Dear Mr. Eiras-Barca,
As you know the process of peer review and publication in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is a two-stage process involving the scientific discussion forum Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions (NHESSD). The first stage, corresponding to the open discussion has ended. The reviewers have already sent their comments and you have posted your comments as a response to them (in this case no more short comments of the scientific community have been received). Thank you very much. From now on begins the second stage that follows the usual and non-public peer-reviewed process. I would like to remind you that the pass to the second stage is no guarantee whatsoever that the paper will be accepted for publication in NHESS. This will depend on the comments of the referees, and your ability to respond properly to the comments received.
Please, follow the recommendations made by both referees and include them in the revised version that you are going to upload, joined to the answers for the referees. Both of them (and I agree with them) consider that your writing needs improving (orthography and grammar aspects). I would suggest that all the co-authors would review the text as well as an official translator.

Dear Mr. Eiras-Barca,
Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript “On the Relationship Between Atmospheric Rivers, Weather Types and Floods in Galicia (NW Spain)” to be published in our journal NHESS. I have the pleasure of telling you that both referees coincide in the decision that your paper could be published after doing minor changes.
I would like to invite you to prepare a revised manuscript considering carefully the comments and suggestions made by both referees. Please, remove capital letters in the title and change it by: “On the relationship between atmospheric rivers, weather types and floods in Galicia (NW Spain)”
With your revised manuscript, be sure to provide the author's reply which includes (i) a separate list with your responses to the comments of the referees; (ii) as part of your author reply (same document please) please provide a detailed (preferably using track changes) list of all the changes made to the text. By providing a detailed author's reply (where you go through each comment of the reviewers and tell the reviewers and myself how you replied) AND a track change document of what has changed, it will make the next step much faster.
I look forward to receiving the revised version of your work at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat

Dear Mr. Eiras-Barca,
Thank you very much for submitting your version 5 of the manuscript “On the Relationship Between Atmospheric Rivers, Weather Types and Floods in Galicia (NW Spain)” to be published in our journal NHESS.
Your comments answer positively to the questions proposed by both referees and I consider your paper could be accepted to be published after a couple or minor changes.
The first one refers to line 18 where you say that 357 and 548 flood events have been recorded for the SIL and COSTA region in Galicia, respectively, during the period 1979-2010. These figures are so much high. If we understand flood event as a meteorological or hydrological event that has given place to one or more floods, they are unrealistic. Perhaps you refer to the number of claims made to insurance companies as a consequence of floods, or the addition of the total number of municipalities affected by each event. The catalogue made by Civil Protection only includes major events. Then it is not clear what do you understand as flood event and which is the source. I suggest you to include in the paper what do you understand as flood event, and to enlarge table 1 with two columns including the number of meteorological/hydrological events or/and the total number of days affected by FE.
Although I am reluctant to include in my reviewing or editing reports my own references, in this case I consider it is unavoidable to propose you to complete your discussion with the paper “Gilabert, J. and M.C. Llasat, 2017. Circulation weather types associated with extreme flood events in Northwestern Mediterranean. Int. J. Climatol. (2017) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.5301)”. In this paper WT obtained with your same methodology have been applied to the analysis of flood events in the NE part of the Iberian Peninsula. I think the comparison with the results obtained in this other paper for a near Mediterranean region placed at the same latitude will provide a major robustness to your paper.
With your revised and definitive manuscript, please, provide the author's reply with your responses to these two comments. I hope to accept your paper as soon as I receive them. Thanks again for your interest in our journal.
Sincerely,
Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat

Dear Dr. Eiras-Barca
Thank you very much for your answer to my comments. I would like to clarify that I have not suspected that your manuscript would be based on Gilabert and Llasat, 2017. I have only proposed it as a possible source of comparison between different climates, because in both cases cyclonic patterns showed the major frequency.
However, I consider that you have addressed correctly my suggestions in the last version of the paper. It is considerably better that the first version you have submitted and can be accepted as it is. My congratulations to you and your coauthors.
Sincerely Yours
Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat