The authors provide a comprehensive review of the growth of research in compound weather events. This paper is crucial because it compiles the existing work on compound events, a new area of research that has gotten significant traction in a short time. Moreover, a comprehensive review article on this component is rare. I believe the manuscript will attract researchers from different disciplines to provide valuable information about the recent developments in compound event research. Moreover, the authors identified the area where compound event research is limited and offer valuable and useful suggestions for future research opportunities. 

The authors briefly discuss compound events and multi-hazards in the introduction section. First, they mention that compound research shares similarities with the multi-hazard discipline. At the same time, later, they provide distinct differences between them: compound event research quantifies the interconnections between hazards/ drivers, while multi-hazards explore hazards from a risk perspective. However, there are studies in the literature where compound events research went beyond understanding or quantifying the interconnections and included risk estimates and societal impacts. It seems that these works combined compound events and multi-hazards. How can these works be distinguished in terms of compound events and multi-hazards discipline? Or should we name it as a separate typology of the research area? The authors might be interested in shedding more light on this discussion.

Line 121 – “55 did not quantitively analyse any compound events”. So, what did the papers precisely do?    

Please check lines 121-122.

Lines 122-123, “this review catalogued 388 separate compound events”. There are not 388 different types of compound events. Instead, the authors found 388 compound events, many of which are the same as it is they were categorized later, right?

Line 213—It is not clear in the text that the Jarvis et al. (2018) paper talks about the combined modulator (i.e., the co-occurrence of ENSO and IOD modulators is considered a compound event), which is different than the modulation of compound events’ frequency and intensity by large-scale climatic modulators.

Line 227 – the authors might clarify between “mentioned” and “analyzed”. Are there papers that fall into both categories?

I would like to compliment the authors for a very well-written paper. This work makes a significant contribution to the literature by synthesizing a substantial body of research from the past decade, thereby highlighting key research gaps. Additionally, the paper offers concrete recommendations for future research, which will likely play an important role in shaping upcoming research agendas.

Like Reviewer 1, I found the distinction between multi-hazards and compound events somewhat unclear, particularly the statement that multi-hazards take a ‘risk perspective.’ Do the authors imply that compound event research does not account for risk components such as (dynamic) vulnerability and exposure, beyond the hazard itself? This seems inconsistent with the discussion in Section 3.3, where impacts, closely tied to risk and its components, are addressed. For example, the study by Tanir et al. (2021), cited in the manuscript, demonstrates that compound event research does consider risk. It may be worth further exploring the distinction between studies that incorporate risk and those that do not, and what risk means in the compound community.

Small technical corrections:

L122: hazard pairs instead of papers.

L206-207: “17 types were mentioned within reviewed papers for their influence on the frequency and/or intensity of compound events across 12.2% of reviewed papers.”  within reviewed papers can be removed from sentence.