furthermore, the DOI (10.18150/68WQXO) provided in Kłos & Bogusz (2026) is returning "DOI Not Found." Please check that.