Our GPS velocity field is directly realized in a GIA reference frame. Using this method (named the GIA frame approach) we are able to constrain GIA models with minimal influence of errors in the reference frame or biasing signals from plate tectonics. The drawbacks are more degrees of freedom that might mask real but unmodeled signals. Monte Carlo tests suggest that our approach is robust at the 97% level in terms of correctly separating different models of ice history but, depending on deformation patterns, the identified Earth model may be slightly biased in up to 39% of cases. We compare our results to different one-and three-dimensional GIA models employing different global ice-load histories. The GIA models generally provide good fit to the data but there are still significant discrepancies in some areas. We suggest that these differences are mainly related to inaccuracies in the ice models and/or lateral inhomogeneities in the Earth structure under Fennoscandia. Thus, GIA models still need to be improved, but the GIA frame approach provides a base for further improvements.

We present the official land uplift model NKG2016LU of the Nordic Commission of Geodesy (NKG) for northern Europe. The model was released in 2016 and covers an area from 49° to 75° latitude and 0° to 50° longitude. It shows a maximum absolute uplift of 10.3 mm/a near the city of Umeå in northern Sweden and a zero-line that follows the shores of Germany and Poland. The model replaces the NKG2005LU model from 2005. Since then, we have collected more data in the core areas of NKG2005LU, specifically in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and included observations from the Baltic countries as well. Additionally, we have derived an underlying geophysical glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model within NKG as an integrated part of the NKG2016LU project. A major challenge is to estimate a realistic uncertainty grid for the model. We show how the errors in the observations and the underlying GIA model propagate through the calculations to the final uplift model. We find a standard error better than 0.25 mm/a for most of the area covered by precise levelling or uplift rates from Continuously Operating Reference Stations and up to 0.7 mm/a outside this area. As a check, we show that two different methods give approximately the same uncertainty estimates. We also estimate changes in the geoid and derive an alternative uplift model referring to this rising geoid. Using this latter model, the maximum uplift in Umeå reduces from 10.3 to 9.6 mm/a and with a similar reduction ratio elsewhere. When we compare this new NKG2016LU with the former NKG2005LU, we find the largest differences where the GIA model has the strongest influence, i.e. outside the area of geodetic observation. Here, the new model gives from − 3 to 4 mm/a larger values. Within the observation area, similar differences reach − 1.5 mm/a at the northernmost part of Norway and − 1.0 mm/a at the northwestern coast of Denmark, but generally within the range of − 0.5 to 0.5 mm/a.

It is well known that satellite radar interferometry (InSAR) is capable of measuring surface displacement with a typical accuracy on the order of millimeters to centimeters. However, when the true deformation vector differs from the satellite line-of-sight (LOS), the sensitivity decreases and interpretation of InSAR deformation measurements becomes challenging. By combining displacement data from extensive ascending and descending TerraSAR-X datasets collected during the summer seasons of 2009-2014, we estimate two-dimensional (2D) InSAR surface displacement. Displacement data are decomposed into vertical and west/east deformation, dip and combined deformation vector, and validated using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data. We use the decomposed dataset to visualize variations in surface velocity and direction on unstable slopes in a periglacial environment with sporadic permafrost in northern Norway. By identifying areas with uplift and subsidence, and detecting velocity changes (downslope acceleration/deceleration) and related areas of extension and compression, we are able to explain driving and controlling mechanisms and geomorphology in two rockslides and one area with solifluction landforms.