General comments:

This manuscript focused on analyzing variations and risk of extreme precipitation events in the Gangjing river basin. The authors used sub-daily records and investigated the changes and temporal scales of extreme precipitation with gamma parameters and M-K test. The research is suitable for Natural hazards and earth system.

The research got some interesting findings that the intensity and occasional of extreme precipitations will increase in spring and elevation is correlated with extreme precipitations in the plain areas and basin, which is very helpful for similar researchers and the local authorities.

The manuscript is written clearly. The methods are appropriate and scientific, and the results are clearly presented. From a general point of view I think the reported findings and methods are very interesting and providing a valuable contribution to the related research in the study area. So I suggested that this manuscript should be accepted after minor modifications.

 Below are some additional comments which might be helpful in guiding a revision.

Details comments

1. Line 12-13: “Extreme precipitations have the characteristics of occasional but sudden occurrence in summer and spring and the intensity and occasional probability will increase in spring in the future in Yifeng, Zhangshu and Ningdu.” Too long, please rewrite this sentence.

2. Line 26: “ reached 180 People ”, P should be lowercase.

3. Line 43-44, “Cao and Lu find that the biggest increase of summer precipitation in China from 1961 to 2010 were found in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River ”. please rewrite this sentence

4. Line81: “75.32%, and 75.74% respectively (Ren, Zhang et al. 2014)..”, Delete the extra full point

5. Line 91: “contribution to the rise of the frequency of extreme precipitation(Mukherjee et al., 2018).” Delete “of extreme precipitation”.

6. Line 92: “the spatial distribution of monthly and annual precipitation and 1-day extreme precipitation and their trends ”, too many and, Rewrite the sentence.

7. Line 95: " many researchers" should be replaced by "previous studies" (for example).

8. Line 106: “but It may cause flash flood and even landslides and debris flows in mountain areas or arid area ”I in “It” should be lowercase.

9. Line 159-160, “extreme events based on intensity such as yearly or seasonal maxima, CWD10, CWD20, R1 day (annual), R10 mm and 160 R20 mm indices from the Expert Team on Climate Change Detection Monitoring Indices (ETCCDMI) (Soro et al., 2016). The sentences is obscure and incomplete. Please rewrite it.

10. Line 168-169: “The main impact of extreme precipitation on humans is to cause flood disasters while flood disasters often occur several times in some years and are missing in other years.”. Not clear, Please consider to rewrite it.

11. Line 197: “The sample L-moments can be computed as the population L-moments of the sampleAssume that the variable X follows a certain”. There should be a full point after the sameple.

12. Line 173: “and southwest in summer (Yin, Kim et al. 2007).”, References section did not list this cited paper.

13. Line 321: “the recurrence period is” It should be ‘return period’

14. Line 389: “(YIN, TIAN et al. 2018)”. References section did not list this cited paper.

15. Line 698: “Precipitation events, especially high intensity precipitation events, are key to precipitation is highly variable in time. Incorrect， Rewrite it.

16. Line 430-431: “Obviously it would be better to use sub-daily precipitation for extremely events analysis to avoid underestimation potentially dramatic consequences they caused like flood risk.”, Rewrite the sentence.

17. Figure 2, “Frequency and contribution of runs of 12-H events.” The Image resolution is low and unclear.

In this paper, extreme precipitation statistics are examined for Ganjiang river basin in China. This work contains interesting results in the field of risks of extreme events in a changing climate, though, in my opinion, there are significant problems that need to be addressed. Thus, I would recommend a major revision of the manuscript according to the following comments, which I hope the authors will find useful.

Major Comments:

• Firstly, I would like to point out that the manuscript is poorly prepared with many errors and elusive points (that are described in the specific & minor comments below).
• Moreover, the results of the statistical procedures are not discussed/explained in terms of their physical meaning, which is critical when dealing with demanding concepts.
• In addition, the intensity of the precipitation events is not examined, at least explicitly, which I think it’s quite crucial when dealing with floods.
• Finally, in the manuscript, there are many grammar and syntax errors. Many sentences/phrases are incomprehensible, and this may obscure the findings.

Specific Comments

1. Abstract: It should be completely revised or rewritten in terms of scope, results, and language.
2. Line 10: Which parameters you refer to?
3. Lines 15-16: How the results help in planning and management? This also affects the discussions and coclusions as well.
4. In Introduction and the rest of the paper: A great number of the cited papers are missing from the reference list or there are not cited properly (e.g., Asadieh & Krakauer, 2015; Westra et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2013; O’Gorman & Schneider, 2009; Pendergrass & Hartmann, 2014; Sillmann et al., 2013; Wu et al. (2014); Brunetti, Maugeri et al. 2004; López-Moreno and Beniston 2009; Fernández-Montes, Seubert et al. 2014; Merino,Fernández‐Vaquero et al. 2016; Xu, Ma et al. 2014; Chen 2015; Shan, Zhang et al. 2001 and more). This largely downgrades the quality of the paper.
5. Lines 104-105: What is the meaning here?
6. Line 127: According to the relief description above, the higher precipitation should be distributed to the south. Thus, why it is mentioned here that the highest precipitation is found to the NW? In addition to the above, I strongly suggest including the spatial distribution of the precipitation in the basin or at lease include a table with the annual and seasonal totals.
7. Line 129: Please provide more info about these weather systems/patterns. What is this quasi-stationary front? Monsoons and typhoons can affect this area, taking also under consideration the high relief of the southern areas.
8. Lines 142-143: The temporal intervals of the raw observations are not mentioned. Are sub-daily observations (and with what time interval)? What “sliced with the purpose to keep data consistency” means? Sliced from daily? If yes, which is the point? If not, please clarify the followed procedure.
9. Line 145: More discussion/explanation in needed regarding verification and correction.
10. Line 171: Please provide info about the flood records.
11. Line 174: What does this mean?
12. Line 175: “only 59 years”- This is the point of statistical analysis; to estimate parameters of a population bases on a sample.
13. Lines 201-208: Please revise the mathematical description of the L-moments. In my opinion, there are some mistakes and omissions. Specifically, β is usually called “inversed scale”; how a_L is calculated and how it is an estimate of α; what is a₁?
14. Lines 227-228: Please elaborate on that. What is the purpose of this procedure?
15. Lines 231-232: The term “run” firstly appears here without a previous explanation. I assumed it refers to the 12-h intervals of precipitation and under this assumption I read the rest of the paper (I hope I got it right). Moreover, the sentence is confusing: What do the phrases “on the standard of an event” and “with the purpose to keep independent for time series analysis” mean? In any case, the choice to work with 12-h values is not justified. Please elaborate more on this choice.
16. Lines 247-248: Why is this important?
17. Line 254/Figure 3: In line 239, it is mentioned that only one station has 28-runs, so whys this value appears in every plot (every station)? The numbers on the plots, I suppose that refer to each station. Please add the name of the station on each plot instead of these arbitrary for the reader numbers.
18. Line 263: What is the meaning of this phrase?
19. Line 267-254: The physical meaning of β is not given. What in terms of precipitation distribution a large or small value of β provides as information? What does this mean about the events? How the conclusions about atmospheric circulation are drawn from this analysis from the values of α and β? It seems that the authors jump to conclusions without the necessary support from the findings.
20. Lines 276-289: The same comments as above stand for the discussion about trends of gamma parameters. What these changes mean in terms of observed precipitation?
21. Line 294: Are the differences between percentiles and gamma distribution any meaningful/important? Why are they mentioned?
22. Lines 304-305: How a change in threshold will help the risk management? How lower values of Gamma function help reduce risk?
23. Lines 325-344: Please explain why you selected two different stations to compare percentiles of one station with gamma distribution results of the other. In addition, why only 5 years of data?
24. Line 340: Where this selection is mentioned in the text and how it is justified?
25. Lines 345-354: As above, I don’t understand how these two tables compare to each other. Why didn’t you use the same station with and without Gamma fitting?
26. Lines 349-350: Which was the actual rain of these flood events?
27. Line 353: What is “underestimated”? The number of events or the precipitation amounts? And why this happens?
28. Line 360: It is quite expected to have more flood events for short-time precipitation with high intensity. Here, it is obvious that an intensity analysis should be added to shed light on these findings.
29. Line 361: How the events are “predicted”? Please explain or rephrase.
30. Lines 377-389: How the risk maps were created? Please provide the methodological steps and the data/layers that have been used to create the maps.
31. Lines 390-395: It is not clear how the durations and amounts are connected. Which are the combinations of amount and duration leading to flood events? In other words, the intensity is needed. In addition, how robust are the conclusions with such a small number of events? Which is the uncertainty of the results?
32. Discussion: In this section, the results along with a literature review should be discussed. In contrast, the results are mentioned vaguely, and the rest of the section refers to the other works. Please completely revise this part in line with the above comment.
33. Lines 398-399: Here, the precipitation intensity is discussed without any previous analysis of it.
34. Line 400: Correlation is not calculated in the analysis, thus, how its statistical significance is deduced?
35. Line 452: Again, correlations are not calculated between any of the parameters. Please calculate correlations and then discuss on the findings.
36. Conclusions: This section should be re-written after a thorough revision of the manuscript. Most importantly, the take home message for the end users is totally missing from the conclusions.

Minor comments

1. Title: The name of the studied area is wrong or misspelled.
2. The citations in the text do not follow the proper format.
3. Figures: All have too small fonts and very low resolution/quality, and they need to be redrawn.
4. Line 23-24: The citation is not valid.
5. Line 50: CMIP5 is not one model. If they used one model, please mention it otherwise rephrase.
6. Lines 53-54: Check syntax
7. Line 123: What means “is the major inflows”?
8. Line 134: Which flood is considered “big”?
9. Line 165: Hurricanes are hazards not impacts.
10. Line 209-210: Reference is needed.
11. Lines 331-332: If the names of these rivers are mentioned on the map, then they are not readable, thus, you should increase the fonts along with the quality of the map.