Dear Dr. Parker,

Thank you for your detailed replies to the comments of the two reviewers. Both reviewers recommend minor to medium revisions, in particular asking for additional explanations and increased clarity, and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

I have one specific remark to your reply to comment 4 of reviewer #2 on the comparison with the FEMA flood areas: Please provide addtional explanation in the revised manuscript on that issue. The best solution would be that you find out to which extent the FEMA approach has included the interactions/coupled modeling. If this is not possible, then please add a few sentences to discuss this issue (e.g. that the FEMA approach is not clear; why you think that despite that opagueness your conclusion about the importance of compound events and the necessity to use coupled models is valid).

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded) and include, in the same author reply document, a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript and will send it out again to the previous reviewers.

Best regards,
Bruno Merz

Dear Dr. Parker,

I am pleased to inform you that the revised version of your manuscript NHESS-2013-26 can be accepted for publication in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS), after you have checked, and possibly included, the very minor comments of Referee #1.

Best regards, Bruno Merz