General comments:

The paper presents data from a set of onshore and offshore lidars. The paper mostly presents statistics based on these data and the results of the analysis are as expected, as the wind blows more and more steady offshore compared to onshore. There is no new methods, concepts or ideas introduced in the manuscript, so I have rated the scientific significance as low. Nonetheless, the paper could be useful for somebody that is looking specifically for information about the wind climate in this region. 

My main comment on the analysis itself is about the low data recovery percentage of the lidar data. It is not demonstrated that there is no correlation of when data recovery is low and what the wind climate is. For example, one would expect that the lidars return 'not available' when a measurement cannot be obtained. Most of these data will be during low wind speed conditions when there is not enough aerosols to measure the wind. You have your long-term measurement time series from ERA5, so you could correct for this. Also in general I miss some discussion of the type of lidars you are using, because they are not the same offshore (zephyr) and onshore (windcube). What kind of filtering was done (precipitation? CNR?).

Technical comments:

l13: factor -> parameter

l166: conventional usage would be capital gamma

l211-215: since the lidar signal depends on aerosol concentration this method will likely miss many low-level jets as the lidar will simply not return a signal above the jet. Would be good to discuss this.

In addition: I am not quite sure how to interpret the comment about the comparibility with the 500 m height: did you use data up to 500 m? It would be good to show what the recovery percentage is at this height, related to the remark above.

l232: move bracket from before Barthelmie to before 2023.