the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Heavy Precipitation Events of Various Durations Across Germany: A Station-Based Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variability Using the Block Maxima Method
Abstract. As heavy precipitation events (HPEs) pose substantial risks to natural and human systems, a growing body of research has focused on their behaviour under ongoing climate change, hypothesising that rising air temperature can have a pronounced influence on precipitation patterns, including HPEs of various durations. Recent observational and modelling studies suggest that this influence tends to be particularly strong for short‑duration HPEs, albeit their assessment appears challenging due to limited availability of precipitation data with both high temporal resolution and long-term observational records. Therefore, in this study, we made use of recently collected, digitised, and quality‑controlled 5‑minute precipitation data from rain‑gauge stations across Germany in order to assess the spatial and temporal variability of HPEs of nine durations ranging from 5 minutes to 7 days. Using the block maxima method, we confirmed that the spatial and temporal variability of annual maximum precipitation totals (AMPTs) is strongly duration‑dependent. While the medians of short‑duration AMPTs calculated for individual stations are relatively evenly distributed across Germany, those of medium‑ and long‑duration AMPTs increasingly reflect the influence of topography. Moreover, short‑duration AMPTs exhibit higher and spatially scattered event to event variability, contrasting with the relatively consistent and regionally organised event to event variability observed for long‑duration AMPTs. The duration‑dependent nature of AMPTs is further reflected in their long‑term variability. While positive trends prevail for AMPTs with durations of 1 to 7 hours, trends for AMPTs with durations of 3 to 7 days are more balanced or even slightly negative, depending on the investigation period. Yet, statistically significant – both positive and negative – trends are relatively rare and sensitive to changes in the measurement system and investigation period.
- Preprint
(3412 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 May 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1067', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angelika Palarz, 08 May 2026
reply
We thank the referee for the constructive comments.
Our detailed responses are provided in the attached supplement.On behalf of all co-authors,
Angelika Palarz et al.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1067-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angelika Palarz, 08 May 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1067', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Apr 2026
reply
Dear authors, please find the comments in the attached PDF file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Angelika Palarz, 08 May 2026
reply
We thank the referee for the constructive comments.
Our detailed responses are provided in the attached supplement.On behalf of all co-authors,
Angelika Palarz et al.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1067-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Angelika Palarz, 08 May 2026
reply
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1067', Anonymous Referee #3, 27 Apr 2026
reply
This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic: the spatial and temporal variability of heavy precipitation events across Germany using recently digitized and quality-controlled high-resolution rain-gauge observations. The main strength of the study is the use of 5-minute station data across various accumulation durations, which allows a systematic comparison from short-duration to multi-day events. The descriptive results are generally plausible, especially the contrast between relatively uniform short-duration maxima and increasingly topography-influenced long-duration maxima. The manuscript also offers an overview of how trend behaviour changes with duration.
At the same time, the paper is not yet ready for publication in its present form. The most important weaknesses concern the treatment of short-duration inhomogeneities, the lack of a clearly separated discussion section, and several methodological and presentation issues that currently limit the robustness of the conclusions.
Major comments
- Treatment of short-duration trends
The manuscript shows that very short durations, especially 5-minute annual maxima, are strongly affected by inhomogeneities associated with the transition from analogue to digital instruments. Although the authors state that formal inference should therefore be restricted to durations of one hour or longer, the 5- and 30-minute results remain visible in the main trend figures and continue to shape the overall impression of the results. This should be handled more consistently. Either these durations should be removed from the main trend analysis and moved to supplementary material, or their status should be stated much more clearly as diagnostic rather than inferential.
- Missing discussion section & other structural comments
The final section currently reads more like a combined discussion and conclusion than a true conclusion. A separate discussion section is needed. This would allow the authors to distinguish more clearly between results directly supported by the analyses and broader physical interpretation, including the proposed contrast between convective controls for short-duration events and large-scale circulation controls for long-duration events.
Figures: To my opinion, Figures 1, 2, and 3 can be removed or put to the supplementary information material.
- Methodological issues
AMAX: The paper correctly describes the pros and cons of AMAX. Due to limited data availability (which is highlighted also as a major shortcoming), the choice of AMAX compared to other approaches such as the POT is not fully understandable. This might heavily impact on the robustness of the extreme value estimation. This requires at least some discussion.
The Mann-Kendall test and Sen's slope estimator are appropriate and widely used, but the manuscript should discuss the implications of performing many station-wise significance tests across multiple durations and periods. The issue of multiple testing is currently not addressed. Even if no formal correction is applied, this limitation should be acknowledged explicitly so that local significance patterns are not overinterpreted.
- Interpretation of long-duration trends
The more balanced or partly negative trends for 3- to 7-day events are potentially interesting, but the interpretation remains limited. Annual maxima may merge physically different events occurring in different seasons and regions. Opposing seasonal tendencies could therefore mask clearer signals in annual statistics. This point should at least be discussed, and ideally explored more directly.
- Level of scientific novelty
The strongest potentiael of the paper lies in the data basis and the systematic duration-dependent comparison across Germany. That is valuable! However, beyond the descriptive results, the scientific novelty remains moderate unless the interpretation is sharpened or additional analyses are included. The main message that short-duration precipitation extremes do not follow the topography is not new and already published by colleagues from DWD. Thus, the paper would benefit from either a more explicit positioning as a benchmark descriptive study or a deeper analysis of the proposed physical drivers.
Minor comments
- The abstract should state the trend-analysis periods more clearly and directly acknowledge the limitations of very short durations.
- Several figures need improvement in readability, especially Figure 3 and some of the multi-panel maps.
- The manuscript should also report the effective station sample size more clearly for the varying start-year analyses, and the reference list should be checked carefully for completeness and consistency.
- Introduction: few times “Fowel et al.F” is cited, but should be “Fowler”
Conclusion
This is a relevant manuscript built on a valuable dataset, and it has the potential to become a useful contribution to the literature on heavy precipitation in Germany. However, the current version requires a very substantial revision before publication. I therefore recommend rejection of the current manuscript, but due to the potential of the new data set, I would like to encourage the authors for resubmission after substantial revisions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1067-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Angelika Palarz, 08 May 2026
reply
We thank the referee for the constructive comments.
Our detailed responses are provided in the attached supplement.On behalf of all co-authors,
Angelika Palarz et al.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1067-AC3
Data sets
Data and R Code for: "Heavy Precipitation Events of Various Durations Across Germany: A Station-Based Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variability Using the Block Maxima Method" Angelika Palarz https://zenodo.org/records/18606227
Model code and software
Data and R Code for: "Heavy Precipitation Events of Various Durations Across Germany: A Station-Based Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variability Using the Block Maxima Method" Angelika Palarz https://zenodo.org/records/18606227
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 700 | 527 | 87 | 1,314 | 64 | 124 |
- HTML: 700
- PDF: 527
- XML: 87
- Total: 1,314
- BibTeX: 64
- EndNote: 124
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
see file attached, please