Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Received: 26 March 2014 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 16 June 2014
Revised: 30 August 2014 – Accepted: 1 September 2014 – Published: 15 October 2014
Abstract. The increased frequency and magnitude of ex- more, the IFD analysis showed that urban flash flood produc-
treme rainfall events due to anthropogenic climate change, ing hourly rainfall intensities have increased over time.
and decadal and multi-decadal climate variability question
the stationary climate assumption. The possible violation of
stationarity in climate can cause erroneous estimation of de-
sign rainfalls derived from extreme rainfall frequency ana- 1 Introduction
lysis. This may result in significant consequences for infra-
structure and flood protection projects since design rainfalls Over the last 100 years, global surface temperature has in-
are essential input for design of these projects. Therefore, creased approximately by 0.75 ◦ C, and this warming can-
there is a need to conduct frequency analysis of extreme not be explained by natural variability alone (IPCC, 2007).
rainfall events in the context of non-stationarity, when non- IPCC (2007) stated that excessive greenhouse gas emissions
stationarity is present in extreme rainfall events. A method- due to human activities are the main reason for current global
ology consisting of threshold selection, extreme rainfall data warming. Increasing frequency and magnitude of extreme
(peaks over threshold data) construction, trend and non- weather events is one of the main concerns caused by global
stationarity analysis, and stationary and non-stationary gen- warming. Increases in extreme rainfall frequency and mag-
eralised Pareto distribution (GPD) models was developed in nitude have already been recorded in many regions of the
this paper to investigate trends and non-stationarity in ex- world (Mueller and Pfister, 2011; Dourte et al., 2013; Bürger
treme rainfall events, and potential impacts of climate change et al., 2014; Jena et al., 2014), even in some regions where
and variability on intensity–frequency–duration (IFD) re- the mean rainfall has shown decreasing trends (Tryhon and
lationships. The methodology developed was successfully DeGaetano, 2011). Moreover, the magnitude and frequency
implemented using rainfall data from an observation sta- of extreme rainfall events are very likely to increase in the
tion in Melbourne (Australia) for storm durations ranging future due to global warming (IPCC, 2007).
from 6 min to 72 h. Although statistically significant trends Increased frequency and magnitude of extreme rainfall
were detected in extreme rainfall data for storm durations events questions the stationary climate assumption (i.e. the
of 30 min, 3 h and 48 h, statistical non-stationarity tests and statistical properties of the rainfall do not change over time),
non-stationary GPD models did not indicate non-stationarity which is an underlying assumption of frequency analysis
for these storm durations and other storm durations. It was of extreme rainfalls. Khaliq et al. (2006) explained that
also found that the stationary GPD models were capable of the classical notions of probability of exceedance and re-
fitting extreme rainfall data for all storm durations. Further- turn period are no longer valid under non-stationarity. The
possible violation of stationarity in climate increases con- stationarity. Non-stationarity analysis of the extreme rainfall
cerns amongst hydrologists and water resources engineers data was further carried out using statistical non-stationarity
about the accuracy of design rainfalls, which are derived tests and NSGPD models in this study.
from frequency analysis of extreme rainfall events under the Potential effects of climate change on the IFD relationship
stationary climate assumption. Erroneous selection of de- were investigated through GPD models in this study follow-
sign rainfalls can cause significant problems for water in- ing the stationarity analysis. Expected rainfall intensities for
frastructure projects and flood mitigation works, since the return periods of 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years were derived
design rainfalls are an important input for design of these and compared for two time slices: 1925–1966 (i.e. cooler pe-
projects. Therefore, there is a need to conduct frequency riod) and 1967–2010 (warmer period) after selecting 1967 as
analysis of extreme rainfall events under the context of the the change point based on the findings of Yilmaz and Per-
non-stationarity. era (2014). Yilmaz and Perera (2014) conducted the change
Sugahara et al. (2009) carried out a frequency analysis point analysis for extreme rainfall data for storm durations
of extreme daily rainfalls in the city of São Paulo using ranging from 6 min to 72 h in Melbourne, and stated that the
data over the period of 1933–2005. They considered non- year 1966 is the change point. Moreover, Jones (2012) listed
stationarity in frequency analysis through introducing time the period 1910–1967 as stationary and 1968–2010 as non-
dependency to the parameters of generalised Pareto distri- stationary according to the observed minimum and maxi-
bution (GPD), which is one of the widely used distributions mum temperature and rainfall data in south-eastern Australia
in frequency analysis of extreme values. Park et al. (2011) (which includes the Melbourne region). Therefore, the entire
developed non-stationary generalised extreme value (GEV) data set was divided into two periods (i.e. 1925–1966 and
distribution (another commonly used extreme value distri- 1967–2010) and the IFD information was generated for the
bution) models for frequency analysis of extreme rainfalls two periods to understand whether there are any changes in
in Korea considering non-stationarity similar to Sugahara et rainfall intensities between these cooler and warmer periods.
al. (2009). Tramblay et al. (2013) performed non-stationary Changes in rainfall intensities (i.e. IFD information) over
heavy rainfall (it should be noted that “heavy” rainfall used time can occur due to both climate change and natural cli-
here as same as “extreme” rainfall in Sugahara et al., 2009) mate modes (i.e. natural climate variability). The El Niño–
analysis using daily rainfall data of the period 1958–2008 Southern Oscillation (ENSO) with El Niño and La Niña
in France. They incorporated the climatic covariates into the phases (Verdon et al., 2004), the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)
generalised Pareto distribution parameters to consider non- (Ashok et al., 2003), the Southern Annual Mode (SAM)
stationarity. (Meneghini et al., 2007), and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscil-
There are very few studies, which investigated extreme lation (IPO) (Verdon-Kidd and Kiem, 2009) were expressed
rainfall frequency analysis in the context of non-stationarity as significant climate modes, which have an influence on
in Australia. Jakob et al. (2011a, b) investigated the potential the precipitation variability in Victoria (Australia), which in-
effects of climate change and variability on rainfall intensity– cludes the Melbourne region. IPO affects the precipitation
frequency–duration (IFD) relationships in Australia, consid- variability in Victoria itself; it also modulates the association
ering possible non-stationarity of extreme rainfall data in de- between ENSO and Australian climate (Power et al., 1999;
sign rainfall estimates. Yilmaz and Perera (2014) developed Kiem et al., 2003; Micevski et al., 2006). ENSO and Aus-
stationary and non-stationary GEV models using a single sta- tralian climate relationship was strong in particular during
tion in Melbourne considering data for storm durations rang- the IPO negative phases (i.e associated with wetter condi-
ing from 6 min to 72 h to construct IFD curves through fre- tions). Moreover, Kiem et al. (2003) stated that La Niña
quency analysis. They investigated the advantages of non- events, which were increased during the negative IPO phases,
stationary models over stationary ones using graphical tests. are the primary driver for flood risk in Australia. It can be
In this paper, we aim to investigate extreme rainfall non- seen from the above studies that there is a need to investi-
stationarity through trend analysis, non-stationarity tests and gate the IPO and extreme rainfall relationship due to its di-
non-stationary GPD models (NSGPD). The extreme rain- rect effects on Australian rainfall as well as effects of IPO
fall trend analysis was performed using data from a rain- on ENSO, which has a strong link to Australian rainfall. The
fall station in Melbourne considering storm durations of 6 effects of IPO on extreme rainfalls were investigated in this
and 30 min and 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h. Trend anal- study through extreme rainfall IFD analysis during IPO neg-
ysis was used to determine whether the extreme rainfall se- ative and positive phases. Salinger (2005) and Dai (2013)
ries have a general increase or decrease over time. However, defined time periods of IPO negative and positive phases
trends do not necessarily mean non-stationarity. The mean as 1947–1976 and 1977–1998, respectively. Therefore, ex-
and variance of extreme rainfall data series may not change treme rainfall IFD analysis was performed for these two pe-
over time (i.e. stationarity), despite the presence of trends riods to explain the relationship between IPO and extreme
in extreme rainfall data series (Wang et al., 2006). There- rainfalls. It should be noted that potential effects of climate
fore, further analysis should be conducted to check whether change on design rainfall intensities (IFD information) were
the detected trends may correspond to extreme rainfall non- investigated through GPD models developed for 1925–1966
“POT data” terminology has been used interchangeably in al., 2008). However, data independency is still a requirement
the rest of the paper. of these tests. Mann–Kendall (MK) and Spearman’s rho (SR)
Despite the above-mentioned advantages of the POT are non-parametric rank-based trend tests, which are com-
method over the block maxima approach, the POT approach monly used for trend detection of hydrometeorological data
is prone to producing dependent data. Data independency (Yue et al., 2002). Formulation and details of the MK and SR
is an underlying requirement for use of extreme value dis- tests can be found in Kundzewicz and Robson (2000). MK
tributions in frequency analysis. Therefore, the data depen- and SR tests were applied to POT data sets of all storm dura-
dency was removed in this study from the POT data of all tions (6 and 30 min, and 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h) over
storm durations through the method recommended by Jakob the period of 1925–2010 after applying the autocorrelation
et al. (2011a). If there is a cluster of POT events, they rec- test as explained earlier.
ommended that the POT values 24 h prior to and after the Trend tests are used to determine whether the time se-
peak rainfall event be removed from the data set. For exam- ries data has a general increase or decrease in trend.
ple, if a peak rainfall value in a cluster of POT data is selected However, increasing or decreasing trends do not guaran-
for 9 November 2013, rainfall values over the threshold on 8 tee non-stationarity even if they are statistically significant.
and 10 November 2013 are not considered in the POT data Therefore, it is useful to conduct further analysis in or-
set. None of the POT data sets (after the application of the der to investigate non-stationarity of the data sets. In this
method by Jakob et al., 2011a) showed dependency, even at study, three statistical tests, namely augmented Dickey–
the 0.1 significance level, according to the autocorrelation Fuller (ADF), Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS)
test as explained in Chiew and Siriwardena (2005). and Phillips–Perron (PP), were employed to investigate the
The critical step in the construction of POT data is the se- non-stationarity in extreme rainfall data. These tests were se-
lection of the appropriate threshold value. Researchers have lected due to their proven capability in hydrological studies
proposed several procedures for selecting the thresholds, but (Wang et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006; Yoo, 2007). Sen and
a general and objective method is yet to emerge (Lang et Niedzielski (2010) and van Gelder et al. (2007) explain the
al., 1999; Coles, 2001; Katz et al., 2005). The threshold se- details of these tests. Non-stationarity of data is the null hy-
lection task is a compromise between bias and variance. If the pothesis of ADF and PP tests, whereas the null hypothesis
threshold is too low, the asymptotic arguments underlying the of the KPSS test is stationarity of the data series. Tests were
derivation of the GPD model are violated. On the other hand, performed at 0.05 significance level in this study. Whenever
too high a threshold will result in fewer excesses (i.e. rainfall the significance level is higher than the p value (probability)
values above threshold) to estimate the shape and scale pa- of the test statistic, the null hypothesis is rejected.
rameter, leading to high variance. Therefore, in the threshold
selection, it should be considered whether the limiting model 3.3 Stationary GPD models
provides a sufficiently good approximation compared with
the variance of the parameter estimate (Coles, 2001; Katz et Several studies recommended the use of GPD for frequency
al., 2005). analysis of POT data (e.g. Beguería et al., 2011). Therefore,
Beguería et al. (2011), Coles (2001), and Lang et al. (1999) GPD is used in this study to derive the extreme rainfall IFD
recommended the mean residual plots to select the thresh- relationships. GPD is a flexible, long-tailed distribution de-
old. The mean residual plot indicates the relationship be- fined by shape (γ ) and scale (σ ) parameters. Equation (1)
tween mean excesses (i.e. mean of values above the thresh- shows the cumulative distribution function of GPD. It should
old) and various thresholds. Mean excess is a linear func- be noted that the stationary GPD model corresponds to con-
tion of threshold in GPD (Coles, 2001). Therefore, threshold ventional GPD models with constant shape and scale param-
value should be selected from the domain, where the mean eters.
residual plot shows linearity (i.e. linearity between mean ex-
F (y, σ, γ ) = P (X ≤ u+y|X≥u)
cess and threshold) (Hu, 2013). The exact threshold value
1
can be determined from the linear domain in such a way 1− 1+ γ y − γ , σ > 0, 1 + γ y > 0
that on average 1.65–3.0 extreme events per year are selected = σ σ (1)
(e.g. Jakob et al., 2011a; Cunnane, 1973). This study adopted 1− exp −y ,
σ > 0, γ = 0
σ
the mean residual plot method for selection of appropriate
thresholds for all storm durations. The scale parameter (σ in Eq. 1) characterises the spread of
distribution, whereas the shape parameter (γ in Eq. 1) char-
3.2 Trend and non-stationarity tests acterises the tail features (Sugahara et al., 2009). Rainfall in-
tensities in millimetres per hour for different return periods
Trend tests can be broadly grouped into two categories: para- (2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years in this study) are calculated
metric and non-parametric methods. Non-parametric tests using the inverse cumulative distribution function. Details of
are more appropriate for non-normally distributed and cen- GPD can be found in Sugahara et al. (2009), Coles (2001)
sored hydrometeorological time series data (Bouza-Deano et and Rao and Hamed (2000).
There are different approaches such as maximum likeli- tected trends based on MK and SR tests correspond to non-
hood and L moments to estimate the parameters of GPD. stationarity. If it is proven that extreme rainfall data show
In this study, the L moments method was used to estimate non-stationarity over time, it is preferable to use NSGPD
GPD parameters since it is less affected by data variability models instead of stationary GPD models. Non-stationary
and outliers (Borujeni and Sulaiman, 2009). Hosking (1990) GPD models can be developed through the incorporation
described the details of the L moments method. of non-stationarity features (i.e. time dependency or climate
Goodness of fit of the stationary GPD models was deter- covariates) into the scale parameter of the stationary GPD
mined using the graphical diagnostics and statistical tests. model in Eq. (1) (Coles, 2001; Khaliq et al., 2006). Thus,
The probability (P–P) and the quantile (Q–Q) plots are com- the scale parameter is not constant and varies with time in
mon diagnostic graphs. In P–P plot, the x axis shows empir- non-stationary models. It is also possible to incorporate the
ical cumulative distribution function (CDF) values, whereas non-stationarity into the shape parameter. However, it is very
the y axis shows theoretical CDF values. In Q–Q plot, the difficult to estimate the shape parameter of the extreme val-
x axis includes input (observed) data values, whereas the ues distribution with precision when it is time dependent, and
y axis shows the theoretical (fitted) distribution quantiles cal- therefore it is not realistic to attempt to estimate the shape pa-
culated by rameter as a smooth function of time (Coles, 2001).
In this study, two types of non-stationary GPD models
0.5
F −1 Fn (xi ) − , (2) were developed with parameters as explained below:
n
– Model NSGPD1 σ = exp(β0 + β1 xt), γ (constant),
where F −1 (x) is inverse CDF, Fn (x) is empirical CDF, and
n is sample size. – Model NSGPD2 σ = exp(β0 + β1 xt + β2 xt 2 ),
Close distribution of the points of probability and quan- γ (constant).
tile plots around the unit diagonal indicates a successful fit. In the above models, β0 , β1 and β2 modify the scale param-
Probability and quantile plots explain similar information; eters of NSGPD models. It should be noted that the expo-
however, different pairs of data are used in probability and nential function has been adopted to introduce time depen-
quantile plots. It is beneficial to use both plots to assess the dency into the scale parameter to ensure its positivity. There
goodness of fit, since one plot can show a very good fit while are other functions which result in positive scale parameters;
the other can show a poor fit. Coles (2001) explains the de- however an exponential function was used in this study, since
tails of the diagnostic graphs. When probability and quantile it was recommended by some studies (e.g. Furrer et al., 2010)
plots show different results, statistical tests are useful to de- in the literature. NSGPD1 and NSGPD2 were applied to POT
termine adequacy of the fit. data of all storm durations in this study over the two periods
In addition to diagnostic graphs, Kolmogorov–Smirnov (1925–1966 and 1967–2010).
(KS), Anderson–Darling (AD), and chi-square (CS) statisti- The maximum likelihood method was used for parameter
cal tests were used in this study to check the goodness of fit. estimation of NSGPD models because of its suitability for
These tests were used in the past hydrological applications of incorporating non-stationary features into the distribution pa-
extreme value analysis (Laio, 2004; Salarpour et al., 2012). rameters as covariates (Sugahara et al., 2009). Shang et
They are used to determine whether a sample comes from al. (2011) explain the details of the maximum likelihood
a hypothesised continuous distribution (GPD in this study). method.
Null hypothesis (H0 ) of the tests is “data follow the speci- Superiority of the NSGPD models over the stationary GPD
fied distribution”. If the test statistic is larger than the crit- models were investigated through the deviance statistic test.
ical value at the specified significance level, then the alter- Let M0 and M1 be the stationary and the non-stationary mod-
native hypothesis (HA ), which is “data do not follow GPD”, els, respectively, such that M0 ⊂ M1 . The deviance test is
is accepted (Yilmaz and Perera, 2014). Details of these tests used to compare the superiority of M1 over M0 using the
can be seen in Di Baldassarre et al. (2009) and Salarpour et log-likelihood difference (D) using the following equation
al. (2012). (Coles, 2001; El Adlouni et al., 2007):
As explained in Sect. 1, the extreme rainfall data of all n n
storm durations were fitted to the stationary GPD models for D = 2 l1 (M1 ) − l0 (M0 ) , (3)
1925–1966 and 1967–2010 periods to investigate the climate
change effects on IFD information, and for 1947–1976 (IPO where l1 (M1 ) and l0 (M0 ) denote the maximised log-
negative phase) and 1977–1998 (IPO positive phase) to in- likelihood under models M1 and M0 , respectively. The test
vestigate the IPO and extreme rainfall relationship. of the validity of one model against the other (in this case
M1 against M0 ) is based on the probability distribution of
3.4 Non-stationary GPD (NSGPD) models D, which is approximated by chi-square distribution. For in-
stance, consider comparing NSGPD1 model with three pa-
NSGPD models were used along with statistical non- rameters (i.e. β0 , β1 , γ ) denoted by M1 in Eq. (3) with sta-
stationarity tests in this study to identify whether the de- tionary GPD model with two constant parameters (i.e. σ and
4.4 Stationary GPD models period of 1967–2010 were larger than those estimates
of the 1925–1966 period.
POT data were used in stationary GPD models for two dif-
ferent pairs of periods, – For the return periods above 10 years, the majority of
hourly rainfall intensity estimates over the period 1967–
– 1925–1966 and 1967–2010 (to investigate the effects of 2010 were larger than those estimates for the period of
climate change), 1925–1966.
– IPO negative (1947–1976) and positive (1977–1998) It is possible to conclude then that urban flash-flood-
phases (to investigate the IPO and extreme rainfall re- producing (i.e. flooding occurring in less than 6 h of rain;
lationship), Hapuarachchi et al., 2011) hourly rainfall intensities have in-
creased over time (i.e. from 1925–1966 to 1967–2010), with
to compute IFD information under stationary conditions. minor exceptions (i.e. 1 h storm durations of return periods
This section explains the results of stationary GPD mod- above 10 years, and 2 h storm duration of 50- and 100-year
els over the periods of 1925–1966 and 1967–2010, whereas return periods). It should be noted that 90 % confidence limits
Sect. 4.5 shows the results of GPD models developed for the of rainfall intensity estimates were also calculated, but they
IPO analysis. are not shown in Fig. 4 in order to remove the clutter in the
The graphical diagnostic and statistical tests showed that plots.
all extreme data sets (for all storm durations) were success-
fully fitted with the stationary GPD models. Figure 3 shows 4.5 IPO analysis
examples of the diagnostic graphs (i.e. probability and quan-
The relationship between extreme rainfall data and IPO was
tile plots) of stationary GPD models for the extreme rain-
investigated through IFD analysis for the periods of IPO neg-
fall data of 6 min, 3 h and 24 h storm durations over the
ative (1947–1976) and positive (1977–1998) phases. Results
1925–1966 period. Table 3 indicates the results of the station-
of the IPO analysis are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 5.
ary GPD analysis (i.e. rainfall intensity estimates), whereas
Results of the IPO analysis (Table 4 and Fig. 5) can be
Fig. 4 illustrates the same information graphically for all
summarised as follows:
storm durations.
Primary findings of the stationary GPD analysis are listed – The rainfall intensities of storm durations equal to or
below: greater than 24 h (24, 48 and 72 h) for all return periods
during the IPO negative phase were larger than the cor-
– Rainfall intensity estimates of the stationary GPD mod- responding rainfall intensities during the IPO positive
els over the period 1925–1966 were larger than those phase.
estimates of the period 1967–2010 for all storm dura-
tions equal or greater than 24 h (i.e. 24, 48 and 72 h) – The rainfall intensities of all storm durations for the re-
except 24 h storm duration of 2-year return period. turn periods greater than or equal to 20 years (i.e. 20, 50
and 100 years) during the IPO negative phase exhibited
– For return periods less than or equal to 10 years, rainfall larger values relative to those rainfall intensities for the
intensity estimates of sub-daily storm durations for the IPO positive phase, as can be seen Table 4 and Fig. 5a.
Figure 3. Goodness of fit for extreme rainfall data of (a) 6 min, (b) 3 h and (c) 24 h over the 1925–1966 period.
Table 3. Rainfall intensity (mm h−1 ) estimates derived from stationary GPD models over the periods 1925–1966 and 1967–2010.
1967–2010
1925–1966
1967–2010
1925–1966
1967–2010
1925–1966
1967–2010
1925–1966
1967–2010
1925–1966
1967–2010
6 min 47.1 47.3 64.9 66.4 80.7 85.3 98.9 109.2 127.1 150.9 152.2 192.2
30 min 22.4 25.2 31.5 35.2 40.6 43.2 52.2 51.4 72.8 62.8 93.5 71.8
1h 12.1 12.8 16.4 17.3 20.6 21.2 25.9 25.7 35.1 32.4 44.2 38.2
2h 9.3 9.8 12.3 12.9 15.0 15.5 18.1 18.5 23.1 22.8 27.5 26.5
3h 7.1 7.5 9.2 9.8 10.9 11.7 12.9 13.7 15.9 16.6 18.5 19.0
6h 4.5 4.7 5.8 6.1 6.8 7.3 8.0 8.7 9.8 10.7 11.2 12.4
12 h 2.5 2.6 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.8 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.9 7.1
24 h 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.5 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.6 4.5 4.1
48 h 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.7 2.3 3.2 2.7
72 h 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.1
– Rainfall intensities of storm durations below 3 h for the In summary, increases in rainfall intensities were observed
return periods less than or equal to 10 years (i.e. 2, 5 and during the IPO negative phase for storms with long durations
10 years) during the IPO negative phase were lower than and high return periods, which is consistent with the litera-
those design rainfall intensities for the positive phase. ture (Kiem et al., 2003). In other words, the IPO negative
This was also the case for the rainfall intensity estimates phase can be the driver of higher rainfall intensities for long
for storm durations between 3 and 12 h for return peri- durations and high return periods. However, the trends in ex-
ods of 2 and 5 years. treme rainfall data and differences in rainfall intensities for
short storm durations and return periods cannot be explained
with the IPO influence.
Table 4. Rainfall intensity (mm h−1 ) estimates derived from IPO analysis.
In this study, only the relationship of IPO and extreme causes increases in intensity and frequency of extreme rain-
rainfall was investigated since the literature indicated IPO to falls, since the atmosphere can hold more water vapour in a
be a very influential climate mode on extreme rainfall events warmer climate (Chu et al., 2014). The increase in rainfall
in Victoria. However, there is a need to examine relation- extremes is larger than changes in mean rainfall in a warmer
ships between extreme rainfalls and other climate modes to climate, because extreme precipitation relates to increases in
correctly identify the primary driver for the extreme rainfall moisture content of atmosphere (Kharin and Zwier, 2005).
trends and differences in rainfall intensity estimates. Also, it Some studies (e.g. Murphy and Timbal, 2008; CSIRO,
is necessary to conduct similar analysis using data of other 2010) on rainfall changes in south-eastern Australia stated
stations to assess the findings of this study. that, although there is no clear evidence to attribute rainfall
change directly to the anthropogenic climate change, it still
4.6 Climate change and extreme rainfalls cannot be ignored. Rainfall changes are linked at least in part
to the climate change in south-eastern Australia. Neverthe-
less, it is very difficult to attribute extreme rainfall trends and
Anthropogenic climate change may be the reason for the
rainfall intensity differences to anthropogenic climate change
findings of this study (differences in rainfall intensity esti-
due to the limited historical data records and strong effects of
mates over time and detected trends). Anthropogenic climate
natural climate variability (Westra et al., 2010). Further ana-
change can impact not only the extreme rainfalls directly,
lysis to investigate the reasons of the extreme rainfall trends
but also the dynamics of key climate modes. Climate change
Figure 5. Graphical illustration of results of IPO negative- and It should be noted that this study used data from a sin-
positive-phase analysis. gle station to demonstrate the methodology for future stud-
ies. It is not realistic to extrapolate the findings of this study
for larger spatial scales such as even the entire Melbourne
and design rainfall intensity differences is beyond the scope metropolitan area without further analysis using rainfall data
of this paper. from multiple observation stations within the area. It is rec-
ommended that the methodology developed in this study be
applied using data from multiple stations for larger spatial
5 Conclusions scales. It is also recommended that similar analysis of this
study be conducted for future time periods using future rain-
A methodology consisting of threshold selection, extreme fall data derived from climate models, since several studies
rainfall data (peaks over threshold data) construction, trend highlighted very likely increases in intensity and frequency
and non-stationarity tests, and stationary and non-stationary of extreme rainfalls in future.
generalised Pareto distribution (GPD) models was developed
in this paper to investigate the potential effects of climate
change and variability on extreme rainfalls and intensity– Acknowledgements. This work was funded by the Victoria Univer-
frequency–duration (IFD) relationships. The methodology sity Researcher Development Grants Scheme. The authors would
developed was successfully implemented using extreme rain- like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
fall data of a single observation station in Melbourne (Aus- comments, which have improved the content and clarity of the
tralia). The same methodology can be adopted for other sta- paper.
tions in order to develop studies of larger spatial scale by
analysing data of multiple stations. Major findings and con- Edited by: A. Bronstert
clusions of this study are as follows:
Bouza-Deano, R., Ternero-Rodriguez, M., and Fernandez- in south-east Australia, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2273–
Espinosa, A. J.: Trend study and assessment of surface water 2284, doi:10.5194/nhess-11-2273-2011, 2011b.
quality in the Ebro River (Spain), J. Hydrol., 361, 227–239, Jena, P. P., Chatterjee, C., Pradhan, G., and Mishra, A.: Are recent
2008. frequent high floods in Mahanadi basin in eastern India due to
Bürger, G., Heistermann, M., and Bronstert, A.: Towards Subdaily increase in extreme rainfalls?, J. Hydrol., 517, 847–862, 2014.
Rainfall Disaggregation via Clausius–Clapeyron, J. Hydromete- Jones, R. N.: Detecting and Attributing Nonlinear Anthropogenic
orol., 15, 1303–1311, 2014. Regional Warming in Southeastern Australia, J. Geophys. Res.,
Chiew, F. and Siriwardena, L.: Trend, CRC for Catchment Hydrol- 117, D04105, doi:10.1029/2011JD016328, 2012.
ogy: Australia, 23 pp., 2005. Katz, R. W., Brush, G. S., and Parlange, M. B.: Statistics of ex-
Chu, P.-S., Chen, D.-J., and Lin, P.-L.: Trends in precipitation tremes modeling ecological disturbances, Ecology, 86, 1124–
extremes during the typhoon season in Taiwan over the last 1134, 2005.
60 years, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 15, 37–43, doi:10.1002/asl2.464, Khaliq, M. N., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., Ondo, J.-C., Gachon, P.,
2014. and Bobee, B.: Frequency analysis of a sequence of dependent
Coles, S.: An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Val- and/or non-stationary hydro-meteorological observations: A re-
ues, Springer-Verlag Inc., London, UK, 208 pp., 2001. view, J. Hydrology, 329, 534–552, 2006.
CSIRO, Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia: Kharin, V. V. and Zwiers, F. W.: Estimating extremes in transient
A synthesis of findings from Phase 1 of the South Eastern Aus- climate change simulations. J. Climate, 18, 1156–1173, 2005.
tralian Climate Initiative (SEACI), Sydney, Australia, 2010. Kiem, A. S., Franks, S. W., and Kuczera, G.: Multi-decadal
Cunnane, C.: A particular comparison of annual maxima and partial variability of flood risk, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1035,
duration series methods of ?ood frequency prediction, J. Hydrol., doi:10.1029/2002GL015992, 2003.
18, 257–271, 1973. Kundzewicz, Z. W. and Robson, A.: Detecting trend and other
Dai, A.: The influence of the inter-decadal Pacific oscillation on changes in hydrological data, WCDMP, no. 45, WMO-TD,
US precipitation during 1923–2010, Clim. Dynam., 41, 633–646, no. 1013, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzer-
2013. land, 2000.
Di Baldassarre, G., Laio, F., and Montanari, A.: Design flood es- Laio, F.: Cramer–von Mises and Anderson–Darling goodness of fit
timation using model selection criteria, Phys. Chem. Earth, 34, tests for extreme value distributions with unknown parameters,
606–611, 2009. Water Resour. Res., 40, W09308, doi:10.1029/2004WR003204,
Dourte, D., Shukla, S., Singh, P., and Haman, D.: Rainfall Intensity- 2004.
Duration-Frequency Relationships for Andhra Pradesh, India: Lang, M., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., and Bobee, B.: Towards operational
Changing Rainfall Patterns and Implications for Runoff and guidelines for over-threshold modelling, J. Hydrol., 225, 103–
Groundwater Recharge, J. Hydrol. Eng., 18, 324–330, 2013. 117, 1999.
El Adlouni, S., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., Zhang, X., Roy, R., and Bobée, Meneghini, B., Simmonds, I., and Smith, I. N.: Association between
B.: Generalized maximum likelihood estimators for the nonsta- Australian rainfall and the Southern Annular Mode, Int. J. Clima-
tionary generalized extreme value model, Water Resour. Res., 43, tol., 27, 109–121, 2007.
W03410, doi:10.1029/2005WR004545, 2007. Micevski, T., Franks, S. W., and Kuczera, K.: Multidecadal vari-
Furrer, E. M., Katz, R. W., Walter, M. D., and Furrer, R.: Statistical ability in coastal eastern Australian flood data, J. Hydrol., 327,
modeling of hot spells and heat waves, Clim. Res., 43, 191–205, 219–225, 2006.
doi:10.3354/cr00924, 2010. Mueller, E. N. and Pfister, A.: Increasing occurrence of high-
Hapuarachchi, H. A. P., Wang, Q. J., and Pagano, T. C.: A review of intensity rainstorm events relevant for the generation of soil ero-
advances in flash flood forecasting, Hydrol. Process., 25, 2771– sion in a temperate lowland region in Central Europe, J. Hydrol.,
2784, doi:10.1002/hyp.8040, 2011. 411, 266–278, 2011.
Hosking, J. R. M.: L-moments: analysis and estimation of distribu- Murphy, B. F. and Timbal, B.: A review of recent climate variability
tions using linear combinations of order statistics, J. Roy. Stat. and climate change in southeastern Australia, Int. J. Climatol.,
Soc. B Met., 52, 105–124, 1990. 28, 859–879, 2008.
Hu, Y.: Extreme Value Mixture Modelling with Simulation Study Park, J.-S., Kang, H.-S., Lee, Y. S., and Kim, M.-K.: Changes in
and Applications in Finance and Insurance, University of Can- the extreme daily rainfall in South Korea, Int. J. Climatol., 31,
terbury, New Zealand, 115 pp., 2013. 2290–2299, 2011.
IPCC: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Con- Power, S., Casey, T., Folland, C., Colman, A., and Mehta, V.: Inter-
tribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report decadal modulation of the impact of ENSO on Australia, Clim.
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Dynam., 15, 319–324, 1999.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Av- Rao, A. R. and Hamed, K. H.: Flood frequency analysis, CRC, Boca
eryt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L., Cambridge, United Raton, FL, 2000.
Kingdom and New York, USA, 996 pp., 2007. Re, M. and Barros, V. R.: Extreme rainfalls in SE South America,
Jakob, D., Karoly, D. J., and Seed, A.: Non-stationarity in daily Climatic Change, 96, 119–136, 2009.
and sub-daily intense rainfall – Part 1: Sydney, Australia, Nat. Salarpour, M., Yusop, Z., and Yusof, F.: Modeling the Distributions
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2263–2271, doi:10.5194/nhess-11- of Flood Characteristics for a Tropical River Basin, Journal of
2263-2011, 2011a. Environmental Science and Technology, 5, 419–429, 2012.
Jakob, D., Karoly, D. J., and Seed, A.: Non-stationarity in daily and Salinger, M. J.: Climate variability and change: past, present and
sub-daily intense rainfall – Part 2: Regional assessment for sites future – an overview, Climatic Change, 70, 9–29, 2005.
Sen, A. K. and Niedzielski, T.: Statistical Characteristics of River Verdon-Kidd, D. C. and Kiem, A. S.: On the relationship between
flow Variability in the Odra River Basin, Southwestern Poland, large-scale climate modes and regional synoptic patterns that
Pol. J. Environ Stud., 19, 387–397, 2010. drive Victorian rainfall, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 467–479,
Shang, H., Yan, J., Gebremichael, M., and Ayalew, S. M.: Trend doi:10.5194/hess-13-467-2009, 2009.
analysis of extreme precipitation in the Northwestern High- Wang, W., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., and Vrijling, J. K.: Trend
lands of Ethiopia with a case study of Debre Markos, Hy- and Stationarity Analysis for Streamflow Processes of Rivers in
drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1937–1944, doi:10.5194/hess-15-1937- Western Europe in the 20th Century, in: IWA International Con-
2011, 2011. ference on Water Economics, Statistics, and Finance, Rethymno,
Sugahara, S., da Rocha, R. P., and Silveira, R.: Non-stationary fre- Greece, 8–10 July 2005.
quency analysis of extreme daily rainfall in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Wang, W., Vrijling, J. K., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., and Mac,
Int. J. Climatol., 29, 1339–1349, 2009. J.: Testing for nonlinearity of streamflow processes at different
Thompson, P., Cai, Y., Reeve, D., and Stander, J.: Automated timescales, J. Hydrol., 322, 247–268, 2006.
threshold selection methods for extreme wave analysis, Coast. Westra, S., Varley, I., Jordan, P., Nathan, R., Ladson, A., Sharma,
Eng., 56, 1013–1021, 2009. A., and Hill, P.: Addressing climate non-stationarity in the as-
Tramblay, Y., Neppel, L., Carreau, J., and Najib, K.: Non-stationary sessment of flood risk, Australian Journal of Water Resources,
frequency analysis of heavy rainfall events in southern France, 14, 1–16, 2010.
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 58, 280–194, 2013. Yilmaz, A. and Perera, B.: Extreme Rainfall Nonstationarity In-
Tryhorn, L. and DeGaetano, A.: A comparison of techniques for vestigation and Intensity-Frequency-Duration Relationship, J.
downscaling extreme precipitation over the Northeastern United Hydrol. Eng., 19, 1160–1172, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-
States, Int. J. Climatol., 31, 1975–1989, 2011. 5584.0000878, 2014.
van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., Wang, W., and Vrijling, J. K.: Statistical Yoo, S.-H.: Urban Water Consumption and Regional Economic
Estimation Methods for Extreme Hydrological Events, in: Ex- Growth: The Case of Taejeon, Korea, Water Resour. Manag., 21,
treme Hydrological Events: New Concepts for Security, edited 1353–1361, 2007.
by: Vasiliev, O. F., van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., Plate, E. J., and Yue, S., Pilon, P., and Cavadias, G.: Power of the Mann Kendall and
Bolgov, M. V., NATO Science Series, 78, 199–252, 2007. Spearman’s rho tests for detecting monotonic trends in hydrolog-
Verdon, D. C., Wyatt, A. M., Kiem, A. S., and Franks, S. W.: Multi- ical series, J. Hydrology, 259, 254–271, 2002.
decadal variability of rainfall and streamflow – Eastern Australia,
Water Resour. Res., 40, W10201, doi:10.1029/2004WR003234,
2004.