General:

While most of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed, reviewer #1’s second comment (echoed by reviewer #2), about the uncertainty of SAR data extrapolation from 10 m and then up to 80 m, and the uncertainty of this extrapolation especially in stable conditions, was not completely addressed in the manuscript in the new section 2.5. Please more explicitly address the uncertainty of the SAR extrapolations. Why would the Anholt profiles behave differently than those observed elsewhere in the Baltic?

A number of minor issues should also be addressed.

1. Ensure citations are consistently in chronological order (e.g. Volker et al. 2015, Fitch et al. 2012 should be reversed)

2. Reference to the Copernicus programme could be more specific (i.e. to SAR resources rather than the general Copernicus page)

3. “most Western turbine row” should be “most western turbine row” (page 3)

4. Figure 2: color scheme is not very friendly to red-green colorblind people. Also, seems counter-intuitive for very stable conditions to be red and very unstable conditions to be blue. (Blue seems more nocturnal or stable, red seems more daytime/convective…)

5. Discussion of Figure 2: the figure shows far more unstable or very unstable conditions than stable or very stable, except at high wind speeds. Yet the text states “The WRF outputs indicate that neutral stratification is increasing with the wind speed and the overall distribution favours stable stratification over unstable at the Anholt site.” Is there an error in the text or in the figure labeling?

6. Section 3: the language is “analyse SAR wind fields” – should this be “estimate wind fields from SAR”?

7. Section 3 (page 8, line 9 of redlined version): if ‘wind speed gradient’ is perpendicular to the coast, is ‘wind speed variability’ parallel to the coast? (‘rows of turbines’ is not necessarily clear, as there is not yet a map of Anholt identifying rows at this point in the paper)

8. Page 9 redline refers to Figure 2b and should be Figure 3b

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful revisions, and for submitting this interesting work to Wind Energy Science.

Thank you for your the submission of this interesting manuscript to Wind Energy Science.
The (revised) manuscript will now be processed through the Copernicus system (a.o. typesetting and language check) and will then be published as a final paper published in Wind Energy Science.