Dear Authors:
All reviewers agree that your manuscript contains valuable results and that it may become publishable after a further revision. Therefore, your manuscript will be reconsidered after “Major revision”.

I have read the new version that you have added as supplementary material in NHESSD and I have seen that it already contains changes aiming at answering to the reviewers’ comments.

Concerning your answer to reviewer 1, I am a bit puzzled by the new values. It is not clear why they have changed (You mention “corrected calculations”), and I would appreciate receiving a more detailed explanation. Further, these new values contains a number of digits that appear well beyond their precision (e.g. rms in table 4). Please, adopt a number of digits that is consistent with the precision of the values.

Concerning reviewer 2, It is not clear to me whether you answered correctly to her/his comment. The reviewer asked to insert the direct comparison (percent or absolute values) of changes in storm surge height with respect to SLR in order to evaluate the presence of nonlinear effects (changes of storm surge being larger or smaller than SLR). The caption of the tables 6 and 7 are not sufficiently descriptive (please improve them), but my understanding is that you are reporting the percent increase with respect to storm surge levels. I suggest you eventually add a new column.

Please submit a revised manuscript that will be returned to the reviewers for a final turn of comments.

Best regards,
Piero Lionello

Dear Authors,
The reviewers have commented on the new version of your manuscript. They agree that you have made substantial efforts to address their comments and have properly addressed the points arisen during the first review, but few points still need to be clarified.

I am reporting below their comments. Your manuscript will not be returned to the reviewers, but I will check how you have modified it according to their suggestions or replied to their comments. Please return with the revised manuscript also a point-to-point list of changes corresponding to the list below.

Do not hesitate to contact me if anything is not clear
Piero Lionello

Important points to be clarified:
1. In Figure 3 and Figure 7 “Present day” should be the results of the same “real TC” modeling. If this is correct, please check Fig.7d, because it does not correspond to Fig.3d. Namely, at Fig.3d modeled water levels overestimate observations consistently, at Fig.7d modeled water levels underestimate observations and fit for the storm peak. Which one is correct? Moreover, for TC Aila the dates at Fig.3 (c,d) and Fig.7(c,d) are shifted by one day.
2. Table 6: in the sensitivity experiment, please include the change as percentage of applied SLR. What the table now includes is the changes as percentage of “present day” water level. This is also interesting to see, however, this does not say much about (non)linearity of surge and SLR interactions. If one looks at changes as % of SLR, an interesting pattern shows up: for TC Sidr and both considered locations the water levels are almost linear addition of “present day” levels and SLR (changes between 88% and 103%). For TC Aila the surge/SLR interaction becomes non-linear, the changes there are about 111%-124% for Barisal and 219%-253% (!) for Charchanga. Why the same SLR for the same location (say Chrachanga) causes such different changes for two different TCs? Could you comment on this?
3. In Section 3.4, caption of Figure 7, caption and text of Table 6 you write “storm surges”. However, in reality it is total water level that is discussed and not storm surge (which is normally defined as difference between total water levels and normal tides). Please reformulate throughout the text or describe what is understood under “storm surge” in this paper, in the present form it is misleading.
4. - Lines 254-255: it is not clear from the caption of Figure 5 that the maps showing inundated areas are relative to a specific time instead of depicting the total extent of the TC-induced flooding. Actually, to show the total extent of the TC-induced flooding would make more sense also for consistency with the values reported in Table 5. Could this be changed?

Minor typos and rewording:
- Line 47: “Harris et al., 1963”. According to the reference list it should be cited as “Harris, 1963”.
- Line 106: “storm surge inundation were discussed”. Better “storm surge inundation are discussed”.
- Line 109: “storm surge level were presented”. Better “storm surge level are presented”.
- Line 126: please capitalize “coriolis”.
- Line 129: “Fξ are the turbulent momentum flux” should be “Fξ is the turbulent momentum flux”.
- Line 129: “Fη are the turbulent momentum flux” should be “Fη is the turbulent momentum flux”.
- Line 175: “Esgbert et al. (1994) Location of the…” should be “Esgbert et al. (1994). Location of the…”.
- Lines 218-219: the explanation of Figure 3b is confusing. Maybe the words “and for negative tides” are to be expunged.
- Line 296: typo – “present-day” two times
- Line 299: “with an SLR of 0.47 m” should be “with a SLR of 0.47 m”.
- Line 366: “under the condition of 0.26 m and 0.54 m respectively”, better “under SLR of 0.26 m and 0.54 m respectively”.
- Line 452: please replace “shown” with “are shown”.
- In Table 2, information about the intensity of the considered TCs would also be interesting, such as maximum wind speed in the considered area or SLP minimum at landfall
- In Table 5, the number of significant digits is excessive considering the uncertainties of the results. Integer values would be more appropriate. For the same reason, in Table 6 percent values should be rounded to integers. Please also change the text accordingly.

Dear Authors:

thanks for your work at the revised manuscript and for having answered the comments of the reviewers.

However, before accepting your manuscript for publication, I am forced to ask you a further revision.

It appears now from the added information in table 6 that for TC Aila at Charchanga, the sea level increase during the storm greatly exceeds (by a factor larger than 200%) the simple effect of sea level rise.
At this point, your lines 303-306 are not clear.
First, you cannot maintain that “Though the storm surge level is increasing almost linearly with the addition of sea water“, as percent deviations from SLR are huge in one location out of four. Further the following 3 lines do not really explain why there is this large deviation in Charchanga and whether you think this 200% increase is realistic or not. Finally these lines are not clear: what is meant with ”them” in line 304 and with “that” in line 306? Is left to the readers to be guessed. Please reformulate lines 303-306.

Looking forward to receiving your final manuscript.
Piero Lionello

Dear Mansur Ali Jisan ,

let me suggest to slightly rephrase your text:

"The increase in storm surge level for TC Aila in Charchanga station is significantly higher than what we found in the Barisal station (Table 6). This difference is likely due to the different role played by the topography and bathymetry near the two stations and their coarse resolution in model grid. In absence of a strong interaction with the bottom topography, the increase in peak water level during the hurriccanes should approximately match the mean SLR. However, both Charchanga and Barisal are located away from the open water, and thus the complex topography and bathymetry play a role in regulating water levels in a complex way. The large simulated storm surge level increase for TC Aila at the Charchanga station may be unrealistic and in our opinion it is an artificial effect due to coarse resolution of the model grid near the station. "

Obviouly feel free changing it.
Otherwise, if you agree, please submit a new version with these new phrasing.
Best regards,
Piero

Dear authors,
I am happy to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication in NHESS. The manuscript has been sent to the technical office for final copy-editing of the text.
Thanks for your contribution to NHESS.
Piero Lionello