The comments of reviewer #1 are addressed (in italics) below. The line numbers correspond to the initial version of the manuscript. 

This manuscript studies the uncertainty of precipitation estimates over the Netherlands computed from radiometers' observations regarding different samplings and retrieval methods. 

The precipitation estimates from radiometers are evaluated against ground-based weather radar precipitation estimates using different satellite footprints and sensors. 

Finally, the methods and results are clearly described and discussed throughout the manuscript, providing new insights into the performance of the Goddard Profiling algorithm (GPROF).

The manuscript fits the scope of the AMT journal; it is well written -clear and concise- and I consider it a great contribution to the remote sensing community. Congrats!

We highly appreciate these kind words and would like to thank the reviewer for the time to provide feedback on our manuscript.

I have a few specific questions/comments to improve clarity.

1. Lines 29-30. What do the authors mean by "Their spatial coverage and representation, however, is limited"? Although the spatial coverage of space-borne sensors is greater than ground-based weather radars and rain gauges, this coverage is still somewhat limited (~885 km), right?

Indeed, the coverage of radiometers is still limited. However, this sentence refers to all spaceborne sensors, including geostationary satellites. Additionally, although the coverage might be limited, the radiometers have a global representation in contrast to the local representation of ground-based radars.  

2. Lines 35-42. These paragraphs are confusing. The authors state in Line 36 that one kind of input is the indirect observation of cloud properties. However, Lines 39-42 read that direct observations "are preferred for quantitative applications in meteorology and hydrology as precipitation retrieval from visible and infrared channels is based on cloud to precipitation relations". Maybe the authors mean "the former" in Line 41, but rephrasing may be needed. Please elaborate.

Direct observations are preferred as these observations provide information regarding precipitation. The sensors capable of measuring these direct characteristics, however, are typically found on low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites due to their frequency channels. In contrast, channels operating within the visible (VIS) and infrared (IR) frequency ranges can be accommodated on geostationary satellites, but these frequencies only provide information about cloud properties. We will revise the aforementioned lines to enhance clarity.

3. Line 64. Consider adding "detection and accuracy OF RAIN RATES" or similar.

We appreciate the suggestion and we will rewrite line 64 as follows: “detection of precipitation and accuracy of precipitation intensity”

4. Line 117. Why this particular threshold? Please discuss setting this threshold to help understand the radar Echo Top Height (ETH) influence in the results.

The threshold is chosen to ensure light precipitation rates are also detected, a precipitation type that frequently occurs in the Netherlands. A drawback of this low threshold is discussed in lines 119-122.

5. Line 207. Please replace "The first three figures" with "Figures 1-3"

We appreciate the suggestion and we will rewrite line 207 as follows: “GPROF’s performance and some first results concerning the influence of sampling are shown in Figs. 1-3”

6. Figure 2, p17. These plots are great and depict much information; however, the markers need some improvement. For instance, it is almost impossible to notice the stars in the plot showing the number of observations. I advise using other marker fill styles, such as none for circles, changing the edge colour, or other alternatives. Also, add ETH, e.g., low ETH, med ETH, etc., to the colour scale.

The suggestion is appreciated and will be implemented to improve the clarity of Fig. 2.  

We addressed the comments of Tom Rientjes in the supplemented PDF file.