Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Since the substantial evidence of non-stationarity in the extreme rainfall series is already reported, the current
realm of hydrologic research focusing on developing methodologies for a non-stationary rainfall condition. As the rainfall
intensity duration frequency (IDF) curve is primarily used in storm water management and infrastructure design, developing
rainfall IDF curves in a non-stationary context is a current interest of water resource researchers. In order to construct
non-stationary rainfall IDF curve, the probability distribution’s parameters are allowed to change according to covariate value
and the current practice is to use time as a covariate. However, the covariate can be any physical process and the recent
studies show that the direct use of time as a covariate may increase the bias. Moreover, the significance of selecting covariate
in developing non-stationary rainfall IDF curve is yet to be explored. Therefore, this study aims to find the uncertainties in
rainfall return levels due to the choice of the covariate (covariate uncertainty). In addition, since the uncertainty in parameter
estimates (parameter uncertainty) is the major source of uncertainty in the stationary IDF curve, the relative significance of
covariate uncertainty, when compared to the parameter uncertainty, is also explored. The study results reveal that the covariate
uncertainty is significant, especially when a number of covariates produce significantly superior non-stationary model and,
remarkably, it is nearly equivalent to the parameter uncertainty in such cases.
KEY WORDS Bayesian inference; covariate uncertainty; non-stationarity; parameter uncertainty; rainfall IDF curve
Received 28 November 2016; Revised 29 March 2017; Accepted 27 May 2017
Consequently, the extreme rainfall time series will have parameters? Till date, these two questions were not stud-
a non-stationary component. In other words, the param- ied. However, it is indispensable to know the answers to
eters of the theoretical probability distribution fitted to these two questions for the accurate estimate of return
the extreme rainfall series will change significantly over levels. Therefore, the objectives of this study are: (1)
time and it violates the stationarity assumption which is to quantify the uncertainties in estimating non-stationary
made to derive the existing rainfall IDF curves. Hence, return levels due to the choice of covariate (covariate
the rainfall IDF curves developed with the stationarity uncertainty); (2) to quantify the uncertainties resulting
assumption will underestimate the return levels. As a from the estimation of non-stationary GEVD parameters
result, the drainage networks which are designed using (parameter uncertainty) and (3) to analyse the significance
stationary IDF curve will fail more frequently than its of covariate uncertainties when compared to the parameter
actual design. Since the rainfall IDF curves developed with uncertainties.
the stationarity assumption are not tenable in a chang-
ing climate, it is indispensable to update the rainfall IDF
relationship developing methods for the non-stationary 2. Study area and data
condition.
In recent years, in the direction of coping Since the aim of this study is to analyse the uncer-
non-stationarity in the extreme rainfall time series, tainties in non-stationary rainfall IDF curves, the study
researchers developed non-stationary rainfall IDF curves areas where the non-stationarity in the rainfall IDF curves
by modelling trend present in the observed extreme were already reported are chosen. Initially, Cheng and
rainfall time series. For example, in order to develop AghaKouchak (2014) reported the non-stationarity in the
non-stationary rainfall IDF curves, Cheng and AghaK- rainfall IDF curves of Wilmington city, USA. Then, Agi-
ouchak (2014) introduced time-varying component in lan and Umamahesh (2016) developed non-stationary
the location parameter of the generalized extreme value IDF curves of Hyderabad city, India and Wilmington
distribution (GEVD) using time covariate. The authors city, USA by modelling non-linear trend present in the
developed non-stationary IDF curves and analysed their extreme rainfall time series and reported the significance
uncertainties resulting from the estimation of GEVD of non-stationary IDF curves for designing infrastruc-
parameters using the Bayesian method. From their tures of these two cities. Though there are many stud-
study results, they reported that developing IDF curves ies which show non-stationarity in the daily rainfall of
under the stationary extreme value theory may lead to many parts of the worlds (Khaliq et al., 2006; Agilan and
underestimation of extreme rainfall by as much as 60%. Umamahesh, 2015; Asadieh and Krakauer, 2015; Mondal
Similarly, Yilmaz and Perera (2014) incorporated trend and Mujumdar, 2015; Vasiliades et al., 2015), since the
in the GEVD’s location and scale parameters using time non-stationarity in the rainfall IDF curves of Hyderabad
covariate for analysing non-stationarity in the IDF curves city and Wilmington city is already detected and mod-
of Melbourne city, Australia. Further, more recently, elled; these two cities are considered as study area for
Agilan and Umamahesh (2016) developed non-stationary studying the uncertainties in non-stationary rainfall IDF
rainfall IDF curves of Hyderabad, India and Wilming- curves. For more information on geographical and clima-
ton, USA by modelling non-linear trend in the extreme tological details of Hyderabad city and Wilmington city,
rainfall series using multi-objective genetic algorithm the interested reader is referred to Agilan and Umamahesh
generated time-based covariate. In addition, they also (2016).
reported that directly applying time covariate-based linear For this study, the hourly rainfall observed at the centre
trend is sometimes increasing the bias of non-stationary of the Hyderabad city by the India Meteorological Depart-
model. ment is procured for the period of 01 January 1972 to 31
Modelling linear trend using time covariate is simple December 2013. From the hourly observations, different
and easy to implement because there is no need of any duration (1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h) rainfall series are gen-
additional data and computation. However, it is already erated using the moving window approach and the annual
reported that directly applying time covariate-based linear maximum series is extracted from each duration rainfall
trend is sometimes increasing the bias of non-stationary time series. In the case of Wilmington city, the annual max-
model. Moreover, even if the time covariate-based linear imum rainfall series of 1-, 2-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 48-h dura-
trend produces less bias non-stationary model, the covari- tion rainfall is available through the United States National
ate time (or directly applying any single covariate) may Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas
not be the best choice to model the non-stationarity in 14 (Bonnin et al., 2006) and it is downloaded from http://
the extreme rainfall series. Further, the covariate can be hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_series.html (Accessed
any complicated form of time or any physical process, on 11 January 2016) for the available period of 53 years
which influences extreme rainfall occurrence of the study (1948–2000).
area. In such a case, will the choice of covariate create Then, for developing non-stationary rainfall IDF curves,
any significant difference in estimating return levels in a there is a need for covariates. Since it is irrelevant to
non-stationary context? If so, are the uncertainties result- use covariates which are not having any relationship with
ing from the choice of covariate higher/lower than those extreme rainfall process, it is essential to identify a set
resulting from the estimation of non-stationary GEVD of potential covariates. Recently, Agilan and Umamahesh
(2015) detected and attributed the non-stationarity present .uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/ (accessed on 15 July 2015)]. The
in the intensity and frequency of Hyderabad city extreme ENSO cycle is normally represented using three indices,
rainfall. For attributing non-stationarity in the Hyder- namely Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), Southern Oscil-
abad city extreme rainfall characteristics, they have used lation Index (SOI) and sea surface temperature (SST).
four physical processes which are having a significant As one of the objectives of this study is to evaluate the
influence on Hyderabad city extreme rainfall, namely El uncertainties in return level estimation due to the choice
Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, urbanization, of the covariate, we have considered all three indices to
global warming and local temperature changes. There- represent the ENSO cycle. The monthly SST anomaly
fore, they are selected as possible covariates for developing over NINO 3.4 (17∘ E–120∘ W, 5∘ S–5∘ N) region with
non-stationary rainfall IDF curves of Hyderabad city. In respect to 1981–2010 mean is used as SST index and it
addition to these four physical processes, Indian Ocean is available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/
Dipole (IOD) has a significant influence on extreme rain- Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.anom.data (accessed on 01
fall of India (Ajayamohan and Rao, 2008) and the green- March 2016). The SOI is a standardized index based on the
house warming is also increasing the frequency of extreme observed sea level pressure differences between Tahiti and
IOD events (Cai et al., 2014). Therefore, it is also added Darwin, Australia and it is available at http://www.bom
to the potential covariates list. Besides these five physi- .gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml (accessed on 01
cal processes, the weather variables, namely geopotential March 2016). The MEI is based on six main observed vari-
height (hgt), sea level pressure (slp), relative humidity ables over the tropical Pacific, i.e. sea level pressure, zonal
(rhum), specific humidity (shum), zonal wind velocity and meridional components of the surface wind, SST, sur-
(uwnd), meridional wind velocity (vwnd) and total per- face air temperature and total cloudiness fraction of the sky
ceptible water (pr_wtr) are the general choices in many and it is available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/
studies of downscaling precipitation from global climate mei.ext/table.ext.html (accessed on 01 March 2016). The
models (Raje and Mujumdar, 2009; Najafi et al., 2011; monthly values of SST, MEI and SOI are converted into
Mujumdar and Kumar, 2012), because they are linked yearly values [i.e. average of November–March (Mondal
with precipitation occurrence. Hence, these weather vari- and Mujumdar, 2015)] and used as covariates representing
ables are also considered as potential covariates. Further, the ENSO cycle in a yearly basis. The monthly Dipole
total rainfall (t-rain), total monsoon (June–September) Mode Index (DMI) (Saji et al., 1999) based on HadISST
rainfall (m-rain) and time are also considered as poten- data set is downloaded from http://www.jamstec.go.jp/
tial covariates for developing non-stationary rainfall IDF frcgc/research/d1/iod/DATA/dmi.monthly.txt (accessed
curves. In the case of Wilmington city, due to unavailabil- on 15 March 2016) and yearly (i.e. averaged from June to
ity of data, the covariates urbanization, local temperature November) DMI is calculated and used as a covariate rep-
changes, t-rain and m-rain are not considered. In addi- resenting IOD. For representing weather variables, namely
tion, IOD is not considered for modelling non-stationarity hgt, slp, rhum, shum, uwnd, vwnd and pr_wtr, the NCEP
in the Wilmington city extreme rainfall because there reanalysis data sets are downloaded from http://www
was no evidence in the literature showing the relationship .esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html
between IOD and rainfall of North America. However, (accessed on 10 March 2016) and interpolated for both
based on the available literature, other teleconnections the cities. Then, the standardized yearly average value of
that are having a significant influence on rainfall occur- each variable is used as a covariate. The yearly PNA index
rence over North America are considered for Wilming- is downloaded from http://research.jisao.washington.edu/
ton city. In particular, recently Mallakpour and Villarini data_sets/pna/pnandjfm.ascii (accessed on 05 March
(2016) showed the possible relationship between the fre- 2016) and the yearly NAO index is downloaded from
quency of flooding over the United States and telecon- http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/nao/nao
nections, namely the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), .ascii (accessed on 05 March 2016). Monthly POD and
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal AMO indices are downloaded from http://www.ncdc.noaa
Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific-North American pat- .gov/teleconnections/pdo/ (accessed on 05 March 2016)
tern (PNA). In addition, there are many previous studies and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon
which show the relationship between these large-scale cli- .us.long.data (accessed on 05 March 2016), respectively,
mate variabilities and rainfall over the United States (Hen- and the yearly average values are used as covariates. To
derson and Robinson, 1994; McCabe and Dettinger, 1999; represent local temperature changes of the Hyderabad
Enfield et al., 2001; Sheridan, 2003; Durkee et al., 2008). city, the hourly temperature observed at the centre of the
Hence, these four physical processes are also considered Hyderabad city by the India Meteorological Department is
for modelling non-stationarity in Wilmington city extreme procured for the period of 01 January 1972 to 31 Decem-
rainfall. ber 2013. Then, three indices, namely local yearly mean
Then, the data sets that represent the aforementioned temperature anomaly (lta-mean), local yearly maximum
physical processes/weather variables need to be identified. temperature anomaly (lta-max) and local yearly minimum
The HadCRUT4 yearly global temperature anomaly with temperature anomaly (lta-min) are calculated and used
respect to 1961–1990 mean is used to represent global as covariates. Note that all three temperature anomalies
warming and this data set is based on average surface are based on 1972–2013 mean value. The urban growth
air temperature observations [http://www.metoffice.gov of Hyderabad city is represented by a data set which was
Table 1. List of covariates used to analyse the uncertainties in is the asymptotic distribution of annual maximum series
non-stationary rainfall IDF curves. and the cumulative distribution function (CDF), F, of
GEVD is given by Equation (1) (Coles, 2001; Katz et al.,
S. no. Covariate Hyderabad Wilmington
name 2002).
For k = 0 and type-2, distribution with dp degree of freedom (Katz, 2013) and
it is given by Equation (12).
( ) ∑n
( )
log L 𝛼0 , 𝛼1 , 𝛽0 , 𝛽1 = − 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 × ci [( ) ( )]
2 − log Ls − − log Lns ∼ 𝜒 2 (dp) (12)
i=1
( ( ))
∑
n
mi − 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 × ci where, −log Ls is the minimized negative log-likelihood
− ( ) of the stationary model, −log Lns is the minimized neg-
i=1 exp 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 × ci ative log-likelihood of non-stationary model and dp is
[ ( ( ) )]
∑n
mi − 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 × ci the difference between a number of parameters in the
− exp − ( ) (10) non-stationary model and the stationary model. In this
i=1 exp 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 × ci study, the non-stationary models that have LR test p-value
The most likely set of parameters is estimated by max- less than 0.05 are considered for analysing the uncertain-
imizing any of the above log-likelihood, according to the ties in return levels due to the choice of the covariate.
type of non-stationarity setting. Note that the method of
maximum likelihood may not be the correct choice when 4.2. Non-stationary return levels
the sample size is less than 25 because it estimates physi- As aforementioned, two non-stationary GEVDs are con-
cally infeasible shape parameter with a small sample (Katz structed using two types of non-stationarity setting and
et al., 2002; Sugahara et al., 2009; Cannon, 2010). As the best model for each covariate is selected for further
stated earlier, 19 and 16 are the number of covariates which analysis. The best model (type) for each covariate with 1-h
are used to model the non-stationarity in the Hyderabad duration annual maximum rainfall series of Hyderabad
city and the Wilmington extreme rainfall, respectively. city and Wilmington city are listed in Table 2. Once the
Since two types of non-stationarity settings are applied best model for each covariate is identified, the list of
with each covariate, the total number of non-stationary covariates that produced non-stationary GEVDs which
GEVD for each duration extreme rainfall series of Hyder- are significantly superior to the stationary GEVD are
abad city and Wilmington city are 38 and 32, respectively. identified using the LR test p-value. The list of covariates
In order to avoid selecting two models which are from which produced a significantly superior non-stationary
the same covariate, first, the best model for each covari- model for 1-h duration annual maximum rainfall series
ate is selected (among two models) based on the corrected of Hyderabad city and Wilmington city are highlighted
Akaike Information Criterion value. The Akaike Informa- (bold) in Table 2. Upon identifying these covariates for
tion Criterion with small sample size correction (AICc) is all selected durations of Hyderabad and Wilmington city,
generally used to select the best model among different parameters of non-stationary GEVDs which are based on
candidate models (Strupczewski et al., 2001; Agilan and the identified covariates are substituted into Equation (4)
Umamahesh, 2016) and it is given by Equation (11). for estimating rainfall return levels of different design
2p (p + 1) probability values. Since the parameters of non-stationary
AICc = −2 log L + 2p + (11) GEVD vary with covariate value, the return level for a
n−p−1
given return period (design probability) is a set of values,
where, −log L is the minimized negative log-likelihood instead of a single value. Therefore, the changes in rainfall
of GEVD, n is the sample size and p is the number of return level due to the choice of covariate are presented
parameters in the model. Once the best model for each in the form of return levels’ CDF. First, the return levels’
covariate is identified, the uncertainties in rainfall return PDF is obtained using kernel density estimation method
levels due to the choice of covariate are analysed. Though and the return levels’ CDFs obtained from different
the covariates are carefully chosen, they may not necessar- non-stationary GEVDs are analysed.
ily produce a non-stationary model which is significantly The 10-year return levels’ CDFs obtained from differ-
superior to the stationary model. Therefore, it is unreal- ent non-stationary GEVDs which are significantly supe-
istic to analyse the uncertainties in return levels with all rior to the stationary GEVD of the corresponding duration
non-stationary models (19 or 16) and it is essential to extreme rainfall are plotted in Figures 1 and 2 for Hyder-
identify the non-stationary models (the covariates), which abad city and Wilmington city extreme rainfall series,
are significantly superior to the stationary model of the respectively. From Figures 1 and 2, it is observed that
corresponding duration extreme rainfall series. The sta- the number of non-stationary GEVDs which are signifi-
tistical significance of the non-stationary model is esti- cantly superior to the stationary GEVD is not same for
mated by testing the statistical significance of the trend all selected durations of Hyderabad city and Wilmington
parameter in the non-stationary model using the likelihood city rainfall. In the case of Hyderabad city, the number of
ratio (LR) test. In the LR test, the negative log-likelihood non-stationary models which are superior to the stationary
of the non-stationary and stationary model is compared model is relatively more for long-duration rainfall series
to test the null hypothesis of no trend in a parameter. when compared to the short-duration rainfall series. On
Under the null hypothesis of no trend in a parameter, the other hand, the Wilmington city results show totally
based on twice the difference between minimized negative different behaviour, i.e. the number of non-stationary mod-
log-likelihood of the stationary and non-stationary model, els which are superior to the stationary model is relatively
the LR test statistic approximately follows chi-square more for short-duration rainfall series when compared with
Table 2. The best model (type) for each covariate with 1-h duration annual maximum rainfall series.
Hyderabad Wilmington
Covariate Type LR test p-value ΔAICc Covariate Type LR test p-value ΔAICc
urban 1 0.668 −2.266 gta 1 0.004 5.772
dmi 1 0.418 −1.793 sst 1 0.066 1.031
lta_mean 1 0.036 1.945 mei 1 0.067 1.005
lta_max 1 0.278 −1.272 soi 1 0.139 −0.152
lta_min 1 0.213 −0.898 nao 2 0.056 0.978
gta 1 0.722 −2.323 pna 1 0.037 1.990
sst 1 0.226 −0.985 pdo 2 0.043 1.528
mei 1 0.294 −1.349 amo 1 0.768 −2.256
soi 1 0.320 −1.460 time 1 0.001 8.694
time 1 0.668 −2.266 hgt 1 0.236 −0.938
t_rain 1 0.045 1.569 pr_wtr 1 0.494 −1.875
m_rain 1 0.069 0.862 rhum 1 0.110 0.212
hgt 1 0.543 −2.079 shum 1 0.917 −2.333
pr_wtr 1 0.084 0.527 slp 1 0.406 −1.653
rhum 1 0.388 −1.705 uwnd 1 0.002 6.979
shum 1 0.333 −1.512 vwnd 1 0.910 −2.331
slp 1 0.787 −2.377
uwnd 1 0.839 −2.408
vwnd 1 0.791 −2.379
ΔAICc is the difference between AICc of non-stationary and the stationary GEVD.
the long-duration rainfall series. Further, the number of using the Mann–Kendall (M–K) trend test (Mann, 1945;
significantly superior non-stationary models for the Wilm- Kendall, 1962). The M–K test is a non-parametric statis-
ington city extreme rainfall series are less when compared tical test which is normally used to detect trends in time
with the Hyderabad city and it may be due to the fewer series and it has a long tradition of use in hydrology and
number covariates used to model the non-stationarity in the has been applied in the case of rainfall extremes (Villarini
Wilmington city extreme rainfall (i.e. Hyderabad city = 19 et al., 2009; Cheng and AghaKouchak, 2014; Yilmaz and
covariates; Wilmington city = 16 covariates). In addition, Perera, 2014). The M–K test ‘Tau’ value of Hyderabad and
whenever a number of non-stationary models qualified for Wilmington city extreme rainfall series of selected dura-
the particular extreme rainfall series, the uncertainty in tions are given in Table 3. The interpretation of M–K test
return levels also appears to be more (refer 12-h duration ‘Tau’ value is similar to the correlation coefficient, i.e. the
plot in Figure 1 and 1-h duration plot in Figure 2). Fur- ‘Tau’ value varies from −1 to +1 and the positive ‘Tau’
ther, in order to obtain the overall picture, the percentage value indicates an increasing trend in the time series, while
change between the minimum and maximum return lev- the negative ‘Tau’ value indicates the counterpart. From
els of each percentile is calculated for all return periods. Table 3, it is observed that the number of covariates which
Then, the boxplots of these differences are plotted for all produce a significantly superior non-stationary model is
selected durations in Figure 3. Similar to return levels’ more when the magnitude of trend in the extreme rainfall
CDFs (Figures 1 and 2), Figure 3 reveals that the covari- series is relatively high. Consequently, the covariate uncer-
ate uncertainty is more in Hyderabad city long-duration tainty is more when a number of models (covariates) are
rainfall series and Wilmington city short-duration rainfall qualified as a significantly superior model.
series. Since only one covariate produced a significantly Further, the significance of covariate uncertainty is also
superior non-stationary model for Wilmington city 12-, 24- checked using low-risk approach (Cheng et al., 2014). In
and 48-h duration extreme rainfall time series, there is no a non-stationary context, Cheng et al. (2014) defined 95
covariate uncertainty for those time series. percentile of return level values as effective return level
It is worth to note that the covariate uncertainty results and called it as a low-risk (more conservative) approach.
of Hyderabad city and Wilmington city showed totally In addition, this method is also used by Cheng and AghaK-
opposite trend, i.e. the covariate uncertainty is more in ouchak (2014) and Agilan and Umamahesh (2016) for
Hyderabad city long-duration rainfall series while Wilm- developing non-stationary rainfall IDF curves. Therefore,
ington city has more uncertainty in the short-duration rain- the difference in 95th percentile return levels that are esti-
fall series. Therefore, it is clear that the covariate uncer- mated with different covariates is analysed. In the case of
tainty is not controlled by the duration of the extreme Hyderabad city 12-h duration extreme rainfall series, the
rainfall series. Further, in the direction of understand- 95th percentile of 10-year return level estimated by time
ing reasons for more covariate uncertainties in Hyder- covariate and t-rain covariate-based non-stationary mod-
abad city long-duration rainfall series and Wilmington city els are 10.73 mm h−1 and 14.76 mm h−1 . There is around
short-duration extreme rainfall series, the magnitude of 4 mm h−1 difference in estimated values and, even for a
trend present in Hyderabad and Wilmington city extreme small catchment, this 48 mm (12 × 4) extra rainfall will
rainfall series of all selected durations are investigated create a significant difference in peak flow. Furthermore,
1-h
1 2-h
1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
lta-mean
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 t-rain 0.5 lta-mean
t-rain
0.4 0.4 m-rain
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Intensity mm h–1
Intensity mm h–1
3-h 6-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 urban 0.7
lta-mean
0.6 lta-max
0.6 lta-mean
F(x)
F(x)
gta lta-max
0.5 0.5 lta-min
time
t-rain gta
0.4 0.4
m-rain t-rain
0.3 0.3 m-rain
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
12-h 24-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
urban
0.6 lta-mean 0.6
lta-max
F(x)
F(x)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
12-h
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
F(x)
0.5
lta-mean
0.4 sst
mei
0.3 t-rain
m-rain
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Intensity mm h–1
Figure 1. The 10-year return levels’ CDFs of Hyderabad city extreme rainfall. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].
it is worth to note that the 10-year return level calculated 5. Parameter uncertainty
with covariate t-rain is higher than 25-year return level cal-
culated with covariate time, i.e. 12.73 mm h−1 . Therefore, From the previous section, it is observed that the choice of
it is evident that the choice of covariate will make a sig- the covariate in modelling non-stationarity in the extreme
nificant difference in estimating rainfall return levels and rainfall series will create a significant difference in the
IDF relationship. return level estimation. At the same time, it should be
1-h 2-h
1 1
gta
0.9 0.9 gta
pna pna
0.8 pdo 0.8 pdo
time
time
0.7 uwnd 0.7 rhum
uwnd
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
3-h 6-h
1 1
gta
0.9 0.9 pna
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
26 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
12-h 24-h
1 1
0.9 pna
0.9
vwnd
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
48-h
1
0.9
pr-wtr
0.8
0.7
0.6
F(x)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
Intensity mm h–1
Figure 2. The 10-year return levels’ CDFs of Wilmington city extreme rainfall. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].
150 Hyderabad has been previously used to address the parameter uncer-
tainties in rainfall IDF curves which were developed under
Percentage change in return level
1-h 2-h 3-h 6-h 12-h 24-h 48-h use Bayes’ theorem to update one’s uncertainty about
Duration
parameter expressed in terms of prior, before inclusion
Wilmington of additional information provided by data (Hao et al.,
2015). Unlike classical methods, in the Bayesian approach,
25
Percentage change in return level
Equation (13).
5
Table 3. The M–K test ‘Tau’ value and covariate uncertainties for all selected duration extreme rainfall series.
Table 4. The best covariate, MCMC chain ar value and parameter uncertainties for all selected duration extreme rainfall series.
by a Markov process. Though the method of maximum non-stationary model. Among many non-stationary mod-
likelihood is used to assign the starting value of param- els which are significantly superior to the stationary
eters, in order to reduce the influence of starting value, model, the model which has the lowest AICc value is
the first part of the sample is discarded and this part of identified as the best model and the covariate which
the sample is called burn-in period. In this study, sam- produced that particular model is referred as the best
ples of 100 000 parameter sets are generated and the first covariate for the corresponding duration extreme rainfall
10 000 samples are discarded. Since the values are gener- series. The best covariate for all selected duration extreme
ated by a Markov process, a low degree of autocorrelation rainfall series of Hyderabad city and Wilmington city is
is allowed. However, the high degree of autocorrelation given in Table 4 and the Bayesian inferences are obtained
creates a problem (i.e. mixing of Markov chain is slow). for the best covariates-based non-stationary GEVDs. As
To avoid excessive autocorrelation, the thinning interval aforementioned, the Bayesian inference is valid only if
is used. The process thinning refers to drawing samples the MCMC chain has converged. Therefore, it is essential
from regular interval from the MCMC generated samples, to inspect MCMC chain of all selected durations. The
excluding burn-in period. In this study, the thinning inter- trace plots and autocorrelation plots of Hyderabad city 6-h
val of 30 is used. Since the Bayesian inference is based duration rainfall series non-stationary GEVD parameters
on the MCMC sample, it is essential to check the MCMC are shown in Figure 4. The red portion in trace plot indi-
chain and the inference is valid only if the MCMC chain cates a burn-in period of the MCMC chain. Further, the ar
has converged. First, the MCMC generated samples are of MCMC chain for all selected duration extreme rainfall
visually checked using trace plot (the iteration number vs series of Hyderabad and Wilmington city is given in
the simulated values for the parameter) and autocorrela- Table 4.
tion plot. In addition, the efficiency of MCMC chain is The trace plot of a parameter that comes from a
checked with acceptance rate. The ratio between a number well-mixed MCMC chain should traverse the posterior
of accepted proposal values (Step-2) and the total number domain rapidly and should have a nearly constant mean
of iterations is called the acceptance rate (ar). Too small and variance. The autocorrelation of a parameter that
(near to 0) ar indicates that the MCMC chain failed to comes from a well-mixed MCMC chain should become
explore regions of appreciable posterior probability and negligible fairly quickly. The trace plots in Figure 4
too high ar (near to 1) means that the MCMC chain stays (top panel) show that the parameter values traverse the
in a small region and fails to explore the whole posterior posterior domain rapidly with nearly constant mean and
domain (Gelman et al., 1997). The MCMC chain which variance. The autocorrelation plots in Figure 4 (bottom
has neither too small nor too large ar and also has small panel) show that the autocorrelation of MCMC simulated
autocorrelation is considered as an efficient MCMC chain. values of every parameter decreases very quickly. Further,
Roberts et al. (1997) reported that 0.234 is the asymptoti-
5.2. Bayesian inference cally optimal ar of a random-walk Metropolis–Hastings
For the same duration extreme rainfall series, many algorithm. Recently, Hao et al. (2015) reported that the
covariates may produce a non-stationary model which ar of a well-mixed MCMC chain lies between 0.2 and
is significantly superior to the stationary model of the 0.5. The ar value of 6-h duration Hyderabad city extreme
corresponding duration (e.g. five covariates produced a rainfall series MCMC chain is 0.27 and it indicates that
significantly superior non-stationary model for Wilm- the MCMC chain of each parameter achieved a good
ington city 1-h duration extreme rainfall series). But, mixing. The trace plots, autocorrelation plots and ar value
it is unrealistic to analyse the parameter uncertainty indicate that the MCMC chain of 6-h duration Hyderabad
with all covariates which produced significantly superior city extreme rainfall series has converged. Similarly,
non-stationary model. Therefore, the best covariate for from the trace plots, autocorrelation plots and ar values,
each duration extreme rainfall series of Hyderabad and it is observed the MCMC chains of remaining duration
Wilmington city is first identified and the parameter extreme rainfall series of Hyderabad and Wilmington city
uncertainty is calculated only for the best covariate-based have converged. In the interest of brevity, the trace plots
12 4
11.5 3.5
3
11
2.5
10.5
α0 2
10
α1
1.5
9.5
1
9
0.5
8.5 0
8 –0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iterations × 104 Iterations × 104
5 0.5
4.5 0.4
0.3
4
0.2
3.5
0.1
3
k
β
0
2.5
–0.1
2
–0.2
1.5 –0.3
1 –0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iterations × 104 Iterations × 104
α0 α1
0.8 0.8
Autocorrelation
0.6
Autocorrelation
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
–0.2 –0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lag Lag
β k
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Autocorrelation
Autocorrelation
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
–0.2 –0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lag Lag
Figure 4. Trace plots and autocorrelation plots of Hyderabad city 6-h duration rainfall series non-stationary GEVD parameters. The red portion in
trace plot indicates a burn-in period of the MCMC chain. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].
and autocorrelation plots of remaining durations are not city extreme rainfall series, respectively. In Figure 5, it is
given in this article. to be noted that the uncertainty bound of Hyderabad city
The sets of parameters [(𝛼 0 , 𝛼 1 , 𝛽 0 , 𝛽 1 and k) or (𝛼 0 , 12-, 24- and 48-h duration extreme rainfall series appears
𝛼 1 , 𝛽 and k)] obtained from the posterior distribution to be small (visually) and it is because of the long range
of parameters given data, (𝜋(𝜃|m)), are substituted into of CDF. Similarly, the uncertainty bound of Wilmington
Equation (4) to obtain return levels. The 10-year return lev- city 24- and 48-h duration extreme rainfall series appears
els’ CDFs along with the parameter uncertainty bound is to be big (visually) and it is because of the short range
plotted in Figures 5 and 6 for Hyderabad and Wilmington of CDF.
1-h 2-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
3-h 6-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
20 25 30 35 40 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
12-h 24-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
48-h
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 Uncertainty
0.6 Mean
F(x)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Intensity mm h–1
Figure 5. The 10-year return levels’ CDFs of Hyderabad city extreme rainfall series along with parameter uncertainty.
1-h 2-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
3-h 6-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
24 26 30 32 34 36 40 42 44 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
12-h 24-h
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
F(x)
F(x)
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Intensity mm h–1 Intensity mm h–1
48-h
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Uncertainty
F(x)
0.5 Mean
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Intensity mm h–1
Figure 6. The 10-year return levels’ CDFs of Wilmington city extreme rainfall series along with parameter uncertainty.
(a) 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
t-rain-uncerttainty
F(x) 0.5
t-rain-mean
ainty
time-uncerta
0.4
time-mean
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5 10 15 20 25 3
30 35 40
0 45
Intensity mm h–1
(b)
(c)
Figure 8. (a) Hyderabad city 12-h duration extreme rainfall 10-year return levels’ CDFs obtained using covariates ‘time’ and ‘t-rain’ along with
parameter uncertainty. P–P and Q–Q plots of Hyderabad city 12-h duration non-stationary GEVDs constructed with covariates (b) ‘time’ and (c)
‘t-rain’. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].
city 12-h duration extreme rainfall series. Therefore, it is Accordingly, the results of this study give an adequate
fair enough to say that the difference in non-stationary warning that the non-stationary GEVD should not be con-
return levels are due to the incapability of the covari- structed with any covariate just because the extreme rain-
ate to capture all values, though the chosen covariate fall series has a non-stationary component. Further, while
can produce statistically significant non-stationary model. developing non-stationary GEVD, both the significance
and the quality of the constructed non-stationary GEVD Ajayamohan RS, Rao SA. 2008. Indian Ocean Dipole modulates the
number of extreme rainfall events over India in a warming environ-
should be checked before estimating return levels. ment. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 86: 245–252.
Since the aim of this study is to analyse the covariate Asadieh B, Krakauer NY. 2015. Global trends in extreme precipitation:
and parameter uncertainty in non-stationary rainfall IDF climate models versus observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19:
877–891.
curves, the non-stationary GEVDs are constructed with Berg P, Moseley C, Haerter JO. 2013. Strong increase in convective
only one covariate at a time. However, as the extreme precipitation in response to higher temperatures. Nat. Geosci. 6:
rainfall is associated with many physical processes, it is 181–185.
Bonnin GM, Martin D, Lin B, Parzybok T, Yekta M, Riley D. 2006.
strongly recommended to use combinations of covariates Precipitation-frequency Atlas of the United States: NOAA Atlas 14.
to develop the non-stationary model. For example, the 𝛼 Silver Spring: MD.
can be linked with many covariates at the same time. Cai W, Santoso A, Wang G, Weller E, Wu L, Ashok K, Masumoto
Y, Yamagata T. 2014. Increased frequency of extreme Indian Ocean
Like, Dipole events due to greenhouse warming. Nature 510: 254–258.
Cannon AJ. 2010. A flexible nonlinear modelling framework for non-
⎡𝛼0 ⎤ stationary generalized extreme value analysis in hydroclimatology.
[ ] ⎢𝛼1 ⎥ Hydrol. Processes 24(6): 673–685.
𝛼t = 1 c1t c2t … cnt ⎢𝛼2 ⎥ (23) Cheng L, AghaKouchak A. 2014. Nonstationary precipitation
⎢⋮⎥ intensity-duration-frequency curves for infrastructure design in
⎢ ⎥ a changing climate. Sci. Rep. 4: 7093.
⎣𝛼n ⎦ Cheng L, Kouchak AA, Gilleland E, Katz RW. 2014. Non-stationary
extreme value analysis in a changing climate. Clim. Change 127:
Furthermore, with respect to study area, a list of potential 353–369.
Coles S. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Modelling of Extreme
covariates is identified purely based on available literature. Values. Springer: London.
Hence, for other study locations, the chosen covariates (i.e. Coles SG, Tawn JA. 1996. A Bayesian analysis of extreme rainfall data.
ENSO cycle, PNA, etc.) may not have any influence on J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 45(4): 463–478.
Coles S, Pericchi LR, Sisson S. 2003. A fully probabilistic approach to
extreme rainfall occurrence. Therefore, it is suggested to extreme rainfall modeling. J. Hydrol. 273(1–4): 35–50.
choose a list of potential covariates according to the study Dourte D, Shukla S, Singh P, Haman D. 2013. Rainfall intensity-
location. duration-frequency relationships for Andhra Pradesh, India: changing
rainfall patterns and implications for runoff and groundwater recharge.
From the study results, it is suggested to use all possi- J. Hydrol. Eng. 18(3): 324–330.
ble covariates and find the best covariate for developing Durkee JD, Frye JD, Fuhrmann CM, Lacke MC, Jeong HG, Mote TL.
non-stationary models. However, we are often forced to 2008. Effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation on precipitation-type
frequency and distribution in the eastern United States. Theor. Appl.
use only time as a covariate because of unavailability of Climatol. 94(1): 51–65.
data to represent other covariates. Even in such a situation, Emori S, Brown SJ. 2005. Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean
we strongly recommend not to use the covariate ‘time’ and extreme precipitation under changed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett.
35: L17706.
directly. Instead, ‘time’ covariate-based non-linear trend Endreny TA, Imbeah N. 2009. Generating robust rainfall intensity–
modelling would appear feasible as suggested by Agilan duration–frequency estimates with short-record satellite data. J.
and Umamahesh (2016) and Cannon (2010). Moreover, Hydrol. 371: 182–191.
Enfield DB, Mestas-Nuñez AM, Trimble PJ. 2001. The Atlantic Multi-
due to unavailability of a long record of short-duration decadal Oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the
rainfall over the entire city, we have used single station continental U.S. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(10): 2077–2080.
Furrer EM, Katz RW. 2007. Generalized linear modeling approach to
rainfall observations of Hyderabad city and Wilmington stochastic weather generators. Clim. Res. 34: 129–144.
city. As a result, analysing the spatial distribution of the Furrer EM, Katz RW. 2008. Improving the simulation of extreme pre-
best covariate and uncertainty would be a possible future cipitation events by stochastic weather generators. Water Resour. Res.
44: W12439.
work. Finally, the results of this study are not limited only Gelman A, Gilks WR, Roberts GO. 1997. Weak convergence and optimal
to develop non-stationary rainfall IDF curves, but also use- scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms. Ann. Appl. Probab.
ful in other applications such as improving weather gener- 7(1): 110–120.
Hao Y, Huo X, Duan Q, Liu Y, Fan Y, Liu Y, Yeh TJ. 2015. A Bayesian
ator for a non-stationary extreme rainfall condition (Furrer analysis of nonstationary generalized extreme value distribution of
and Katz (2007) and Furrer and Katz (2008)). annual spring discharge minima. Environ. Earth Sci. 73: 2031–2045.
Hassanzadeh E, Nazemi A, Elshorbagy A. 2014. Quantile-based down-
scaling of precipitation using genetic programming: application to IDF
curves in Saskatoon. J. Hydrol. Eng. 19(5): 943–955.
Acknowledgements Henderson KG, Robinson PJ. 1994. Relationships between the
pacific/North American teleconnection patterns and precipitation
We thank the Information Technology Research Academy, events in the south-eastern USA. Int. J. Climatol. 14(3): 307–323.
Government of India for financially supporting this Huard D, Mailhot A, Duchesne S. 2010. Bayesian estimation of
intensity–duration–frequency curves and of the return period associ-
work under ITRA-water grant ITRA/15(68)/water/ ated to a given rainfall event. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 24(3):
IUFM/01. 337–347.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Con-
tribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
References Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY.
Jakob D. 2013. Nonstationarity in extremes and engineering design. In
Agilan V, Umamahesh NV. 2015. Detection and attribution of Extremes in a Changing Climate: Detection, Analysis and Uncer-
non-stationarity in intensity and frequency of daily and 4-h extreme tainty, AghaKouchak A, Easterling D, Hsu K, Schubert S, Sorooshian
rainfall of Hyderabad, India. J. Hydrol. 530: 677–697. S (eds). Springer: Dordrecht, 363–417.
Agilan V, Umamahesh NV. 2016. Modelling nonlinear trend for devel- Jena PP, Chatterjee C, Pradhan G, Mishra A. 2014. Are recent frequent
oping non-stationary rainfall intensity–duration–frequency curve. high floods in Mahanadi basin in eastern India due to increase in
Int. J. Climatol. 37: 1265–1281. extreme rainfalls? J. Hydrol. 517: 847–862.
Katz RW. 2013. Statistical methods for nonstationary extremes. In Renard B, Sun X, Lang M. 2013. Bayesian methods for non-stationary
Extremes in a Changing Climate: Detection, Analysis and Uncer- extreme. In Extremes in a Changing Climate, AghaKouchak A, East-
tainty, Kouchak AA, Easterling D, Hsu K, Schubert S, Sorooshian S erling D, Hsu K, Schubert S, Sorooshian S (eds). Springer: Dordrecht,
(eds). Springer: Dordrecht, 15–37. 39–95.
Katz RW, Parlange MB, Naveau P. 2002. Statistics of extremes in Roberts GO, Gelman A, Gilks WR. 1997. Weak convergence and optimal
hydrology. Adv. Water Resour. 25(8): 1287–1304. scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms. Ann. Appl. Probab.
Kendall M. 1962. Rank Correlation Methods, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing 7(1): 110–120.
Company: New York, NY. Rupa C, Saha U, Mujumdar PP. 2015. Model and parameter uncertainty
Khaliq MN, Ouarda TB, Ondo JC, Gachon P, Bobee B. 2006. Frequency in IDF relationships under climate change. Adv. Water Resour. 79:
analysis of a sequence of dependent and/or non-stationary hydro- 127–139.
meteorological observations: a review. J. Hydrol. 329: 534–552. Saji NH, Goswami BN, Vinayachandran PN, Yamagata T. 1999.
Kunkel KE, Karl TR, Easterling DR, Redmond K, Young J, Yin X, A dipolemode in the tropical Indian Ocean. Nature 401:
Hennon P. 2013. Probable maximum precipitation and climate change. 360–363.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 40: 1402–1408. Sheridan SC. 2003. North American weather-type frequency and tele-
Lenderink G, van Meijgaard E. 2008. Increase in hourly precipitation connection indices. Int. J. Climatol. 23(1): 27–45.
extremes beyond expectations from temperature changes. Nat. Geosci. Strupczewski WG, Singh VP, Feluch W. 2001. Non-stationary approach
1: 511–514. to at-site flood frequency modelling. I. Maximum likelihood estima-
Mallakpour I, Villarini G. 2016. Investigating the relationship between tion. J. Hydrol. 248: 123–142.
the frequency of flooding over the central United States and large-scale Sugahara S, Rocha RP, Silveira R. 2009. Non-stationary frequency
climate. Adv. Water Resour. 92: 159–171. analysis of extreme daily rainfall in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int. J. Climatol.
Mann HB. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13(3): 29: 1339–1349.
245–259. Tramblay Y, Neppel L, Carreau J, Sanchez-Gomez E. 2012. Extreme
Martins ES, Stedinger JR. 2000. Generalized maximum-likelihood gen- value modelling of daily areal rainfall over Mediterranean catchments
eralized extreme-value quantile estimators for hydrologic data. Water in a changing climate. Hydrol. Processes 26(25): 3934–3944.
Resour. Res. 36(3): 737–744. Trenberth KE. 2011. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim.
Martins ES, Stedinger JR. 2001. Historical information in a generalized Res. 47: 123–138.
maximum likelihood framework with partial duration and annual Trenberth KE, Dai A, Rasmussen RM, Parsons DB. 2003. The chang-
maximum series. Water Resour. Res. 37(10): 2559–2567. ing character of precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84(9):
McCabe GJ, Dettinger MD. 1999. Decadal variations in the strength of 1205–1217.
ENSO teleconnections with precipitation in the western United States. Vasiliades L, Galiatsatou P, Loukas A. 2015. Nonstationary frequency
Int. J. Climatol. 19(13): 1399–1410. analysis of annual maximum rainfall using climate covariates. Water
Min SK, Zhang X, Zwiers FW, Hegerl GC. 2011. Human contribution Resour. Manage. 29(2): 339–358.
to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470: 378–381. Villarini G, Serinaldi F, Smith JA, Krajewski WF. 2009. On the station-
Mondal A, Mujumdar PP. 2015. Modeling non-stationarity in intensity, arity of annual flood peaks in the continental United States during the
duration and frequency of extreme rainfall over India. J. Hydrol. 521: 20th century. Water Resour. Res. 45: W08417.
217–231. Wasko C, Sharma A. 2015. Steeper temporal distribution of rain intensity
Mueller EN, Pfister A. 2011. Increasing occurrence of highintensity at higher temperatures within Australian storms. Nat. Geosci. 8:
rainstorm events relevant for the generation of soil erosion in a 527–529.
temperate lowland region in Central Europe. J. Hydrol. 411: 266–278. Westra S, Alexander LV, Zwiers FW. 2013. Global increasing
Mujumdar PP, Kumar DN. 2012. Floods in a Changing Climate, 1st edn. trends in annual maximum daily precipitation. J. Clim. 26(11):
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 3904–3918.
Najafi MR, Moradkhani H, Wherry SA. 2011. Statistical downscaling of Xu L, Zhou H, Du L, Yao H, Wang H. 2015. Precipitation trends and
precipitation using machine learning with optimal predictor selection. variability from 1950 to 2000 in arid lands of Central Asia. J. Arid
J. Hydrol. Eng. 16(8): 650–664. Land 7(4): 514–526.
Raje D, Mujumdar PP. 2009. A conditional random field–based down- Yilmaz AG, Perera JC. 2014. Extreme rainfall nonstationarity investiga-
scaling method for assessment of climate change impact on multisite tion and intensity–frequency–duration relationship. J. Hydrol. Eng.
daily precipitation in the Mahanadi basin. Water Resour. Res. 45(10): 19(6): 1160–1172.
W10404.