Dear Author,

I would like to ask you to consider the following points while completing your mansucript:

1) The paper in its present form is mainly descriptive. Please, extend and complement the text with graph(s) based on the basic statistical information presented in the paper (i.e. add at least 1-2 overview graphs).

2) The author has agreed with Referees No. 1 and 2 to make some smaller corrections (also using the Supplement proveded by the Referee) - I appreciate the comments of the Referees (i.e. I have no further comments to this part of the discussion).

3) Referees No. 1 and 3 asked the author to provide more references to the original sources (texts), and both the author and Referee No. 3 suggested it in the form of increasing the number of footnotes. As you may know, the increased utilisation of footnotes does not fit the stardards of the journal (please, consider that this journal is not a historian journal) and therefore I suggest to apply methods/solutions other than footnotes: i.e. please, do not add footnotes. In such cases, in historical climatology and historical flood research there are commonly and successfully applied methods other than footnotes. For example, the author can extend his manuscript with inserting shorter quotations into the text itself (e.g. in brackets). If this method is not feasable (e.g. with longer text), the author can also refer to the relevant text entries with numbers (i.e. (S1, S2 - see e.g. Wetter et al 2011 paper on historical Rhine floods at Basel), and add the texts at the end of the paper etc. (please let me know if you need more ways/examples/information).

Thank you for your work, and I am looking forward to read the revised/extended version of your fine paper.