Revisions And Responses To Comments On HESS-2020-377.pdf

The authors respond to reviews for their paper on compound coastal floods in China. They acknowledge that while the topic, methods, and findings are not novel, the study provides valuable insights into compound flood risk in the region. Key responses to reviewers' comments include:

- Definition of Compound Events: Clarifying that "compound coastal flood events" specifically refer to those occurring during both high storm surge and high precipitation thresholds, regardless of typhoon season. They acknowledge potential exclusion of events outside these criteria but emphasize that typhoons are the primary driver in China.

- Historical Damage Data: Addressing concerns about sparse and incomplete historical damage records, they reframe their approach by moving damage analysis discussions to a new section. This highlights the need for better data availability and acknowledges that their analysis serves as a baseline for future research.

- Isolating Typhoon Damages: Acknowledging that typhoon damage records may include impacts from other hazards, they explain the impossibility of isolating these factors. Instead, they discuss uncertainties associated with this aspect in the discussion section.

- Sensitivity Analysis Insights: While sensitive to threshold values, they conclude that insights from their sensitivity analysis are localized and data-dependent, making it difficult to generalize. They mention alternative methods for representing bivariate extremes but did not employ them in this study.

- Seasonal Analysis Focus: Emphasizing seasonal variation in compound flood frequency, they clarify that their selection of three seasons (typhoon, summer, autumn) is for understanding relative likelihoods of events in different periods, rather than a strict definition of "compound events."

Overall, the authors have addressed reviewer comments by providing clarifications, acknowledging data limitations, and refining their analysis presentation.