The paper provides an estimate of the future changes in wind resource over the North Sea. To do so, a high-emission scenario is simulated in the CMIP6 models, which are first validated, in their historic portion, against reanalysis products, WRF simulations, and observations.

The topic is within the scope of WES. The paper is very well written, the methodology seems sound, and the standard of the figures is high enough for a peer-reviewed journal. In general, I do not have any major comments, so I would like to congratulate with the authors for a well-conducted analysis, and recommend publication of the paper after my few, very minor comments below have been addressed.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

1. The last two sentences of the abstract seem to break the flow and are hard to connect to the rest of the abstract, I would suggest rephrasing.
2. 67: a capital letter “I” should be changed to “i”.
3. 130: ” to evaluate the boundary layer winds in the reanalysis datasets” is not clear since the reanalysis have not been introduced yet. Maybe it would be better to introduce the reanalysis first, and then the mast observations.
4. 134: the sentence “We use the data from the 102 m.” is not clear.
5. 139: can we really consider the NEWA a reanalysis product? As you state in Table 2, it does not assimilate any observations.
6. Figure 4: missing “.” at the end of the figure caption.
7. 280: broken reference.
8. 300: there is a repetition in this sentence, please correct.

The authors of this manuscript explored the current and future wind energy resources in Northern Europe using CMIP6 simulation. This work is interesting as it considered the wake effects on the annual energy production as the wake effects are ignored in all previous studies. The authors also assessed climate change for the 20 years 2031-2050, not at the end of the century, which is more important for the governments and wind farm developers. The subject discussed in the present article is of great importance, and the paper is well-structured and easy to follow. I truly congratulate the authors on this manuscript, which I believe should be considered for publication after minor changes.

The manuscripts, in my opinion, deserve revision on the following issues.

Q1. Paragraph 140. Did they use the wind speed of ERA5 reanalysis dataset? Or ERA5 forecast dataset? The hourly ERA5 reanalysis near-surface wind speed reveals a mismatch at 9:00-10:00 and 21:00-22:00 UTC (https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+data+documentation), which shows an important impact on the research of diurnal cycle. ERA5 also suffers from a general underestimation bias of near-surface winds. Compared with the reanalysis dataset, the forecast near-surface winds show much better agreement between the assimilation cycles, at least on average.

Q2. The caption of Fig.8, also required more details that how to calculate the relative change between the future（2031-2050）and the past (1995-2014). The details would help the readers better understand.

Q3. Paragraph 395, “The wind climate of the CMIP6 models is similar to that observed in this region in terms of wind direction and the phase and amplitude of the diurnal cycle.” However, the diurnal cycle was not compared and discussed in the manuscripts. It would be good if the authors could have some figures to compare the diurnal cycle of wind speed from the CMIP6 models and observations.