I would like Reviewer #2 to review your responses to their concerns:

The impetus for the paper is understandable, with satellite data potentially providing a
useful alternative for the lack of rain measurement data offshore, However, the IMERG
accumulations do not appear to be in good agreement with the in-situ data and the
relative bias for rainfall intensities is a concern.
Response: We have visualized the differences between IMERG and in situ rainfall through
two new figures (Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 in the revised manuscript). We agree that the rainfall
differences and biases are large and we have given some reasons for this in the
Discussion. We believe that the differences are due to the very different nature of the
IMERG and in situ data sets and therefore, there is little we can do to improve the
statistics. The values we find are similar to those published for the Netherlands where the
rain and wind climate is not too different from that of Germany and Denmark (Borgerd et
al., 2021).
It is a bit of a stretch to suggest this data is now suitable for lifetime predictions, as it
could be rainfall is not as impactful a factor in the calculation. If there was a “ground
truth” of actual physical blade condition to compare against this would provide a stronger
argument but these are estimations.
Response: We agree that the model for blade lifetime predicition is more sensitive to wind speed than
to rainfall intensity and we have added an explaination of this to the Discussion (line 402 in the revised
manuscript): “In other words, the blade lifetime model applied in this study is less sensitive to rainfall
rates than to wind speeds Bech et al. (2022)”.
Unfortunately, we do not have access to ground truth information about blade conditions at present
but an experiment is planned, which could lead to further insights in the future. In the Discussion, we
have added the point that actual physical blade conditions would be valuable next step (line 462 in the
revised manuscript): “Our focus has been on the precipitation data and despite differences between
GPM and local observations the lifetime results compare well. Another focus could involve wind speed
variation and impact speed variation on blades with erosion observed in the field as by (Prieto and
Karlsson, 2018; Visbech et al. in review). It would be valuable to assure the methodological reliability
using GPM and different wind speed input and precipitation data near wind turbine sites with
observed blade erosion for lifetime prediction”.
The lifetime prediction calculation methodology needs be explained in more detail and the
main statement of the paper justified further.
Response: We have expanded the description of the model used for blade lifetime
predictions (line 213-234 in the revised manuscript). This manuscript represents a very
first attempt to use precipitation data from satellites for blade lifetime estimations. There
is a potential for improving the method and the results in the future through
improvements of the IMERG data quality and/or updates of the empirical lifetime
prediction model.

Thank you for updates to the paper and the responses to the reviewers comments. The updates address the concerns from the reviewers and we are happy to move forward with publication of your paper.

Thanks for publishing with WES