Observed and projected changes in extreme precipitation intensity and temporal patterns: a case study of the Misa River Basin (Central Italy)
Abstract. Extreme hydrological events such as floods are intensifying under climate change, yet uncertainties in local-scale rainfall projections impede reliable adaptation strategies. This study examines future rainfall extremes and their daily timing in the Misa River basin (Central Italy) using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) and Consortium for Small-scale Modeling in Climate Mode (COSMO-CLM) models, together with rain gauge observations, comparing historical periods (1979–2008 and 1981–2008, respectively) with a future period (2039–2068) under RCP8.5. Mean-state precipitation is projected to decrease annually and in summer, while November average daily precipitation increases. In contrast, extreme precipitation shows a different pattern: both models project more frequent extremes relative to their own historical baselines, with a historical 100-year event becoming 10–20 times more frequent by mid-century. However, the models diverge when evaluated against observed historical flood events: WRF shows a broadly uniform response, with return periods for past events reduced by nearly 50 % and annual exceedance probability doubling, while COSMO shows an event-dependent response, with events remaining within the 95 % confidence bound. Sub-daily event magnitudes, including average peak intensity and nine-hour maximum accumulation, decrease in both models. Overall, both models agree that extremes intensify in a model-relative sense, but this agreement breaks down against observed benchmarks and sub-daily magnitudes, reflecting model-chain spread rather than uniform intensification. These results suggest that historically based design standards may underestimate future rainfall hazards under some projections, underscoring the need to account for model-chain uncertainty in flood risk planning across the Misa River basin.
The manuscript investigates historical and projected changes in extreme precipitation in the Misa River Basin. The topic has regional relevance and may provide useful information for local flood-risk assessment and climate adaptation. However, several methodological and statistical issues limit the robustness of the results. Therefore, substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
1. Lines 190–240, 611–666: Historical events are reconstructed using 1.5-km ERA5-driven WRF, whereas future events come from 4-km WRF and ~2.2-km COSMO simulations. Please perform WRF-historical vs. WRF-future and COSMO-historical vs. COSMO-future comparisons using identical model configurations.
2. Lines 311–331, 531–600: Please clarify how “basin-maximum precipitation” is defined.
3. Lines 255–295: With only five long-term gauges, IDW may strongly influence spatial patterns. Please provide the full workflow and a sensitivity analysis to interpolation assumptions.
4. Lines 286–299: Daily bias correction followed by redistribution using raw-model hourly fractions does not independently correct hourly precipitation structure. Validate sub-daily characteristics against hourly observations where possible or clearly state this limitation when interpreting future hourly extremes.
5. Lines 355–361: The choice of a 70-mm threshold and exactly eight future events needs stronger justification.
6. Lines 778–799: The sensitivity analysis shows that some 9-h windows capture only 40–60% of daily precipitation. Please complement the 9-h analysis with full-event or 24-h rainfall characteristics, especially when discussing flood impacts.
7. Lines 531–600: Table 3 contains extremely wide confidence intervals. Therefore, precise values such as 182→97 or 182→860 years should not be overemphasized.
8. Lines 819–859 and Abstract: The models strongly disagree for observed benchmark events, sub-daily comparisons contain model-chain uncertainty, and no hydrological model is used. Please distinguish clearly between projected precipitation hazard and actual flood risk.
9. Please check consistency in terminology, including “CPM,” “RCM,” “extreme event,” “benchmark event,” and “historical event,” as these terms are sometimes used interchangeably.