Hess-24-A Systematic Review of Climate Change Science Relevant To Australian Design Flood Estimation

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
, 28, 1251–1285, 2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A systematic review of climate change science relevant to

Australian design flood estimation
Conrad Wasko1 , Seth Westra2 , Rory Nathan1 , Acacia Pepler3,4 , Timothy H. Raupach4,5,6 , Andrew Dowdy3,4,7 ,
Fiona Johnson8,9 , Michelle Ho1 , Kathleen L. McInnes10 , Doerte Jakob11 , Jason Evans4,5,6 , Gabriele Villarini12,13 , and
Hayley J. Fowler14
1 Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
2 School of Architectural and Civil Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
3 Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney, Australia
4 National Environmental Science Program Climate System Hub, Sydney, Australia
5 Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
6 ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
7 School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
8 Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales,
Kensington, New South Wales, Australia

9 Australia Research Council Training Centre in Data Analytics for Resources and Environments,
Kensington, New South Wales, Australia

10 CSIRO Environment, Aspendale, Australia
11 Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia
12 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
13 High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
14 School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Correspondence: Conrad Wasko ([email protected])
Received: 28 September 2023 – Discussion started: 10 October 2023

Revised: 15 January 2024 – Accepted: 29 January 2024 – Published: 15 March 2024
Abstract. In response to flood risk, design flood estimation focuses on exceedance probabilities much rarer than annual
is a cornerstone of planning, infrastructure design, setting maximum events, such as the 1 % annual exceedance proba-
of insurance premiums, and emergency response planning. bility event or even rarer, using rainfall-based procedures, at
Under stationary assumptions, flood guidance and the meth- locations where there are few to no observations of stream-
ods used in design flood estimation are firmly established in flow. Here, we perform a systematic review to summarize
practice and mature in their theoretical foundations, but un- the state-of-the-art understanding of the impact of climate
der climate change, guidance is still in its infancy. Human- change on design flood estimation in the Australian context,
caused climate change is influencing factors that contribute while also drawing on international literature. In addition,
to flood risk such as rainfall extremes and soil moisture, and a meta-analysis, whereby results from multiple studies are
there is a need for updated flood guidance. However, a bar- combined, is conducted for extreme rainfall to provide quan-
rier to updating flood guidance is the translation of the sci- titative estimates of possible future changes. This informa-
ence into practical application. For example, most science tion is described in the context of contemporary design flood
pertaining to historical changes to flood risk focuses on ex- estimation practice to facilitate the inclusion of climate sci-
amining trends in annual maximum flood events or the appli- ence into design flood estimation practice.
cation of non-stationary flood frequency analysis. Although
this science is valuable, in practice, design flood estimation
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

1252 C. Wasko et al.: A systematic review of climate change science relevant to Australian design flood estimation
1 Introduction ening the thermodynamic influence on rainfall extremes de-

pending on location and time of year (Emori and Brown,
Flood assessment provides critical information to evaluate 2005; Pfahl et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2023a).
the tolerability or acceptability of flood risks and to sup- A recent review of climate change guidance has found
port the development of risk management strategies. Flood that several jurisdictions around the world are already in-
risk reduction measures can be exercised through the con- corporating climate change into their design flood guidance
struction of flood mitigation structures, zoning and devel- (Wasko et al., 2021b). For example, the jurisdictions of Bel-
opment controls, and non-structural measures to better re- gium, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden,
spond to floods when they do occur, for example through the UK, and Wales are all recommending the use of climate
flood warning systems and emergency management plan- change adjustment factors for IFD rainfall intensities. Many
ning. Here we adopt the term “risk” to mean flood risk. countries also recommend higher climate change adjustment
Across the world, the associated hypothetical flood adopted factors for rarer precipitation events, consistent with findings
for design and planning purposes for management of risk from various modelling studies that rarer events will inten-
is termed the design flood (Pilgrim and Cordery, 1993). In sify more with climate change (Gründemann et al., 2022;
Australia, the design flood is characterized in terms of an Pendergrass and Hartmann, 2014). Shorter-duration storms
annual exceedance probability (AEP) rather than an annual are likely to intensify at a greater rate than longer-duration
recurrence interval (ARI) with the aim of better highlight- storms (Fowler et al., 2021), and subsequently, some guid-
ing the annual risks that the community is exposed to. There ance, such as that from New Zealand and the UK, also ac-
are many different methods of estimating the design flood counts for storm duration in their climate change adjustment
applicable for different AEPs, ranging from flood frequency factors (Wasko et al., 2021b).
analysis, which uses streamflow observations, to continu- Although substantial advances have been made in ad-
ous simulation, which uses long sequences of rainfall obser- justing design flood estimation guidance to include climate
vations, to those that use rainfall in event-based modelling change, there remains a disconnect between climate science
through intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) curves (in Aus- and existing guidance. For example, although there are cli-
tralia termed intensity–frequency–duration or IFD curves) mate change adjustment techniques available for generating
and/or probable maximum precipitation (PMP) as inputs. altered precipitation inputs, none of the guidance reviewed
Methods of design flood estimation are commonly stipulated provided recommendations for adjusting rainfall sequences
by guiding documents, for example, the Guidelines of Deter- used in continuous simulation. Also, current guidelines for
mining Flood Flow Frequency – Bulletin 17C (England et al., estimation of the PMP assume a stationary climate (Salas
2018) in the USA, the Flood Estimation Handbook (Institute et al., 2020) despite evidence to the contrary (Kunkel et al.,
of Hydrology, 1999) in the UK, and Australian Rainfall and 2013; Visser et al., 2022). Finally, while research has been
Runoff (Ball et al., 2019a) in Australia. Such guidance doc- undertaken into non-stationary flood frequency analysis, and
uments, though not necessarily legally binding, are seen as the underlying statistical theory is relatively mature (Salas
representing best practice. et al., 2018; Stedinger and Griffis, 2011), these have not been
Traditionally, the AEP, or flood quantile to which it corre- adopted in guidance. For example, Bulletin 17C assumes
sponds, has been assumed to be static; however, with climate time invariance (England et al., 2018).
change, it is now recognized that the flood hazard is chang- There are multiple reasons for the disconnect between the
ing (Milly et al., 2008). The primary driver of this change science and flood estimation practice. Although widely ac-
in AEP to rainfall-induced flooding is the thermodynamic cepted in the scientific literature, the “chain-of-models” ap-
increase in extreme rainfall due to a 6 % °C−1 –7 % °C−1 in- proach – whereby general circulation model (GCM) outputs
crease in the saturation vapour pressure of the atmosphere, as are bias-corrected and downscaled to create inputs for haz-
dictated by the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relationship (Tren- ard modelling (Hakala et al., 2019) – has large uncertain-
berth et al., 2003). Factors beyond the thermodynamic im- ties (Kundzewicz and Stakhiv, 2010; Lee et al., 2020), with
pact have been discussed in various reviews and commen- the uncertainties often seen as a barrier for adoption (Wasko
taries (Fowler et al., 2021; Allen and Ingram, 2002; Pender- et al., 2021b). Further, while much research has been under-
grass, 2018). The vertical lapse rate (i.e. atmospheric stabil- taken on understanding the non-stationarity of flooding, the
ity) increases as temperatures increase, and rates of rainfall research is not often directly comparable or translatable to
can decrease as the cloud base is lifted assuming moisture the approaches and methods used in design flood estimation,
is unchanging. But if the moisture increases, then the oppo- for example in the case of temporal and spatial patterns of
site is true, with rain more easily triggered. In addition, there rainfall or the influence of antecedent conditions on rainfall
can be an increase in buoyancy creating stronger updrafts and losses (Quintero et al., 2022). Finally, most climate science
deeper convection (referred to as super-CC scaling). Finally, focuses on the annual maximum daily precipitation, often re-
dynamical drivers related to changes in the global circula- ferred to as the “RX1 day index” or Rx1D (Zhang et al.,
tion can act to change the occurrence of rainfall extremes 2011), to measure changes in extremes, with standard cli-
by changing storm tracks and speeds, amplifying and damp- mate models not adequately resolving the processes that gov-
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

C. Wasko et al.: A systematic review of climate change science relevant to Australian design flood estimation 1253
ern sub-daily rainfall extremes. In contrast, design flood esti- cally generated data (e.g. Wilks, 1998). This approach is
mation generally requires consideration of sub-daily rainfall very useful in joint probability assessments where sys-
totals and events much rarer than annual maxima. tem performance varies over multiple temporal and spa-
With a literature search finding no existing synthesis of tial scales (e.g. multiple sewer overflows or the design
climate science relevant to the specific needs of design flood of linear infrastructure) or in more volume-dependent
estimation, here we undertake a systematic review of the lat- systems comprised of compound storages. Due to its
est science directly relevant to the inputs used in design flood reliance on long rainfall sequences, continuous simula-
estimation. Although we focus on science relevant to Aus- tion, like flood frequency analysis, is usually only used
tralia, international literature is incorporated, as design flood to estimate more frequent flood events, with a further
estimation methods are used around the world. Finally, we limitation being the difficulty in stochastically gener-
combine the results from individual studies using the process ating reliable sequences of rainfall data (Woldemeskel
of meta-analysis to assess the level of consensus of different et al., 2016).
sources of evidence relating specifically to the design flood
3. Event-based (IFD) modelling. This is the most com-
estimation input of extreme rainfall under climate change.
mon method used for design flood estimation. A rainfall
This review represents a critical step in updating flood guid-
depth or intensity of given AEP and duration is sampled
ance and translating scientific knowledge into design flood
from an IFD curve and combined with rainfall temporal
practice. This review aims to (a) serve as a template for sci-
patterns to create a design rainfall event (or “burst”) of
entific reviews as they relate to design flood estimation guid-
a given duration (see Sect. 14 of Chow et al., 1988).
ance updates and (b) identify knowledge gaps in the scientific
In some applications, it is preferable to consider de-
literature that are required by engineers who perform design
sign events based on complete storms, and thus it is
flood estimation.
necessary to augment the rainfall bursts derived from
IFD curves with rainfall that might be expected to occur
2 Design flood estimation practice prior (or subsequent) to the burst period. As the design
storm rainfall is generally a point rainfall but applied
To contextualize the systematic review and meta-analysis over a catchment, an areal reduction factor (ARF) is ap-
that follow in later sections, this section briefly introduces plied before the design rainfall event is used as an input
the primary design flood estimation approaches, with Fig. 1 to a model to estimate the runoff hydrograph. Rainfall
showing the typical AEP range that each method applies to. that does not contribute to the flood hydrograph because
it either enters depressions in the catchment is inter-
1. Flood frequency analysis (FFA). A flood frequency cepted, or is infiltrated into the soil, is removed through
curve is derived by fitting a probability distribution such a “loss” model. Finally, the hydrograph response may
as an extreme value distribution to streamflow data, be modulated by the tail water conditions, where the sea
which is then subsequently used to estimate the design level will modulate the catchment outflow.
flood quantiles (Stedinger et al., 1993). This method is
limited to catchments where streamflow data are avail- Due to the severe consequences of failures, critical infras-
able unless data can be transposed or corrected. As flood tructure, such as dams or nuclear facilities, often needs to
records are typically in the order of decades, AEPs rarer be designed to withstand the largest event that is physically
than approximately 1 in 50 are generally subject to con- plausible, termed the probable maximum flood (PMF). Like
siderable uncertainty. Hence, flood frequency analysis is the above event-based modelling description, the PMF is de-
often not used by practitioners as either at-site data are rived from a rainfall event, but in this case the rainfall is the
unavailable, the record is too short to estimate the tar- PMP. Most local jurisdictions follow the World Meteorolog-
get quantile, or there have been significant changes to ical Organization guidelines for estimating the PMP (WMO,
the catchment over the period of record. Regional flood 2009). The PMP is derived using observed “high-efficiency”
frequency analysis is an extension of flood frequency storms matched to a representative dewpoint temperature.
analysis where space is traded for time by pooling re- The moisture (i.e. rainfall) in the storm is then maximized by
gional data to extend the applicability of this method to assuming the same storm could occur with moisture equiva-
rarer events (Hosking and Wallis, 1997). lent to the maximum (persisting) dewpoint observed at that
site.
2. Continuous simulation. A hydrologic model is used to The method adopted for design flood estimation depends
simulate the streamflow of a catchment. Flood maxima on the problem being solved, the level of risk being designed
are then extracted from the modelled output to derive for, and the available data. Flood frequency analysis is an
flood quantiles using an appropriate probability model important source of information when data are available and
(Boughton and Droop, 2003). Where rainfall records of key assumptions (e.g. historical and future climatic and hy-
sufficient length are not available to drive the hydro- drological stationarity) are met, due to the implicit consid-
logic model, the modelling can be forced by stochasti- eration of flood causing factors without a need for assump-
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Figure 1. The relevance of different flood estimation approaches as a function of AEP. The top panel presents a typical flood frequency
curve where the flood magnitude increases with event rarity (AEP), with frequent events presented as events per year (EY). The bottom panel
shows the range of event rarities for which various flood estimation approaches show utility. Dashed lines represent lower utility, while solid
lines represent higher utility. Figure adapted from James Ball et al. (2019b). The PMP is used as an input in event-based models to derive the
PMF.
tions about joint interactions. However, most commonly, ap- the foundation of the review, and the publication base was
proaches based on event-based modelling are applied be- further supplemented by other sources of information, partic-
cause flood data rarely exist at the location of interest, and ularly in cases where specific terminology was used (e.g. the
if they do, they are often confounded by catchment non- term “Clausius–Clapeyron” in the context of extreme rain-
stationary (e.g. urbanization, deforestation), or the record fall) or where knowledge existed of additional publications
lengths are much shorter than the design AEP required. or international research not identified through the keyword
searches. We note that the impact of factors related to sea
level (Sect. 4.3.6), although included in the review, was ex-
3 Methodology cluded from the requirements of the systematic review as it
is not explicitly part of Australia’s flood guidance as it re-
Systematic reviews represent a reproducible methodology lates to climate change (Bates et al., 2019). Similarly, the in-
for appraising the literature in the context of a specific troductory section on the processes affecting changes in ex-
topic or issue (Page et al., 2021). Reviews were undertaken treme rainfall in Australia (Sect. 4.3.1) was excluded from
for each of the three key flood estimation methods (flood the stricter systematic review requirements.
frequency analysis, continuous simulation, and event-based To select relevant literature from the search results, articles
modelling). Each review section was assigned a lead author were first filtered to remove duplicates. Following this, irrel-
who was tasked with collecting scholarly articles from Sco- evant articles based on a review of the abstracts, and then
pus, with a secondary author tasked with reviewing the re- of the paper itself, were excluded. While the search terms
sults of the systematic review to reduce selection bias. Arti- aided inclusion in the systematic review, many studies were
cles were selected targeting the last decade to ensure a broad not relevant to the assessment of flood risk and were omit-
coverage of evidence while ensuring that evidence is related. Finally, some additional studies (in particular, syntheses)
tively contemporary. The literature search for each method were included based on the author’s knowledge of the liter-
of (or input to) design flood estimation contained different ature. Details of the searches (Table S1 in the Supplement)
relevant keywords (see Table S1 in the Supplement for key- and the full list of articles reviewed (Table S2 in the Sup-
words for each section). To limit the scope of the review plement) are provided with a summary of the articles found
geographically, searches were made for literature where ei- by publication year as they relate to each of the systematic
ther the title, abstract, or keywords contained “Australia.” review topics provided in Fig. 2.
To constrain the review only to climate change, literature Recognizing the importance of IFD estimates in design
was also required to contain “change” in either the title, flood estimation, and the large volume of available litera-
abstract, or keywords (it was deemed that using “climate ture providing quantitative estimates of changes in extreme
change” would be too restrictive). These criteria represent rainfall, an analysis was performed to understand the av-

Figure 2. Papers identified in the systematic review by publication year and review topic. Full details are provided in Table S2.
erage magnitude of extreme rainfall change and associated tical considerations (e.g. sample size and/or representa-
uncertainty. The analysis borrows from meta-analysis tech- tiveness over the spatial domain).
niques which quantitatively combine results from multiple
studies (Field and Gillett, 2010) and uses structured expert- 4. The best estimates from each author were then com-
elicitation methods consistent with those used by the IPCC pared, and through a consensus process, a single central
(Zommers et al., 2020) as follows: estimate was derived together with a likely (66 %) range
to represent assessment uncertainty.
1. Where possible extreme rainfall change was quantified
per degree of global temperature change (i.e. the global
mean, including ocean and land regions). Additionally, 4 Synthesis of the literature and systematic review
variation with storm duration, severity (i.e. AEP), and
location was considered. Global mean temperature was In this section, the literature is reviewed for each of the
chosen to ensure consistency with the IPCC projec- three key flood estimation methods (flood frequency analy-
tions and to be representative of the climatic drivers of sis, continuous simulation, and event-based modelling). An
changes in moisture sources. The exception to this was overview of the implications of climate change on each
rainfall–temperature scaling studies, which use local method is first presented, followed by a systematic review
temperature differences as a proxy for anthropogenic using the keywords provided in the Supplement. In the con-
climate change. text of event-based (IFD) modelling, each of the inputs to
the design flood estimate are reviewed. For extreme rainfall,
2. Assessment was made, through consensus between au- the systematic review is followed by the results of the meta-
thors, as to whether there was enough evidence to calcu- analysis.
late the magnitude of extreme rainfall change with vary-
ing storm duration, severity, and location – and what, if 4.1 Flood frequency analysis
any, distinction was to be made for these factors.
4.1.1 Impact of climate change
3. Co-authors independently used the evidence collected
to determine their best estimate of the change in extreme Flood frequency (or regional flood frequency) analysis gen-
rainfall as well as a likely range. Typically, each study erally uses annual maxima or threshold excess values of in-
was weighted by how confident each author was in stantaneous flood data to derive a frequency curve by fit-
the evidence presented in the study. This included con- ting an appropriate statistical model (Stedinger et al., 1993).
sideration of the study methodology (e.g. observation- Changes in flood maxima due to climate change are generally
based studies, model-based studies) and various statis- related back to changes in extreme precipitation. As temper-

ature increases, so does the saturation water vapour of the the global literature include using combinations of rainfall,
atmosphere, leading to, all other things being equal, greater potential evaporation, soil moisture, temperature, and large-
extreme precipitation and hence pluvial flooding. However, scale drivers of moisture transport as covariates (Guo et al.,
flooding is dependent on the flood-generating mechanism 2023; Han et al., 2022; Tramblay et al., 2014; Schlef et al.,
(Villarini and Wasko, 2021). In the absence of snowmelt, 2018; Condon et al., 2015; Kim and Villarini, 2023; Towler
changes in antecedent conditions related to soil moisture et al., 2010). In principle, this is similar to studies performed
and baseflow have been shown to modulate flood events in the USA, which have used precipitation and tempera-
(Berghuijs and Slater, 2023), with changes in soil moisture ture as covariates for non-stationary flood frequency analysis
having a lower impact on rarer floods (Ivancic and Shaw, (Condon et al., 2015; Towler et al., 2010; Kim and Villar-
2015; Wasko and Nathan, 2019; Neri et al., 2019; Bennett ini, 2023). But even the use of physically based covariates
et al., 2018). Where snow is present, warmer temperatures is problematic as the covariates may not capture the differ-
cause a reduction in the frequency of rain-on-snow flood ing processes that affect rainfall and therefore flood changes,
events at lower elevations due to snowpack declines, whereas for example thermodynamic versus dynamical changes to ex-
at higher elevations rain-on-snow events become more fre- treme rainfall, which vary with storm duration (Schlef et al.,
quent due to a shift from snowfall to rain (Musselman et al., 2018). A final complication is that even if the changes in
2018). flood drivers are captured by the covariates, there is no guar-
Across Australia, for frequent flood events in the order antee that these flood drivers will be those governing flooding
of annual maxima, more streamflow gauges show decreases in the future due to changes in the dominant flood mecha-
in annual maxima than increases (Ishak et al., 2013; Zhang nism (Chegwidden, Oriana et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022;
et al., 2016). There is a clear regional pattern, with decreases Wasko, 2022). Possibly for the above reasons, there is lit-
more likely in the extratropics and increases more likely tle formal guidance for how to perform non-stationary flood
in the tropics. These changes have a strong correlation to frequency analysis. One of the most well-developed guid-
changes in antecedent soil moisture and mean rainfall due ance documents on flood frequency analysis – Bulletin 17C
to the expansion of the tropics (Wasko et al., 2021c; Wasko (England et al., 2018) – while acknowledging the potential
and Nathan, 2019). However, there is a statistically signifi- impacts of climate change on flood risk, does not explicitly
cant increasing trend in the frequency of rarer floods since give guidance for climate change but instead refers the user to
the late 19th century (Power and Callaghan, 2016) due to in- published literature for non-stationary flood frequency (Salas
creases in extreme rainfall (Wasko and Nathan, 2019; Guer- and Obeysekera, 2014; Stedinger and Griffis, 2011), leav-
reiro et al., 2018). Where research examines changes in flood ing the door open for a variety of analyses based on “time-
frequency for Australia, it is often related to changes in catch- varying parameters or other appropriate techniques”. Indeed
ment conditions (Kemp et al., 2020) or interannual variabil- Ahmed et al. (2023) note there is a dearth of guidance on
ity (McMahon and Kiem, 2018; Franks and Kuczera, 2002). how to considerer non-stationarity in regional flood quan-
Specifically related to climate change, most studies for Aus- tile estimation, arguing alongside other reviews (Zalnezhad
tralia argue trends in annual maxima have implications for et al., 2022) that further research is needed on the impacts of
non-stationary flood frequency analysis (Ishak et al., 2014) climate change on flood frequency analysis.
but often fail to detect statistically significant trends (Ishak
et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2016) due to natural variability (Vil- 4.1.2 Systematic review
larini and Wasko, 2021).
In a review of the projection of flooding with warmer tem- For Australia, the systematic review only yielded one pa-
peratures, Wasko (2021) summarized the global literature on per. Using 105 catchments across the east coast of Aus-
non-stationary flood frequency analysis. It was noted that tralia, Han et al. (2022) fit a non-stationary regional flood fre-
non-stationary flood frequency analysis for climate change quency model using the covariates of catchment area, mean
is typically performed using time-dependent parameters (e.g. annual rainfall, mean annual potential evaporation, and rain-
Salas et al., 2018). Wasko (2021) also noted that one of the fall intensity with a duration of 24 h for a target return peri-
shortcomings of non-stationary flood frequency analysis us- od/exceedance probability. The proposed method was found
ing a time covariate is the inability to project with confidence to be effective in capturing the differing trends with differ-
for climate change due to the lack of a causal relationship ing recurrence intervals, and projections were derived, with
(see, for example, Faulkner et al., 2020). Hence it is argued more sites having increases projected for rarer events (1-in-
that any non-stationary flood frequency analysis should en- 20 AEP) than for frequent events (1-in-2 AEP).
sure that the statistical model structure is representative of the
processes controlling flooding (Schlef et al., 2018; Tramblay
et al., 2014; Kim and Villarini, 2023; Villarini and Wasko,
2021; Faulkner et al., 2020), with a framework for model
construction provided in Schlef et al. (2018). Examples of
physically motivated non-stationary frequency analysis from

4.2 Continuous simulation preserving bias correction method (Hempel et al., 2013). Fre-
quent floods were projected to decrease across large parts
4.2.1 Impact of climate change of Australia, with some increases in the tropics. These pat-
terns were amplified for rarer events, with decreases (or no
Where streamflow data are not available, flood frequency change) projected for rarer floods across the southern part
curves can be derived from simulated streamflow using a of the country. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has
rainfall-runoff model driven by long sequences of rainfall published a dataset consisting of four CMIP5 GCMs and
and evapotranspiration. The process of deriving flood fre- four downscaling methods gridded across the entire conti-
quency curves through continuous simulation often necessi- nent (Wilson et al., 2022; Peter et al., 2023). Using these
tates the use of a weather generator to stochastically gener- data (Wilson et al., 2022; Peter et al., 2023) as an input to
ate the model inputs due to the long record lengths required the AWRA-L daily water balance model (Frost et al., 2018)
for flood frequency estimation. For future climate conditions, the annual maxima and 1-in-20 AEP flood events were pro-
these model input time series are generally derived through jected to increase across most of the continent (Bureau of
downscaling methods (Fowler et al., 2007; Teutschbein and Meteorology, 2022).
Seibert, 2012), where GCM outputs are bias-corrected and Wasko et al. (2023) used the MRNBC and QME downscal-
downscaled to create realistic inputs for hydrologic (rainfall- ing methods that were found to perform best for hydrologic
runoff) models to simulate streamflow and consequently to variables (Vogel et al., 2023) in 301 locally calibrated catch-
derive flood frequency estimates. Examples of this include ment rainfall-runoff models across the continent. Decreases
Norway’s flood guidance (Lawrence and Hisdal, 2011) and in frequent flooding up to the 1-in-5 AEP were projected
eFLaG in the UK (Hannaford et al., 2023), where the magni- across large parts of the continent, while for rarer events, the
tude of a flow of a given exceedance probability is compared flood magnitude was projected to increase across the north-
to a reference period to provide climate adjustment factors. ern and eastern coasts. Differences in the results in this study
While changes in the hydrologic cycle and mean rain- and those above were attributed to (1) the use of rainfall-
fall are largely constrained by the availability of energy, ex- runoff models that were calibrated locally (i.e. different pa-
treme rainfall changes are constrained by moisture availabil- rameter set for each catchment) to flood frequency quantiles,
ity (Allen and Ingram, 2002). For Australia, increases in pan whereas AWRA-L is calibrated to match dynamics of daily
evaporation have been observed (Stephens et al., 2018b). For streamflow and satellite soil moisture and evapotranspiration
rainfall, longer dry spells between weather events are pro- across Australia simultaneously using a single set of param-
jected (Grose et al., 2020), with a shift from frontal rainfall eters (Frost et al., 2018), and (2) the different downscaling
to convective rainfall, particularly in the southern parts of the methods adopted (Wasko et al., 2023). Recent research has
continent (Pepler et al., 2021). Rainfall events are expected shown that, for hydrological applications, multi-variate bias
to have, on average, a shorter storm duration (Wasko et al., correction that considers cross-correlations among variables,
2021a) with greater peak rainfall (Visser et al., 2023) and temporal auto-correlations, and biases at multiple timescales
slower movement (Kossin, 2018; Kahraman et al., 2021). As (daily to annual) performs the best (Vogel et al., 2023; Zhan
a result, although the frequency of extreme rainfall events et al., 2022; Robertson et al., 2023). Further, both the bias
may decline, when they do occur, the extreme rainfall from correction and rainfall-runoff model calibration should be
the event is projected to increase (Grose et al., 2020) – with evaluated for the target statistics of interest (flood frequency
greater increases expected for more extreme events (Wasko in this case), while also ensuring they are representative of
et al., 2023). Hence, just accounting for mean or extreme the flood processes to guarantee robustness under change
rainfall changes in isolation is not sufficient, and changes to (Krysanova et al., 2018). Finally, Zhan et al. (2022) and
the entire rainfall time series are required to study responses Sharma et al. (2021), among others, note that the uncertainty
to climate change. and variability in climate projections, complexity in selecting
data, as well as data processing, all hamper the adoption of
4.2.2 Systematic review climate data in continuous simulation. Indeed, Dale (2021)
argues that one of the primary requirements for design flood
In climate literature the term “downscaling” is an umbrella estimation moving forward is “a standard, accepted approach
term describing the conversion of coarse-resolution climate for deriving time series rainfall that is representative of future
model outputs to catchment-scale relevant outputs. The sys- climatic conditions for continuous simulation modelling”.
tematic review focused on downscaling yielded three rele-
vant papers. In addition to these, one set of reports from
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology was included (Bu-
reau of Meteorology, 2022). Using five GCMs from the Cou-
pled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and
eight global hydrologic models, Gu et al. (2020) projected
changes up to the 1-in-50 AEP flood using the ISI-MIP trend-

4.3 Event-based (IFD) modelling ing world (Kossin, 2018), while others have suggested this
might not be a significant change (Lanzante, 2019; Moon
4.3.1 Processes affecting changes in Australian extreme et al., 2019; Yamaguchi et al., 2020).
rainfall East coast lows (ECLs) are cyclones near southeastern
Australia that can be caused by both mid-latitude and trop-
Before performing a systematic review of the complemen- ical influences over a range of levels in the atmosphere.
tary sources of knowledge that provide insight into how cli- Fewer ECLs are likely to occur due to anthropogenic cli-
mate change could influence rainfall extremes, we first pro- mate change, at a rate of about −10 % °C−1 of global warm-
vide a background to the changes in Australian extreme rain- ing, with this change more likely for cooler months (Dowdy
fall, with this section excluded from the requirements of et al., 2019; Pepler and Dowdy, 2022; Cavicchia et al., 2020).
the systematic review. In Australia, extreme rainfall is typ- A recent study using regional climate model (RCM) projec-
ically associated with thunderstorms, cyclones, troughs, or tions reported that the number of cyclones exceeding the cur-
fronts (Dowdy and Catto, 2017; Pepler et al., 2021; War- rent 95th percentile for maximum rain rate is expected to in-
ren et al., 2021), including tropical cyclones (TCs) in north- crease by more than 25 % K−1 in Australia’s eastern seaboard
ern Australia (Dare et al., 2012; Lavender and Abbs, 2013; and Tasmania under a high emissions pathway (RCP8.5) by
Villarini and Denniston, 2016; Bell et al., 2019), east coast 2070–2099. Both the eastern seaboard and Tasmania are pro-
lows (ECLs) in the east and southeast of Australia (Pepler jected to have twice as many cyclones with heavy localized
and Dowdy, 2022; Dowdy et al., 2019), and thunderstorms rain, as in 1980–2009 (Pepler and Dowdy, 2022). That study
(convective systems) throughout Australia (Dowdy, 2020). also found that about 90 % of model simulations had at least
Other physical processes leading to extreme rainfall occur- one ECL in the period 2070–2099 with a higher maximum
rence include enhanced advection of moisture to a region, rain rate than any in the period 1980–2009 for southeast Aus-
such as from atmospheric rivers – large narrow bands of wa- tralia and similarly for Tasmania. It is noted here that RCM
ter vapour (Wu et al., 2020; Reid et al., 2021; Black et al., projections are not at fine-enough scales to be convection-
2021) – and the temporal compounding of hazards such as permitting and so may not necessarily capture some changes
heatwaves impacting heavy rainfall occurrence (Sauter et al., in rainfall efficiency associated with enhanced convective
2023). processes from increased atmospheric moisture capacity.
Tropical cyclones (TCs) can impact northern regions of Convective storms, such as severe thunderstorms, can
Australia, particularly in near-coastal locations, with their cause relatively localized storms as well as mesoscale con-
occurrence generally from November to April (Chand et al., vective and linear systems (Hitchcock et al., 2021). As cli-
2019). Although there is considerable interannual variabil- mate models have a limited ability to simulate fine-scale as-
ity in the number of TCs that occur near Australia, includ- pects associated with thunderstorms (e.g. Bergemann et al.
ing influences of large-scale drivers such as the El Niño– 2022), projections are typically based on environmental con-
Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a significant downward trend ditions conducive to thunderstorm formation, such as con-
in the frequency of observed Australian TCs has occurred vective available potential energy or other related atmo-
in recent decades (Dowdy, 2014; Chand et al., 2019, 2022). spheric metrics associated with deep and moist convection.
Climate models also indicate that TC numbers in the Aus- Projections using environmental conditions such as these
tralian region are likely to continue decreasing in the coming have indicated a broad range of plausible changes in the fre-
decades due to anthropogenic climate change (Walsh et al., quency of thunderstorm environments for regions throughout
2016; Bell et al., 2019; Bhatia et al., 2018; CSIRO and Bu- Australia, including potential increases or decreases depend-
reau of Meteorology, 2015). However, although fewer TCs ing on the metric or model selections used (Allen et al., 2014;
are likely in a warmer world in general, this is more likely for Brown and Dowdy, 2021). Some of the latest set of GCMs in-
non-severe TCs than severe TCs, with extreme rainfall from dicate an increase in convection-related extreme rainfall over
TCs likely to increase in intensity at rates that could exceed Australia relating to the Madden–Julian Oscillation (Liang
6 % °C−1 –7 % °C−1 of warming (Walsh et al., 2016; Bha- et al., 2022).
tia et al., 2018; Lighthill et al., 1993; Holland and Bruyère, Using lightning observations as a proxy for convective
2014; Sobel et al., 2016; Emanuel, 2017; Parker et al., 2018; storm occurrence, a decline in the number of thunderstorms
Patricola and Wehner, 2018; Wehner et al., 2018; Knutson during the cooler months of the year has been observed in
et al., 2020, 2019; Vecchi et al., 2019; Kossin et al., 2020; parts of southern Australia (Bates et al., 2015). Another study
Seneviratne et al., 2023). In addition to the frequency and based on rainfall observations and reanalysis data reported a
severity, some studies have indicated a potential poleward trend since 1979 towards fewer thunderstorms for most re-
shift of TCs (Kossin et al., 2014), but there are considerable gions of Australia, with the strongest and most significant
uncertainties around whether or not this is occurring (Knut- trends in northern and central Australia during the spring and
son et al., 2019; Bell et al., 2019; Chand et al., 2019; Tauvale summer, in addition to increasing trends in thunderstorm fre-
and Tsuboki, 2019). Finally, some studies have suggested a quency on the eastern seaboard (Dowdy, 2020). However, the
potential trend in the translational speed of TCs in a warm- total rainfall associated with thunderstorms increased in most

regions over the same time period, such that the intensity of Australia, fewer extratropical cyclones and fronts are likely
rainfall per thunderstorm increased at about 2–3 times the to occur during the cooler months of the year, leading to a
Clausius–Clapeyron rate (Dowdy, 2020). Importantly, most potential reduction in rainfall extremes during these months.
of southern Australia saw an increase in the frequency of Increases in moisture transport by atmospheric rivers have
thunderstorms associated with rainfall of at least 10 mm over also been reported, with the frequency of strong atmospheric
the same period, particularly during the warm months (Pe- rivers potentially increasing by 50 %–100 % in eastern Aus-
pler et al., 2021). That increase in rainfall intensity exceeding tralia towards the end of this century. The increased water
the Clausius–Clapeyron rate is broadly similar to some other vapour capacity of the atmosphere in a warming world can
studies based on observations and modelling for Australia, increase rainfall efficiency in some cases, such as through
including those focussed on short-duration extremes (Westra enhanced latent heat from condensation contributing energy
and Sisson, 2011; Bao et al., 2017; Guerreiro et al., 2018; to the convective processes. This can lead to increases in
Ayat et al., 2022), with the larger increases tending to be in the intensity of extreme rainfall that are notably larger in
northern rather than in southern regions. These high rates of magnitude than the 6 % °C−1 –7 % °C−1 increase associated
change in rainfall intensity can occur from changes in rainfall with the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. Studies have indicated
efficiency, which increases due to additional moisture capac- that increased rainfall efficiency in the order of 2 or more
ity in a warmer atmosphere providing additional latent heat times the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship rate is plausible
from condensation as energy in the convective processes – for short-duration rainfall extremes in general for Australia
so-called super-CC scaling. This process is relevant for thun- (Guerreiro et al., 2018; Dowdy, 2020; Ayat et al., 2022).
derstorms and TCs given the convective processes that pro-
vide energy for their formation and intensification, as well 4.3.2 Rainfall intensity
as ECLs that sometimes have mesoscale convective features
embedded within their broader synoptic structure (Holland
et al., 1987; Mills et al., 2010; Dowdy et al., 2019). Impact of climate change
Extratropical cyclones and fronts can also sometimes
cause extreme rainfall in southern Australia. Recent studies IFD curves are typically derived using statistical models,
have reported a trend towards fewer of these events, particu- such as the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution,
larly during the cooler months of the year, including a reduc- fitted to annual maximum rainfall across a range of dura-
tion in the frequency of events that generate at least 10 mm tions and severities (AEPs). Anthropogenic changes in ex-
of rainfall (Pepler et al., 2021). Projections of extratropical treme rainfall, both in their intensity and frequency, will
cyclones and fronts in this storm-track region of the South- therefore lead to changes in IFDs (Milly et al., 2008). In the
ern Hemisphere are broadly similar to the observed trends, scientific literature, changes in extreme rainfall are generally
with studies indicating a general reduction in frequency for modelled using non-stationary frequency analysis with ap-
this region, particularly during the cooler months of the year propriate covariates. While this is an active area of research
(Seneviratne et al., 2023; CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorol- (Schlef et al., 2023; Wasko, 2021), it has the same shortcom-
ogy, 2015). The projections are also consistent with observed ings as non-stationary flood frequency analysis. Most stud-
reductions in multi-day rainfall events (Fu et al., 2023; Dey ies use a time covariate to impart a temporal trend (Schlef
et al., 2019), which tend to be associated with long-lived et al., 2023). However, there is evidence that accounting for
synoptic systems (i.e. at least 24 h) such as extratropical cy- the different drivers of extreme rainfall, for example tem-
clones. perature for short-duration rainfall and climate modes such
Finally, the frequency of atmospheric rivers in Australia as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the In-
increased over the 1979–2019 period in one study (Reid dian Ocean Dipole (IOD) for long-duration rainfall, can im-
et al., 2022) and may increase in frequency in a warming cli- prove model performance (Agilan and Umamahesh, 2015,
mate, including near eastern Australia (Wang et al., 2023). 2017). This is consistent with the arguments put forward
For example, a recent study demonstrated how an atmo- by Schlef et al. (2018) which state that covariates should
spheric river contributed to extreme multi-day rainfall and capture the thermodynamic and dynamic processes that af-
flooding in Sydney in March 2021, finding that, depending fect rainfall changes. For non-stationary frequency analysis,
on the emission scenario, this type of atmospheric river could there is evidence emerging that GEV models should consider
increase in frequency by about 50 %–100 % around the end changes in both location and scale parameters (Prosdocimi
of this century (Reid et al., 2021), but projections have not and Kjeldsen, 2021; Jayaweera et al., 2023). Finally, Schlef
been assessed in detail for elsewhere in Australia. et al. (2023) summarized that for non-stationary IFD anal-
In summary, more intense rainfall extremes associated ysis, “the majority of covariate-based studies focus on the
with TCs are likely to occur for northern Australia during historical period, effectively reducing the study to a sophis-
the warmer months of the year. For eastern Australia, fewer ticated check for non-stationarity, rather than a framework
ECLs are likely to occur but with an increase in the occur- for projection of non-stationary IDF curves”, and hence their
rence of ECLs that cause extreme precipitation. For southern predictive ability remains untested (Schlef et al., 2023).

Likely due to the difficulties in fitting non-stationary IFDs, sity of rainfall on days with thunderstorm activity (Dowdy,
the majority of climate change guidance for practitioners is 2020).
to scale the IFD rainfall depth or intensity using a climate There is increasingly strong evidence suggesting that an
adjustment (or uplift) factor derived from an assessment of increase in the intensity of sub-daily rainfall has already oc-
how extreme rainfall is likely to change under climate change curred. Guerreiro et al. (2018) found an average increase of
(Wasko et al., 2021b). Studies that assess potential changes 2.8 mm or 9.4 % in the average wettest hour of the year be-
in extreme rainfall can be roughly separated into three cat- tween 1966–1989 and 1990–2013 across Australia, equiv-
egories: (1) studies that assess historical trends, (2) studies alent to 19.5 % K−1 , with increases observed at most sta-
that investigate the association of extreme rainfall and tem- tions analysed. When divided into northern and southern
perature, and (3) studies that directly project changes in ex- Australia, trends were greater than 21 % K−1 in the north,
treme rainfall using model experiments. which has seen a large increase in total rain over the same
period (Dey et al., 2019); however, even in southern Aus-
Systematic review tralia, increases were larger than those expected based on
Clausius–Clapeyron for frequencies up to the seven wettest
Our systematic review identified 40 papers that quantified the hours per year (7EY), and close to 14 % K−1 for the wettest
relationship between temperature changes and rainfall inten- 4 h yr−1 (4EY). In Victoria, studies have found an 89 % in-
sity, with the papers roughly evenly split between the above crease in the frequency of hourly rainfall > 18 mm h−1 (Os-
three approaches. Model-based projections were almost al- burn et al., 2021) between 1958–1985 and 1987–2014, as
ways focussed on daily to multi-day rainfall extremes, with well as increases in hourly totals > 40 mm h−1 (Tolhurst
the exception of two studies that employed regional models et al., 2023). Yilmaz and Perera (2014) also found increasing
over small regions of Australia to provide projections of sub- trends in Melbourne rainfall intensities for durations of 3 h or
daily rainfall (Mantegna et al., 2017; Herath et al., 2016). In less between 1925–2010, with 1-in-2 AEP values 5 %–7 %
contrast, scaling studies were more likely to assess sub-daily higher when calculated using data from 1967–2010 versus
rainfall, and about half the papers assessing historical trends 1925–1966 (∼ 13 % K−1 –17 % K−1 ), though not all differ-
included sub-daily (usually hourly) rainfall. ences were statistically significant. In southeast Queensland
Historical analysis of trends in high daily rainfall totals, and northeast New South Wales, increasing trends for an-
such as the wettest day per year (Rx1D) or the 99th percentile nual maxima for events with a duration of less than 12 h have
of the daily rainfall distribution, finds a range of trends de- been reported (Laz et al., 2014), while Chen et al. (2013) re-
pending on the region and years used (Dey et al., 2019; Du ported that the heaviest rainfall at timescales of 6 min to 6 h
et al., 2019; Alexander and Arblaster, 2017; Sun et al., 2021; increased between the earlier and later 20th century by more
Liu et al., 2022a). Many older studies detected no signifi- than 20 % in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. Very large
cant trend or a decreasing trend in Rx1D (e.g. Hajani and increases of ∼ 20 % per decade in sub-hourly rainfall have
Rahman, 2018), including some large negative trends when also been identified in Sydney using both radar and rain
calculated for individual stations (Yilmaz and Perera, 2014; gauge data based on the short period of 1999–2017 (Ayat
Chen et al., 2013). However, more recent studies that draw et al., 2022). Trends tend to be strongest for convective
on larger volumes of stations or gridded data more com- rainfall, which has its largest contribution to short-duration
monly detect increasing trends in Rx1D, many of which are events and during the warm half of the year. For instance,
close to 7 % K−1 (Wasko and Nathan, 2019; Dey et al., 2019; heavy rainfall in Greater Sydney during the summer months
Guerreiro et al., 2018). Increases are most apparent in the increased by more than 6 % per decade for all durations from
annual maximum intensity of events of no more than 2 d du- 6 min to 48 h over 1966–2012 (Zheng et al., 2015).
ration, which increased by between 13 % and 30 % over the Scaling studies typically use quantile regression on
period 1911–2016 for different regions of Australia (Dey rainfall–temperature pairs or linear regression on extreme
et al., 2019). Changes in rainfall intensity are less robust rainfall percentiles after grouping records by temperature
for longer-duration rainfall events, with studies finding lit- classes to calculate the relationship between day-to-day tem-
tle change or even a decrease in the intensity of the wettest perature variability and the upper tail of the rainfall dis-
5 d rainfall (Rx5D) in southeast and southwestern Australia tribution, as represented by the 90th or 99th percentile of
over the period since 1950 (Du et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2023), rainfall for a given temperature range (Wasko and Sharma,
although this result may be influenced by multidecadal vari- 2014). While early scaling studies used dry bulb air tem-
ability including very high rainfall totals in the 1950s and perature, such approaches were sensitive to the cooling in-
1970s. Decreases in long-duration rainfall events are most fluence of rainfall on air temperature as well as the tem-
evident during the autumn and winter (Zheng et al., 2015), poral and spatial scales of rainfall (Bao et al., 2017; Bar-
associated with extratropical weather systems (Pepler et al., bero et al., 2017) and often found negative scaling in the
2020). While total rain days have decreased in many parts northern tropics (Wasko et al., 2018). Recent studies have
of Australia, the intensity of rainfall on wet days may have found more homogenous results by scaling against mois-
increased (Contractor et al., 2018), as has the average inten- ture availability, most commonly represented by the dew-

point temperature, as well as by accounting for intermit- of wet days using the NARCliM ensemble (Bao et al.,
tency in precipitation events (Visser et al., 2021; Schleiss, 2017) and larger increases in the 99.5th (6.5 % K−1 ) and
2018). Studies typically find a median scaling over Australia 99.9th (9.2 % K−1 ) percentiles. Pepler and Dowdy (2022)
of 7 % K−1 –8 % K−1 for daily rainfall (Magan et al., 2020; also found a 4 % K−1 increase in the frequency of days ex-
Roderick et al., 2020; Bui et al., 2019; Wasko et al., 2018; ceeding the 99.7th percentile using a CMIP5-based RCM
Ali et al., 2021b; Visser et al., 2020). This regional conver- ensemble, with the largest increases projected in Tasmania
gence to Clausius–Clapeyron scaling hides larger variabil- (12 % K−1 ), while Herold et al. (2021) reported a doubling in
ity in the scaling at local station scales, ranging typically the frequency of current 1-in-20 AEP events by 2060–2079.
between 5 % K−1 –10 % K−1 , although in the northern trop- Projected increases are smaller for multi-day rainfall, with a
ics many stations exhibit scaling greater than 14 % K−1 be- median increase in Rx5D of 10 % (∼ 3 % K−1 ) reported in
tween rainfall and dewpoint temperature (Magan et al., 2020; Sillmann et al. (2013), 4 % K−1 in Ju et al. (2021), and no
Wasko et al., 2018). significant change in Chen et al. (2014). While fewer stud-
Scaling is typically stronger for sub-daily rainfall, ies have assessed changes to less frequent rainfall extremes,
with median scaling over Australia typically 8 % K−1 – these are typically larger than the increases projected for an-
10 % K−1 and scaling in tropical regions frequently exceed- nual maxima. For instance, CMIP5 models simulate a 22 %–
ing 14 % K−1 (Wasko et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2021b; Visser 26 % increase (7 % K−1 –8 % K−1 ) in the 1-in-20 AEP daily
et al., 2021). For rarer events, Wasko and Sharma (2017a) rainfall by the end of the 21st century (Climate Change in
used a stochastic weather generator conditioned on temper- Australia, 2020) and statistically downscaled climate data
ature and found hourly rainfall scaling for Sydney and Bris- project a similar 20 % increase in the 1-in-50 AEP by the
bane increased from 6 % K−1 –9 % K−1 for an AEP of 1 in 2 end of the century (6 % K−1 ; Wasko et al., 2023). Slightly
to 10 % K−1 –12 % K−1 for a 1-in-10 AEP and 18 % K−1 for smaller increases for the 1-in-10 AEP of 15.5 % by the end
a 1-in-100 AEP, although the uncertainty ranges were large. of the century were found using CMIP6 models (∼ 5 % K−1 ,
Scaling rates exceeding 15 % K−1 between dewpoint temper- Grose et al., 2020).
ature and daily rainfall over Australia have also been cal- Studies investigating the projection of sub-daily rainfall
culated using a global model with 0.25° × 0.25° latitude– extremes are rare for Australia, but regional modelling for the
longitude resolution (Zhang et al., 2019), although scaling in Tasmanian region indicated increases of greater than 40 % in
the Sydney region was ∼ 4 % K−1 for hourly rainfall using a AEP of 1 in 10 and rarer in a 2.9° warmer world, more than
2 km convection-permitting model (Li et al., 2018). 14 % K−1 (Mantegna et al., 2017). This is consistent with
GCMs are not expected to accurately simulate rainfall ex- the stronger observed trends and scaling rates reported for
tremes due to deficiencies in representing the key phenom- rainfall of short durations. Projected increases are likely to
ena responsible for extreme rainfall including convection be larger for convective extremes, which dominate sub-daily
and thunderstorms or tropical cyclones. This is particularly rainfall and are poorly simulated even in regional climate
true of short-lived or sub-daily extremes, with GCMs better models. For example, Shields et al. (2016) projected a 12.5 %
at simulating daily or longer extremes such as extratropical increase in convective rain rates above the 95th percentile in
lows, which cause widespread and prolonged heavy rainfall the Australian region using a 0.5° × 0.5° latitude–longitude
(Kendon et al., 2017). Projections from CMIP5 models be- global model by the late 21st century (∼ 4 % K−1 ) but no
tween 1986–2005 and the late 21st century (∼ 2081–2100) change in large-scale rainfall. Finally, regional model experi-
indicate an increase in RX1D under a high emissions sce- ments also indicate increases of 15 % in tropical cyclone rain
nario (Alexander and Arblaster, 2017), with regional mean rates per degree of sea surface temperature increase (Bruyère
increases in RX1D ranging from 13 % in eastern Australia to et al., 2019).
19 % in northern Australia (∼ 4 % K−1 –6 % K−1 ) (Climate
Change in Australia, 2020). A 4 % K−1 increase in RX1D Meta-analysis
was also found by Chevuturi et al. (2018) when compar-
ing a 2° warmer world with historical simulations, while Ju Where possible, observed and projected changes were ex-
et al. (2021) found an 11 % increase in RX1D in a 2° warmer tracted from each reference. Absolute changes were con-
world (5.5 % K−1 ). Models in the Coupled Model Intercom- verted to changes as a percent per degree of warming, with
parison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) simulate a slightly smaller the global mean warming over the appropriate time period
change in RX1D, with a 6.2 %–7.3 % increase in Rx1D for extracted either from the Berkeley Earth Surface Tempera-
Australia between the preindustrial climate and the 2° warm- ture dataset (Rohde and Hausfather, 2020) or the ensemble
ing level and a 10.3 %–11.2 % increase by 3° (3 % K−1 – mean for the corresponding CMIP generation and emissions
4 % K−1 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2021) and a 9.4 % (∼ 3 % K−1 ) in- scenario. These quantitative results are summarized in Fig. 3,
crease in Rx1D by the end of the century (Grose et al., 2020). with extended details provided in the Excel spreadsheet in
Results from regional climate models are broadly con- the Supplement. The centre changes are central estimates of
sistent with GCMs for daily rainfall, including a projected the change in extreme rainfall amount converted to % K−1 .
regional mean increase of 5.7 % K−1 in the 99th percentile The type of central estimate (median or mean) is indicated

Figure 3. Summary of extreme rainfall change standardized, where possible, per degree of global temperature change. Note that rainfall–
temperature scaling studies use local temperatures. The three dashed lines indicate Clausius–Clapeyron 1 × CC, 2 × CC, and 3 × CC scaling,
respectively. Diamonds indicate the central estimate of scaling, and shaded bars indicate the range (where possible, the minimum to maxi-
mum) of scaling estimates. Diamonds are opaque for results in which there was greater confidence and transparent for estimates in which
authors found “disqualifying features” that significantly lowered weighting in the meta-analysis. The few studies with AEPs between the
values shown here were included in the nearest AEP for this plot.
in the Excel spreadsheet in the Supplement. Minimum and extremes are likely increasing more than frequent extremes,
maximum changes are the largest range of changes reported it was deemed there was not enough evidence to quantify
by each study; these are usually minima and maxima (for this difference through the meta-analysis (see Fig. 3). This
example across stations). It is noted that some papers are in- was because of (1) the large variability of extreme rainfall
cluded in Fig. 3 multiple times for different durations and changes between studies relative to the variability with AEP
exceedance percentiles. and (2) the fact that where there appears to be a trend with
By consensus it was deemed that the results for the meta- AEP this is generally a result of a single study analysing
analysis would focus on daily and hourly rainfall durations multiple AEPs. Hence, the uncertainty intervals in the meta-
as the majority of studies focus on these two durations with analysis were developed with the aim of encompassing much
studies, and the mechanisms that cause extreme rainfall at of the variability in the extreme rainfall changes across space
the two durations are often distinct (albeit short-duration and exceedance probability.
extremes are often embedded in longer-duration extremes). Multiple co-authors independently used the available ev-
Studies investigating storm durations of 6 h or less were idence to determine their best estimates of a central scal-
grouped into the hourly rainfall duration, with studies with ing rate and the likely range of extreme rainfall change, for
durations of greater than 6 h grouped with the daily rainfall events rarer than the annual maxima up to the PMP. For
duration. The potential for rates of change to vary both by lo- both daily and hourly durations, each relevant study was as-
cation and exceedance probability was also explored. In rela- sessed based on the type of evidence (i.e. trend, association,
tion to changes by location, there is significant heterogeneity or projection), the study methodology, the number of sites
in the rainfall-generating mechanisms across the Australian analysed, the age of the study, its spatial extent, and theo-
landmass (Linacre and Geerts, 1997). However, when com- retical considerations. The results of each co-author’s inde-
paring the published scaling rates across the different geogra- pendent assessment are presented in Table S3 in the Supple-
phies, there was insufficient evidence to quantify the dif- ment. Following the independent analysis by the co-authors,
ferences between regions, with a relative scarcity of stud- a consensus was drawn between the participating co-authors
ies in regions outside of the populated areas of eastern Aus- with regard to the central (median) estimate and the likely
tralia and few consistent methodologies applied to all of Aus- range (66 %) of extreme rainfall change. The consensus scal-
tralia. Similarly, although there is some evidence that rarer ing rates and ranges are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Results of a meta-analysis presenting extreme rainfall change, using a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach that draws on the studies
in the Excel spreadsheet in the Supplement. This synthesis is based on a review of all studies covering extremes from the annual maxima
through to the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event (see Sect. 4.3.3 for further information on the PMP). The estimates are presented
per degree of global temperature change.
≤ 1 h (% K−1 ) > 1 h and < 24 h ≥24 h (% K−1 )

Central (median) estimate 15 Interpolation zone 8
“Likely” range (corresponding to ∼ 66 % range) 7–28 Interpolation zone 2–15
Weightings given by individual authors reflected the fol- (WMO, 2009). It needs to be recognized that this theoreti-
lowing findings. At daily timescales, RCM projections and cal definition differs from its “operational estimate,” which
scaling approaches typically had higher scaling rates than is based on a set of simplifying assumptions and calculated
GCM projections, likely due to deficiencies in GCMs repre- from an observational sample of hydrometeorological ex-
senting key extreme rainfall generation processes. Moreover, tremes (Schaefer, 1994). Hence, in Australia and elsewhere,
many observational studies used few sites with limited spatial successive estimates of the PMP adopted for design purposes
coverage. In most studies using historical data across larger have increased over time as methods and datasets change
extents and recent periods, results were between 4 % K−1 – (Walland et al., 2003). As a result, PMP estimates for cli-
10 % K−1 , with a central estimate of 8 % K−1 for rarer events mate change are heavily dependent on the operational meth-
(e.g. 1-in-100 AEP), noting also that a greater weight was ods employed.
given to those global and Australia-wide studies. The likely The methods used to derive operational PMP estimates can
range encompasses small but non-negative changes, which be broadly divided into statistical methods and hydrometeo-
are most likely due to changes relevant to more frequent, rological methods. Statistical methods are commonly used
multi-day events with a duration of 72 h or longer. The likely in engineering studies as they can be applied with little ef-
range also encompasses potential scaling of at least twice the fort and do not require hydrometeorological expertise. The
Clausius–Clapeyron rate, most likely for rarer events such as most widely used statistical approach was developed by Her-
a 1-in-100 AEP and for locations in northern Australia. shfield (1965) and is based on enveloping the observations
For sub-daily timescales, estimates of change are predomi- obtained from a large number of rainfall gauges to extrapo-
nantly based on historical observations (trends), due to a rela- late a simple two-parameter (Gumbel) distribution. Hydrom-
tive paucity of projection information. These studies suggest eteorological methods used to derive operational estimates
that changes below the Clausius–Clapeyron rate of 7 % K−1 include approaches based on the maximization of local storm
are unlikely, with potential changes in excess of 15 % K−1 data, referred to as in situ maximization; the transposition of
observed for rarer events. This is broadly consistent with extreme storms nearby to the catchment with similar topog-
the single available regional model study (Mantegna et al., raphy, known as storm transposition; and the enveloping of
2017), which had projected increases of 16 % K−1 for a 1-in- storm data over a large region after adjusting for differing
10 AEP and 29 % K−1 for a 1-in-100 AEP. Slightly weaker moisture availability and topography, known as generalized
changes are found in scaling studies compared to the other methods. Generalized methods differ from the in situ and
lines of evidence, with the tropics again showing evidence transposition methods in that they use all available data over
of greater increases compared to the south. The likely range a large region and include adjustments for moisture availabil-
hence incorporates this spatial inhomogeneity, noting that ity and differing topographic effects on rainfall depth. Gen-
greater uncertainty exists on the upper estimate of change eralized PMP methods are employed in Australia as well as a
than the lower estimate. While the meta-analysis central es- number of other countries, including New Zealand (Thomp-
timate of 15 % K−1 is based on the best available informa- son and Tomlinson, 1995), India (Rakhecha and Kennedy,
tion, there is an urgent need for more detailed assessment 1985), China (Gu et al., 2022), and the USA (England et al.,
of changes in sub-daily rainfall in a changing climate using 2020). For Australia, the storm transposition zone varies with
convection-permitting models. climate region as the mechanisms driving extreme rainfall
vary.
4.3.3 Probable maximum precipitation In generalized hydrometeorological methods, the PMP
event is assumed to originate from the simultaneous occur-
Impact of climate change rence of a maximum amount of moisture (moisture max-
imization) and a maximum conversion rate of moisture to
The PMP is defined as the greatest depth of precipitation me- precipitation (storm efficiency). Moisture maximization in-
teorologically possible under modern meteorological condi- volves multiplying observed storm precipitation depths by
tions for a given duration occurring over a catchment area the ratio of the seasonal maximum precipitable water for the
or a storm area of a given size, at a certain time of the year

storm location to the representative precipitable water for where a recent study (Sarkar and Maity, 2020) used a global
the storm, with the precipitable water estimated from sur- reanalysis dataset to conclude that global PMP estimates
face dewpoint data assuming saturation and pseudo-adiabatic have increased by an average of 25 % around the world
conditions. This assumes that in a large sample of storms between the periods of 1948–1977 and 1978–2012. These
recorded over a long period, at least one storm operates near changes are appreciably larger (e.g. about quadruple) than
maximum efficiency. what would be expected from the Clausius–Clapeyron rela-
Potential increases in future daily PMP estimates are pre- tionship, though differences between statistical and hydrom-
dominantly founded on projected increases in atmospheric eteorological methods are evident in other studies in Canada
water vapour, which have been found to closely follow tem- (Labonté-Raymond et al., 2020), India (Sarkar and Maity,
perature changes with an approximate Clausius–Clapeyron 2020), Vietnam (Kawagoe and Sarukkalige, 2019), and the
relationship of 7 % per 1 °C warming (noting that this does USA (Lee and Singh, 2020). The degree of conservatism as-
not consider potential changes in rainfall efficiency). While sociated with the statistical method (i.e. the tendency to pro-
the WMO manual (WMO, 2009) makes no allowance for duce high estimates) is heavily dependent on the robustness
long-term climatic trends, one of the most comprehensive of the envelope curves. Given the lack of physical reasoning
studies that examined changes in maximum water vapour in the statistical method, it is difficult to reconcile differences
concentrations across the globe found increases in atmo- with estimates derived using hydrometeorological concepts.
spheric water vapour of 20 %–30 % by the end of the cen- This is also true of generalized methods, which in principle
tury (Kunkel et al., 2013), approximately consistent with do not vary with storm duration, with research into changes
the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship. Kunkel et al. (2013) in the PMP with climate change largely using daily rainfall
adopted a “hybrid” approach that merged traditional hydrom- data.
eteorological PMP methods with outputs from an ensemble
of seven GCMs, an approach that is seen as an advance on Systematic review
traditional PMP estimates as it incorporates simulated histor-
ical and future climate model data (Salas et al., 2020). They A systematic search yielded one recent paper relevant to pro-
found that the PMP will change by an amount comparable jected changes in operational PMP estimates for Australia
to the mean water vapour changes, with little evidence for (Visser et al., 2022), with Salas et al. (2020) summarizing ex-
changes in storm efficiency (Kunkel et al., 2013); however isting methods and findings. Visser et al. (2022) undertook an
it is noted that GCMs do not simulate many of the key pro- analysis of moisture availability, comprising dewpoint data
cesses that could lead to changes in storm efficiency. The rel- from 30 synoptic stations across Australia covering the pe-
atively minor importance of changes in storm efficiency com- riod from 1960 to 2018 and 3-hourly ERA5 reanalysis data
pared to precipitable water under climate change was also covering the period from 1979 to the present (Hersbach et al.,
found by Ben Alaya et al. (2020), who based their conclu- 2020). It was found that the annual maximum persisting dew-
sions on an analysis of non-stationarity in a bivariate model points have increased, leading to increased PMP estimates.
of precipitable water and storm efficiency using temperature Projections of dewpoint temperature were used to derive fu-
as a covariate. ture PMP estimates across Australia using the ACCESS-
Since Kunkel et al. (2013), many other hybrid approaches CM2 model. The projected results showed increases of 4 %–
have been applied using either global or regional climate 29 % (average of 13 %) by 2100 for SSP1-2.6 and 12 %–55 %
models, and similar results have been found for catchment- (average of 33 %) for SPP5-8.5 (Visser et al., 2022). If global
or region-specific studies in North America (Beauchamp temperature increases are used, these changes translate to av-
et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2017; Cyphers et al., 2022; Clavet- erage increases slightly greater than the Clausius–Clapeyron
Gaumont et al., 2017; Rousseau et al., 2014; Rouhani relationship (e.g. 8.9 % K−1 for SSP5-8.5).
and Leconte, 2020; Labonté-Raymond et al., 2020), Chile Jakob et al. (2009) investigated how the local moisture
(Lagos-Zúñiga and Vargas M., 2014), and South Korea (Lee availability, storm type, depth–duration–area curves, and rel-
et al., 2016). While one study projected decreases in the PMP ative storm efficiency used in deriving operational PMP es-
using a hybrid modelling approach, it was based on a single timates might be changing over time and how the identi-
GCM (CanESM2), and the projections were for a region in fied changes have impacted the PMP estimates. The analysis
the southeast of the Caspian Sea (Afzali-Gorouh et al., 2022). was based on data from 38 locations across Australia from a
Other region-specific studies have applied physically based combination of upper-air (radiosonde) and surface dewpoint
approaches using regional atmospheric models and found observations. No large-scale significant changes in moisture
results that are consistent with the Clausius–Clapeyron re- availability were found, though significant increases were
lationship in North America (Ishida et al., 2018; Gangrade found along parts of the east coast, as well as a region in
et al., 2018; Rastogi et al., 2017), China (Liu et al., 2022b), south-eastern Australia with summer decreases. When com-
and Chile (Lagos-Zúñiga and Vargas M., 2014). paring moisture availability for a historical climate period
Statistical methods based on Hershfield (1965) have also (1981–2000) and the next few decades using outputs from
been used to assess the non-stationarity of PMP estimates, a single global climate model, they found the 90th percentile

values increased from the 2020s to the 2050s and the 2090s; through ARFs. For small catchments the point rainfall pro-
however they also found some evidence for lower extreme vides a reasonable approximation of the catchment average
moisture availability in some regions. Similar to the above rainfall. However, for larger catchments, it is less likely that
studies, they found little evidence for significant changes in the most intense rainfall in a storm will occur over the whole
storm efficiency, depth–duration–area curves, or storm types, catchment and the catchment average rainfall for any partic-
and no significant changes were found in generalized rainfall ular event will be lower than the point rainfall represented
depths (again noting that such global models are not expected by the IFD relationship. ARFs represent this expected rain-
to simulate some of the key rainfall generation processes). fall reduction, with the reduction dependent on the catchment
The results obtained by Jakob et al. (2009) are not inconsis- area, storm duration, and frequency.
tent with those of Visser et al. (2022), but the difference in
conclusions may be explained by the longer and more ex- Systematic review
tensive datasets used by Visser et al. (2022) and the updated
global climate model outputs used to project the dewpoint Some limited research has been undertaken with respect to
temperatures. changes to temporal patterns and spatial patterns of design
Despite this compelling evidence, there is no formal rainfall, primarily using scaling relationships calculated from
recommendation for increases in PMP estimates with the observed data, while there exists some limited modelling
Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipita- via dynamic downscaling for the Sydney region. A total of
tion (WMO, 2009) in their chapter on “PMP and Climate seven papers were found as part of the systematic review. The
Change”, summarizing the results of Jakob et al. (2009). To findings to date suggest that temporal patterns are becoming
the best of the authors’ knowledge, no agency responsible more front-loaded (greater percentage of precipitation falling
for providing operational PMP estimates for design purposes earlier in the storm) with higher temperatures. There is also
anywhere in the world has yet provided uplift factors to en- an increase in the proportion of rain falling in the wettest
sure that the PMP estimates based on historic observations period of the storm, leading to increased peakiness (less uni-
are relevant to future conditions, despite the majority of stud- formity) of the temporal patterns.
ies on the impact of climate change on the PMP finding that Temporal pattern changes have been analysed in two main
the PMP is likely to be increasing at the CC rate for daily ways. The first is broadly based on the average variability
rainfall. method, whereby the changes in the proportion of rainfall
within a period are calculated. For example, for 1 h storm
4.3.4 Temporal and spatial patterns bursts, Wasko and Sharma (2015a) found that the highest
12 min period had a median scaling of 2.1 % per degree of
Impact of climate change temperature increase for Australia. The scaling rate was de-
pendent on the duration of the storm and the latitude of the
The temporal and spatial patterns of extreme rainfall have station. Wasko and Sharma (2015b) identified 500 1 h bursts
long been recognized as important factors in determining the for five stations, stratified them into five temperature bins,
magnitude of a flood event (Herrera et al., 2023). Conceptu- and calculated the temporal pattern using the average vari-
ally, as weather systems change and storms intensify due to ability method for each bin. In general, the highest tempera-
increases in temperature, changes in both the temporal and ture bin had peakier (i.e. less uniform) temporal patterns than
spatial pattern of rainfall are expected with anthropogenic the lowest temperature bin. Wasko and Sharma (2017a) also
climate change. Given that sub-daily rainfall is expected to used the average variability method to calculate the scaling
intensify more than daily rainfall (Sect. 4.2.1), this implies of temporal patterns. These later analyses were based on first
that storm temporal patterns will also intensify. In the de- fitting a stochastic rainfall generation model to historical ob-
sign flood paradigm, once a rainfall depth has been estimated servations and then using regression models to explore the
from the appropriate IFD relationship, a temporal profile is relationships between the rainfall generation model parame-
used to distribute the total rainfall across the storm duration. ters and temperature. For simulations representing the end of
When the rainfall distribution across the storm duration is the 21st century under RCP8.5, the peak rainfall fraction in
less uniform, higher flood peaks will generally occur (Ball, the temporal patterns increased from 40 % to 50 % for two
1994). For example, front- or rear-loaded storms, where more models that were fitted separately for Brisbane and Sydney.
than 50 % of the total rainfall falls in either the first half or Australia’s flood guidance (Ball et al., 2019a) has moved
the second half of the storm, respectively (Visser et al., 2023), away from using the average variability method for tempo-
can have differing impacts on flood peaks through their inter- ral patterns and instead now provides an ensemble of tem-
actions with any storage (natural or constructed) in the catch- poral patterns for design rainfall analyses. Consistent with
ment. this approach, Visser et al. (2023) provide the most compre-
In the context of design flood estimation, as the underlying hensive analyses of scaling relationships for temporal pat-
data for the IFD relationships are point rainfall, the influence terns for Australia. From an original database of 1489 rain-
of spatial scale on average rainfall intensities is considered fall gauges, 151 stations had sufficient data for scaling anal-

ysis, and trends could be calculated for 55 locations from 4.3.5 Antecedent wetness
1960–2016, with 28 stations having coincident temperature
and precipitation data. It was found that storms have histor- Impact of climate change
ically become more front-loaded, with storms also becom-
ing more front-loaded when the coincident temperature was When rainfall falls on a catchment, there is a range of dif-
higher. There is a strong regional pattern in the proportion ferent runoff processes that lead to catchment runoff and
of front-loaded events, ranging from 50 % of events in the subsequent streamflow. These runoff processes include infil-
south of Australia to close to 70 % of events in the tropics. tration excess or Hortonian overland flow, saturation excess
Scaling relationships for the temporal patterns were found to runoff, variable source area, partial area runoff, subsurface
be stronger when related to temperature rather than dewpoint storm flow, and impervious area runoff. In modelling these
temperature. runoff processes in design flood estimation, the rainfall is
The only study to directly calculate ARFs in the context partitioned into direct flow or runoff, which, along with base-
of climate change is Li et al. (2015). In this work, ARFs flow, contributes to the observed flood hydrograph, and rain-
were calculated for the Sydney region using a high-resolution fall losses that do not influence the flood event’s hydrograph.
RCM. It was found that for 1 h storms, ARFs would increase Rainfall losses primarily result from (1) interception by veg-
(i.e. larger future storms), whilst for longer durations (6 to etation and humanmade surfaces, which are eventually evap-
72 h), ARFs would decrease, with the largest decreases for orated; (2) depression storage on the land surface ranging in
large catchment areas and the rarest events. But as this anal- size from soil-particle-sized depressions to lakes; and (3) in-
ysis was based on a single climate model applied over a filtrated water stored in the soil, which may later contribute
limited geographical domain, it is not possible to generalize to baseflow (Hill and Thomson, 2019; Pilgrim and Cordery,
these results. Calculating ARFs from the RCM also assumed 1993; O’Shea et al., 2021).
that the point rainfall to 4 km2 ARF would not change in the Physically, rainfall losses are largely influenced by an-
future (as 4 km2 was the resolution of the RCM so smaller tecedent soil moisture and soil properties, which govern the
area ARFs could not be calculated). hydraulic gradient of the soil and thus affect the rate of infil-
Other studies have analysed changes to spatial patterns tration (Liu et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2018). Antecedent soil
of storms, but further work will be required to relate their moisture is a strong modulator of the flood response (Tram-
findings to methods such as ARFs used with design rainfall. blay et al., 2010; Pathiraja et al., 2012; Woldemeskel and
Wasko et al. (2016) found that the effective radius of storms Sharma, 2016; Wasko et al., 2020; Brocca et al., 2009; Quin-
decreased with temperature at over 80 % of the stations anal- tero et al., 2022) and is influenced by variability at multi-
ysed in Australia using quantile regression for storms above annual and multi-decadal timescales (Kiem and Verdon-
the 90th percentile. For stations classified as temperate, this Kidd, 2013). Incorporating information regarding antecedent
decrease in effective radius was despite an increase in peak soil moisture into loss models (refer Sect. 2) has also been
precipitation, which suggested that moisture was being re- shown to improve flood estimates (Cordery, 1970; Tram-
distributed from the edge of the storms to the centre. Li et al. blay et al., 2010; Sunwoo and Choi, 2017; Bahramian et al.,
(2018) reproduced these results for the Sydney region using 2023); these loss models have been incorporated into the
RCM simulations. However, in both studies, the storms were Australia’s flood guidance (Hill et al., 2016).
limited to radii of 50 km and were assumed to be circular. Li To model the flood response in event-based flood rout-
et al. (2018) pointed out that there were good opportunities to ing models, it is necessary to conceptualize rainfall losses
use RCM simulations to analyse changes in storm advection and employ a mathematically explicit representation. More
and not limiting the analyses to circular storms. complex loss models, such as Horton’s method, conceptu-
Finally, Han et al. (2020) used copulas to analyse the spa- alize the infiltration as decreasing exponentially as the soil
tial dependence of monthly maximum rainfall. They found saturates, whereas the Green–Ampt method assumes a sharp
that around 40 % of the stations had decreasing trends in wetting front exists in the soil column, separating a saturated
connectivity and that the overall average connectivity was upper soil layer from the underlying soil layer that contains
lower for storms associated with higher dewpoint tempera- some initial moisture content (Rossman, 2010). Research has
tures, particularly in southern Australia. However, the analy- also explored the merits of hybrid methods where continu-
ses were not seasonally stratified, and therefore it is not clear ous simulation is used to condition the initial state of the
if the findings could also be explained by the seasonally dif- catchment before modelling the discrete flood event using
ferent rainfall mechanisms. Although evidence is emerging an event-based flood model (Heneker et al., 2003; Sheikh
for temporal and spatial clustering of storm events both in et al., 2009; Li et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2019; Stephens et al.,
Australia and globally (e.g. Chan et al., 2023a; Chang et al., 2018a). Despite authors arguing that loss models should in-
2016; Ghanghas et al., 2023; Kahraman et al., 2021; Tan and volve modelling physical representations of the runoff pro-
Shao, 2017), the evidence for changes in the spatial pattern cess (Kemp and Daniell, 2016), there has been limited adop-
of precipitation, compared to changes in the temporal pattern tion in practice of more complex approaches to loss mod-
of precipitation, remains weaker. elling (Paquet et al., 2013). This is because the benefits of

estimating rainfall losses relevant to floods using physical These studies examined the relationships between total rain-
process-based models are limited due to their complexity and fall losses and the parameters of the ILCL rainfall loss model
incomplete understanding of runoff generation processes, as in relation to antecedent soil moisture in largely unregulated
well as the inadequate availability of hydrological data (Pil- catchments across Australia. These studies focused on the
grim and Cordery, 1993). For example, complex fully dis- ILCL model as it was found to be unbiased in modelling
tributed models often seek to resolve processes at spatial and rarer events than those used in calibration, a common prac-
temporal scales for which data are limited or unavailable, and tice in design flood estimation (O’Shea et al., 2021). Ho
consequently such models are more liable to overfitting, lead- et al. (2023) found a consistent negative linear relationship
ing to poor predictive capabilities. As a result, parsimonious between the loss parameters and antecedent soil moisture,
lumped models of rainfall loss are commonly employed. where increased antecedent soil moisture was associated
Amongst the most used parsimonious lumped models of with decreased losses. For locations where the relationships
rainfall loss are the Initial Loss–Continuing Loss Model between the loss parameters and antecedent moisture con-
(ILCL), the Probability Distributed Model (PDM), the Soil ditions were statistically significant, projections of the loss
Conservation Service–Curve Number (SCS-CN), and the parameter values were made using projections of antecedent
Initial Loss–Proportional Loss (ILPL) model (Pilgrim and soil moisture developed by the Australian Bureau of Mete-
Cordery, 1993; O’Shea et al., 2021; US Army Cops of En- orology (Srikanthan et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2022; Vogel
gineers, 2000). Broadly, these models divide losses into an et al., 2023). On average, by the end of the century and under
initial loss, whereby all rainfall is infiltrated into the soil, RCP8.5, initial losses were projected to increase by 5.0 mm
up to a point at which the hydrograph rises and the rainfall (9 %) with the interquartile range of the change from 3.3 to
begins contributing to the runoff response, and the loss be- 6.3 mm (6 %–12 %). Continuing losses were projected to in-
comes a fractional amount of the rainfall. The parameters of crease on average by 0.45 mm h−1 (13 %), with an interquar-
these models are typically calibrated using historical rainfall tile range of the change of 0.18 to 0.6 mm h−1 (8 %–23 %).
and streamflow data (e.g. Brown et al., 2022; Clayton, 2012; To remain consistent with the meta-analysis methodology,
Gamage et al., 2015) with either a central tendency value the above changes, on a per-catchment basis, were standard-
(i.e. mean or median) or a probabilistic distribution of loss ized using global mean temperature and pooled across Nat-
parameters adopted for deterministic design flood estimation ural Resource Management Regions (Figs. S1 and S2 in the
approaches (Rahman et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2023; Nathan Supplement). Following this, the scaling factors were pooled
et al., 2003; Gamage et al., 2013; Loveridge and Rahman, across RCPs to produce the scaling rates shown in Table 2.
2021; Ishak and Rahman, 2006). Here it was deemed that the variability between regions (re-
Under climate change, it has been shown that antecedent fer to Fig. 2 from Ho et al., 2023) was sufficient to respect
soil moisture is changing (Berg et al., 2017; Seneviratne regional differences, with events greater than or equal to an
et al., 2010; Wasko et al., 2021a) and will likely continue annual maxima partial duration series adopted for the devel-
to change due to a range of factors. These factors include in- opment of soil moisture–loss relationships.
creased temperatures, increased rainfall variability, changes
in drought duration and frequency (Ukkola et al., 2020), and 4.3.6 Sea level factors
changes to the persistence of large-scale ocean–atmospheric
mechanisms such as increased persistence of La Niña (Geng At the coastal terminus of a catchment, sea levels can mod-
et al., 2023). Any changes in the antecedent soil moisture due ulate flooding, and hence incorporating the appropriate sea
to climate change will impact the resultant design flood esti- level variations in the tail water boundary conditions is an
mate (Ivancic and Shaw, 2015; O’Shea et al., 2021; Quintero important consideration for coastal and estuarine flood mod-
et al., 2022). elling. Moreover, research has shown that extreme rainfall
and storm surge processes are statistically dependent, and
Systematic review therefore their interaction needs to be taken into account
(Zheng et al., 2013). Here, the literature related to the im-
While there is ample evidence that climate change will al- pact of climate change on factors related to sea level rise are
ter antecedent soil moisture conditions, which in turn modu- briefly reviewed, but as changes in the sea level are not cov-
late flood responses and hence rainfall losses, there have been ered in Australia’s flood estimation guidance (Bates et al.,
few studies quantifying how climate change will affect rain- 2019), a systemic review was not performed.
fall loss parameter values. A systematic review found several Coastal sea levels vary due to multiple processes that oper-
studies that have assessed the impact of trends in antecedent ate on different temporal and spatial scales, ranging from as-
moisture conditions and rainfall losses on floods (Earl et al., tronomical tides and storm surges to long-term sea level rise
2023; Loveridge and Rahman, 2017). However, we found due to global warming (McInnes et al., 2016). Astronomical
only two studies projecting rainfall losses, where overall tides occur on a predictable and recurring basis, with rela-
rainfall losses (Ho et al., 2022) and rainfall loss parameters tively consistent frequency. Storm surges, on the other hand,
(Ho et al., 2023, 2022) were projected under climate change. are less frequent and, because they occur in conjunction with

Table 2. Median scaling factors for loss parameters together presented per degree of global temperature change for clusters of Natural
Resource Management Regions (CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, 2015), adapted from Ho et al. (2023). The “likely” range (corresponding
to ∼ 66 % range) is presented in parentheses.
Natural Resource Management Region IL (% °C−1 ) CL (% °C−1 )

Southern and South-Western Flatlands 4.5 (2.0–7.1) 5.6 (2.5–8.7)
Murray Basin 3.1 (1.0–5.7) 6.7 (1.5–12.1)
Southern Slopes 3.9 (1.5–7.2) 8.5 (2.9–15.7)
East Coast 2.0 (0.6–4.3) 3.8 (1.1–8.0)
Central Slopes 1.1 (0.4–2.2) 2.0 (−0.5–7.5)
Wet Tropics 0.8 (−0.4–2.0) 1.4 (−0.1–4.8)
Monsoonal North 2.4 (1.0–5.4) 4.4 (3.1–9.5)
severe weather events with low atmospheric pressure, storm with sea levels that are higher (lower) than average during
surge intensity is related to the strength of the storm. For La Niña (El Niño) periods, which have a maximum range in
coastal flooding, the same weather systems that cause storm the Gulf of Carpentaria and decrease in magnitude with dis-
surges can also produce high rainfall totals and the poten- tance anticlockwise around the coastline (White et al., 2014;
tial for compound flooding along the coast (Bevacqua et al., McInnes et al., 2016).
2019; Collins et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2013). Sea level rise (SLR) is increasing the frequency of
Both observed and modelled results (Wu et al., 2018; coastal flooding (Hague et al., 2023). Over the period
Zheng et al., 2013; Bevacqua et al., 2020) indicate that the from 2007 to 2018, sea levels rose at an average rate of
dependence between storm surges and extreme rainfall is 3.6 ± 1.7 mm yr−1 based on a global network of tide gauge
strongest in the north and northwest of Australia, followed records and 3.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 based on satellite altimeters
by the west and northeast of Australia. It is weak and/or sta- (Wang et al., 2021). Over the period 1993–2018 in the
tistically not significant at the northeastern tip of Australia, same two datasets, the rates of SLR were 0.063 ± 0.120 and
along with parts of southern Australia. As the co-occurrence 0.053 ± 0.026 mm yr−2 , respectively, indicating that SLR
of extreme rainfall with extreme storm surge is similar to the is accelerating (Wang et al., 2021). In Australia, the rate
co-occurrence of runoff with storm surge (Bevacqua et al., of SLR based on Australian gauges from the ANCHORS
2020), methods for incorporating this dependence are in- dataset, with at least 50 years of data over 1966 to 2019,
cluded in Australia’s flood guidance (Westra et al., 2019) – was 1.94 mm yr−1 and over 1993 to 2019 was 3.74 mm yr−1
despite sea level rise not being included. In the northern part (Hague et al., 2022). With the increase in the flood frequency
of the continent, coincident extremes are most likely due to over the observational record, mainly because SLR is in-
the occurrence of tropical cyclones. Along the southwest and creasing the height of the tides with ongoing SLR, flooding
southern coastline, coincident extremes are most likely due events will become increasingly predictable (Hague et al.,
to extratropical lows and associated cold frontal systems dur- 2023).
ing the winter half year. Along the southeast coast, coincident Projections of future SLR provided by the IPCC in its
events are most likely due to cut-off lows or frontal systems Sixth Assessment (AR6) report for a set of future greenhouse
(Wu et al., 2018). gas emission pathways termed SSPs (Fox-Kemper et al.,
While studies have focussed on the coincidence of rainfall 2021) are summarized for the years 2050, 2100, and 2150 in
or runoff events with storm surges or storm tides, other fac- Table 3, along with their associated uncertainties. Note this
tors can also affect regional sea level variability on differing only refers to mean sea level changes; processes associated
timescales. For example, coastally trapped waves (CTWs) with extreme sea levels such as storm surge and wave setup
can cause sea level variability along Australia’s extratropi- that may be used in design flood estimation are not included.
cal coastline on timescales from weeks to months, with am- The processes included in the projections are assessed by the
plitudes correlating with continental shelf width and rang- IPCC to be of “medium confidence” and include changes due
ing from 0.7 m along the south coast to 0.05–0.10 m along to thermal expansion, the mass balance of glaciers and ice
the east coast (Eliot and Pattiaratchi, 2010; Woodham et al., sheets, and terrestrial water storage. The IPCC also provide
2013). In some locations, seasonal-scale sea level variations scenarios they assess with “low confidence” of occurring on
are an important consideration. For example, the Gulf of the timescales considered, such as dynamical processes that
Carpentaria experiences a significant annual sea level range could lead to more rapid disintegration of the ice sheets (De-
of about 0.8 m, which is driven mainly by the seasonal re- Conto and Pollard, 2016; Fox-Kemper et al., 2021).
versal of the prevailing winds. On interannual timescales, Changes to weather and circulation patterns will also po-
the El Niño–Southern Oscillation causes sea level variations tentially change storm surge and wave patterns, altering com-

Table 3. Sea level rise (m) relative to 1995–2014 for CMIP6 and associated likely (66 %) confidence intervals (source: Table 9.9 in Fox-
Kemper et al., 2021).
Scenario 2050 2100 2150

SSP1-1.9 0.18 (0.15–0.23) 0.38 (0.28–0.55) 0.57 (0.37–0.86)
SSP1-2.6 0.19 (0.16–0.25) 0.44 (0.32–0.62) 0.68 (0.46–0.99)
SSP2-4.5 0.20 (0.17–0.26) 0.56 (0.44–0.76) 0.92 (0.66–1.33)
SSP3-7.0 0.22 (0.18–0.27) 0.68 (0.55–0.90) 0.92 (0.66–1.33)
SSP5-8.5 0.23 (0.20–0.29) 0.77 (0.63–1.01) 1.98 (0.98–4.82)
SSP5-8.5* 0.24 (0.20–0.40) 0.88 (0.63–1.60) 1.98 (0.98–4.82)
∗ This includes additional low-confidence processes.
pound flooding. For example, Colberg et al. (2019) inves- 5.1 Alignment of evidence for changes in extreme
tigated changes in extreme sea levels around Australia by rainfall with design flood estimation
forcing a hydrodynamic model with winds and surface pres-
sure from four GCMs run with an RCP8.5 emission scenario
over the periods 1981–1991 and 2081–2099. The largest pos- Although we were unable to quantify the increases in ex-
itive extreme sea level changes were found over the Gulf of treme rainfall across a range of frequencies, studies using
Carpentaria due to changes in the northwest monsoon, while rainfall–temperature scaling (Wasko and Sharma, 2017b),
mainly negative changes in seasonal maximum sea levels up historical trends (Wasko and Nathan, 2019; Jayaweera et al.,
to −5.0 cm were found along Australia’s southern coastline 2023), and climate change projections (Pendergrass and
due to the projected southward movement of the subtropical Hartmann, 2014; Pendergrass, 2018; Carey-Smith et al.,
ridge and associated cold frontal systems, with these results 2018) all show that the rate of rainfall increase becomes
broadly consistent with other studies (Colberg and McInnes, greater with increasing rarity. Operational methods em-
2012; Vousdoukas et al., 2018). Extreme coastal sea levels ployed to estimate PMPs are restricted to the consideration
are also affected by wave breaking processes that cause wave of thermodynamic increases in the moisture-holding capac-
setup (O’Grady et al., 2019), with the 1-in-100 AEP wave ity through changes in the moisture adjustment factor (Visser
height projected to increase by 5 % to 15 % over the South- et al., 2022). However, short-duration extremes (sub-daily)
ern Ocean by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100), com- have been shown to increase at rates greater than CC scaling
pared to the 1979–2005 period (Meucci et al., 2020). Finally, both for Australia (presented herein) and globally (Fowler
coastal erosion of sandy shorelines and estuaries under SLR et al., 2021). There is no obvious physical explanation for
will also contribute to changes in coastal flooding patterns. why changes to sub-daily PMP estimates should differ from
Historical coastline movement around the Australian coast other studies on sub-daily extreme precipitation. Synthesiz-
has been evaluated through analysis of satellite images using ing the evidence, it appears that (1) increases in rare, long-
a technique to filter satellite pixels to a consistent tide datum duration rainfall should plateau to a rate of increase com-
(Bishop-Taylor et al., 2019, 2021). Over 22 % of Australia’s mensurate with the PMP, which is likely to be increasing
non-rocky coastline shows trends of significant coastal re- at the CC rate for daily rainfall, and (2) increases in short-
treat or growth since 1988, with most change (15.8 %) oc- duration PMPs, in the absence of research into changes in
curring at rates greater than 0.5 m yr−1 . PMP for sub-daily durations, should increase at the rate of
short-duration rainfall extremes. It is plausible that PMPs
will increase in line with short-duration rainfall extremes due
to an increase in storm efficiency, which is a well-established
5 Discussion mechanism in short-duration rainfall due to latent heat re-
lease increasing buoyancy (Lenderink et al., 2019). Further,
From this systematic review on climate change science rele- increases in rainfall intensities above those simply owing to
vant to design flood estimation in Australia, it emerged that thermodynamics are also possible due to reductions in the
most published research relates to changes in extreme rainfall speed of lateral storm movement.
intensity and hence the IFDs and PMPs that are used in event- It is clear that increases in the order of 2–3 times the
based modelling. Here we aim to resolve the understanding CC rate are a possibility for design rainfall throughout Aus-
of changes in extreme rainfall with methodologies applied tralia, with greater potential increases in the north than in
for design flood estimation. Following this, our methods are the south. This is generally related to the occurrence of con-
discussed, and finally factors that were beyond the scope of vective storms, such as severe thunderstorms that can cause
this review are acknowledged, and a summary of future re- short-duration (e.g. less than about 6 h) localized extreme
search priorities is presented. rainfall. Although current Australian climate modelling stud-

ies are generally not able to simulate the processes rele- analysis. Further, it needs to be acknowledged that a histori-
vant to these convective rainfall extremes, as they are not cal trend can only be extrapolated to the future by assuming
run at convection-permitting scales, the observation-based the causal relationship remains unchanged, which may not
increases are broadly consistent with theoretical expectations be true (Wasko, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). The second line
based on increased rainfall efficiency from increased con- of evidence was the empirical relationship between day-to-
densation for enhanced convection. Changes greater than the day variability in rainfall and surface air or dewpoint temper-
CC rate due to more efficient convective processes can also ature for high quantiles of the distribution. Although robust
be relevant for annual maxima longer than that of typical relationships have now been established globally (Ali et al.,
thunderstorms. For example, the highest recorded daily rain- 2018, 2021a, b), debate remains over the use of these scaling
fall at Adelaide occurred over a period of only 2 h due to relationships for projection as near-surface conditions may
a thunderstorm (Ashcroft et al., 2019). This means that in- not reflect key factors in rainfall production, such as potential
creases greater than the CC rate may also be plausible for future changes in the vertical temperature profile of the atmo-
more widespread and longer-duration rainfall extremes, such sphere or changes to rainfall efficiency. The limitations of the
as multi-day-duration events associated with TCs in near- above two sources of evidence can be somewhat overcome
coastal northern regions and ECLs in eastern and south- by the third line of evidence, that is, climate modelling which
eastern regions that sometimes contain deep moist convec- explicitly models atmospheric conditions; however, it needs
tion (Callaghan and Power, 2014). to be acknowledged that not all processes related to rainfall
are resolved (François et al., 2019). Both global and many re-
5.2 Systematic review and meta-analysis gional climate models have large spatial scales compared to
considerations some of the physical processes associated with rainfall (e.g.
localized convection) and struggle to represent some aspects
We have attempted to minimize biases where possible. of rainfall occurrence (e.g. short-duration convective rainfall
Consistent with the IPCC methodologies, a multiple-lines- extremes, such as produced by thunderstorms). Hence, rec-
of-evidence approach was adopted considering historical ommendations here are based on an expert evaluation that
changes, future projections, and physical argumentation. As has combined all the key lines of evidence, recognizing the
such, inherent methodological biases, such as issues asso- known limitations of any single line of evidence.
ciated with hypothesis testing favouring the null hypothe- Many jurisdictions rely on the best and most up-to-date
sis, would only apply to a proportion of the evidence. Next, climate change estimates for their climate change flood guid-
analyses to inform assessment reports such as the IPCC of- ance which may come from a single line of evidence such as
ten present projections separately from any claims of signifi- climate modelling (Chan et al., 2023b; Wasko et al., 2021b).
cance and are not required to demonstrate originality of con- Using a single line of evidence such as climate modelling
tribution; therefore, these studies are less likely to be affected has the advantage of maintaining consistency in the evidence
by both the hypothesis testing and publication biases – not- used for deriving uplift factors between storm durations, rar-
ing that hypothesis testing bias and publication bias would ities, and across diverse climatic regions. Without consensus
be expected to act in opposing ways. Finally, researcher in Australia on the best line of evidence, the aim of the sys-
biases were addressed by having two researchers indepen- tematic review and meta-analysis was to translate existing
dently evaluate each reference for their area and by adopting scientific knowledge from multiple lines of evidence to prac-
a systematic review framework so that publications are not tical flood guidance under climate change. Meta-analyses are
just chosen on the basis of a researcher’s prior knowledge common place in the medical sciences (Field and Gillett,
or expectation. This was also addressed in the meta-analysis 2010), but to date we are unaware of applications of meta-
by sensitivity testing the results through multiple researchers analyses in the assessment of changes to extreme rainfall due
independently weighting evidence. The outcomes of the per- to climate change. The lack of standardized practices to re-
researcher analyses were consistently similar (Table S3). porting quantitative results including consistent approaches
In addition to the review biases, the limitations of each to reporting standard errors in the physical sciences (as op-
line of empirical evidence need to be acknowledged. It can posed to medical sciences) represents a burden to perform-
be difficult to identify a climate change signal in observa- ing meta-analyses. Here this was overcome by standardiz-
tional records, firstly due to the small signal-to-noise ratio ing individual lines of evidence on global temperature. How-
but secondly due to the difficulty of obtaining high quality ever, combining individual studies relies on subjectivity of
instrumental data (Hall et al., 2014). For example, it is diffi- the experts involved in synthesizing the available informa-
cult to detect a statistically significant change resulting from tion. The authors involved in the meta-analysis represented
Clausius–Clapeyron scaling at a single rain gauge based on a wide range of backgrounds including hydrology, climate
observed warming rates and typical record lengths (Westra science, and meteorology, with each individual adopting an
et al., 2013), such that the absence of a statistically significant independent method of synthesis. The similarity of the final
result does not necessarily imply the absence of a trend. Sin- best estimates of change between the individual authors gives
gle site studies were hence given low weighting in the meta- credence to the robustness of the results (Table S3). This sug-

gests the methods here could be used to synthesize available There is a need for guidance on how to perform flood
evidence for similar studies to transfer scientific knowledge frequency analysis and continuous simulation under climate
to engineering guidance. change, but a lack of consensus remains on how best to per-
form these (Schlef et al., 2023). While non-stationary flood
5.3 Factors omitted and recommendations for future frequency analysis is an attractive prospect due to its use of
work observed flood data, extrapolating historical trends into the
future is not justifiable. Rather, Faulkner et al. (2020) advise
This review focussed on a set of salient factors relevant to the use of non-stationary flood frequency analysis as a means
design flood estimation, and hence there are some aspects for obtaining current day estimates. In the case of continu-
that are not covered. Australia has three small regions located ous simulation, stochastically generating reliable rainfall se-
in the south-east of the country that currently sustain snow- quences remains challenging (Woldemeskel et al., 2016), and
packs over the winter period: the Snowy Mountains region under climate change a standard approach for deriving rain-
in southern New South Wales, the Victorian Alps, and the fall time series remains a research priority (Dale, 2021). Re-
Tasmania Highlands. Studies of the contribution of rain-on- cent research has shown that bias-correcting for changes to
snow events to flood risks have been undertaken using sim- long-term persistence (interannual variability) is critical for
ple water budget approaches (Stephens et al., 2016; Nathan climate change impact studies (Vogel et al., 2023; Robert-
and Bowles, 1997). While rain-on-snow events dominated son et al., 2023), and this should be considered moving for-
the generation of more frequent floods (≥ 1-in-50 AEP), they ward. While event-based methods allow the adjustment of
were less important for more extreme events. The key engi- the primary flood drivers for climate change, a gap remains
neering design focus in these regions is related to the over- to understand under climate change which drivers the design
topping risks of hydroelectric dams, and as such, snowmelt flood estimate is most sensitive to and hence which should be
floods are considered a localized issue for Australia and factored for climate change. Identifying the drivers with the
are not covered in the national flood guidelines (Ball et al., strongest effects could be addressed by sensitivity/stress test-
2019a). ing (Hannaford et al., 2023) or applying a storyline approach
Design flood practice in Australia, as elsewhere in the in flood estimation (de Bruijn et al., 2016; Shepherd et al.,
world, generally adopts areal lumped temporal patterns in 2018; Hazeleger et al., 2015). This would require an under-
combination with a fixed spatial pattern. The information standing of the causal mechanisms of flood events which re-
available to characterize this variability is very limited, and mains limited in Australia (Wasko and Guo, 2022).
this dearth of evidence poses problems for design flood esti- Finally, the development of climate models with the abil-
mation under stationarity assumptions and limits our ability ity to resolve convection processes in other parts of the world
to estimate the impacts of climate change on flood risks. With (Chan et al., 2020, 2016) suggests the potential for improved
climate change, it is important to correctly reflect changes simulations and projections of short-duration rainfall ex-
in spatial and temporal correlation structures and transition tremes in Australia. Improved projections of short-duration
probabilities, particularly for large catchments, which are extreme rainfall would be particularly valuable given the un-
sensitive to spatial variability in rainfall, or for such appli- derstanding that these events are increasing at a greater rate
cations as the design of linear infrastructure such as railways than long-duration rainfall. However, a substantial constraint
and major highways (Le et al., 2019). It can be expected that to modelling convection processes is the computationally in-
the only way the impacts of climate change can be considered tensive modelling efforts required to cover the geographic
on the spatio-temporal patterns of extreme rainfall is through expanse of Australia.
a combination of physical modelling (e.g. Chang et al. 2016)
and careful regional pooling (e.g. Visser et al. 2023). Finally,
it is also worth noting that no attention is given to the im- 6 Summary and conclusions
pact of climate change on factors exogenous to storm cli-
matic drivers. An example of this is the assessment of water This paper describes a review of the scientific literature as it
levels in dams or surcharge flooding from sewer networks. relates to the impact of climate change on design flood es-
Climate change impacts for such assessments are the result timation for Australia. To ensure the review is reproducible
of a complex mix of water demands and water management and to minimize the potential for bias, we adopted the frame-
strategies (not to mention longer-term climatic conditions) work of a systematic review. To be included, studies needed
that are not a function of storm events, with such analyses re- to pertain to either flood risk drivers or a measure of the flood
quiring tailored approaches for which it is difficult to provide hazard itself, be able to explain how these are impacted on by
general guidance. climate change, and be relevant to Australia. As design flood
estimation is undertaken using similar methods across the
world, knowledge from relevant international research was
included in addition to the systematic review, particularly in
instances where local evidence was limited. The conclusions

Table 4. Conclusions of systematic review of climate change science relevant to Australian design flood estimation.
Method Quantity Findings

Flood frequency Streamflow No defensible methods were identified for factoring in climate change into flood fre-
analysis quency estimates.
Continuous Rainfall and At present, there are limited studies that describe how to generate realistic time series of
simulation evaporation weather suitable for flood risk estimation. Further research is required before there is a
continuous simulation method suitable for standard practice in design flood estimation.
Event-based Extreme rainfall (up to Heavy precipitation events have increased and will continue to increase due to cli-
estimation and including the PMP) mate change, with the highest rates of increase associated with short-duration rainfall.
Australia-wide estimates (including a central estimate and “likely” range) are provided
in Table 1, varying by duration. Whilst there is reason to believe that scaling rates will
vary both geographically (with higher rates in the north of Australia) and by exceedance
probability (with higher rates for rarer events), insufficient evidence was available to
quantify the differences in projected changes with location and AEP. It is, however,
likely that these changes are within the uncertainty intervals provided in Table 1.
Temporal patterns Temporal patterns may become more front-loaded, with increases in peak intensities
with climate change, but research on the impact of these changes on design flood esti-
mation is lacking.
Areal reduction factors Evidence for changes in spatial patterns with climate change is not conclusive.
Antecedent conditions For Australia there is evidence of drying antecedent conditions, meaning increased
losses in design flood estimation.
Sea level interaction Whilst there is significant evidence that sea levels are increasing and will continue to
increase due to climate change, the changes to the interaction between high ocean levels
(due to the combination of high astronomic tides and storm surges) and heavy rainfall
events remain poorly understood.
of this systematic review, as they relate to the methods for de- research applications. Dale (2021) notes that a standard
sign flood estimation, are described below and summarized approach for deriving time series rainfall under climate
in Table 4: change remains a research priority. If continuous simu-
lation is to be applied, careful attention needs to be paid
1. There is a general absence of a scientifically defensi- to ensuring downscaling and bias correction methodolo-
ble methodology for performing flood frequency anal- gies accurately correct both extreme rainfall and long-
ysis in the context of projections for a future climate. term variability (persistence) characteristics that are im-
The extrapolation of a historical temporal trend is not portant to hydrological applications (Vogel et al., 2023;
recommended, with many studies arguing that any non- Robertson et al., 2023).
stationary flood frequency analysis should ensure that
the statistical model structure is representative of the
processes controlling flooding. But as flood processes
change with climate change, and with historical data 3. The primary input in event-based modelling is the IFD
likely to be influenced by other drivers such as land-use rainfall. The IPCC states that the frequency and inten-
change, extrapolating historical trends into the future is sity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased
not considered a viable method for developing future due to climate change (Seneviratne et al., 2023). Here
estimates of flood risk. we find that both daily and sub-daily rainfall are increas-
ing with warming, with the rate of increase greater for
2. The use of continuous simulation for flood frequency shorter durations. Moreover, there is emerging evidence
projections requires downscaling and bias correction of that the rarer the rainfall, the greater increase, and there
GCM outputs to derive hydrologic inputs such as rain- is also evidence that increases in sub-daily rainfall ex-
fall that represent a future climate. Due to the complex- tremes are greater in the tropics. However, there is cur-
ity in extracting GCM data and appropriately transform- rently not enough quantitative evidence across different
ing the GCM data to the local scale, approaches of pro- exceedance probabilities or geographic zones to quan-
jecting flood frequency through continuous simulation tify projections of extreme rainfall across different re-
are likely to, at least in the near term, remain limited to gions of Australia.

4. The literature both from Australia and around the world Code availability. Code used to calculate warming levels can
provides a consensus view that the PMP is likely in- be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10785698 (Raupach,
creasing at the CC rate for daily rainfall. Despite no re- 2024).
search on changes in the PMP at the sub-daily scale, it
appears extreme rainfall increases plateau with increas-
ing severity (Pendergrass, 2018). Hence, as storms in- Data availability. The data we used and collated are summarized
tensify with climate change due to latent heat release, it in the Excel spreadsheet that is available in the Supplement.
can be assumed that changes above the CC scaling rate
for the rarest of extreme rainfall at the sub-daily scale
Supplement. The supplement related to this article is available on-
can be taken as being representative of changes to the
line at: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024-supplement.
PMP for similar durations.
5. Evidence exists to suggest that temporal patterns will
become more front-loaded and intense with climate Author contributions. CW: conceptualization, writing (original
change, but evidence for changes in spatial patterns is draft preparation). SW: conceptualization, methodology, writing
not conclusive, with changes likely to vary with weather (original draft preparation and review and editing). RN: concep-
system. Currently, there is no adopted methodology for tualization, writing (original draft preparation). AP: writing (orig-
inal draft preparation), formal analysis. TR: writing (original draft
how to incorporate these changes into design flood esti-
preparation), formal analysis. AD: writing (original draft prepara-
mation or assessment of the impact incorporating such tion). FJ: writing (original draft preparation). MH: writing (original
changes will have on the design flood estimate. draft preparation). KLM: writing (original draft preparation). DJ:
6. With climate change, across Australia, catchment soil writing (review and editing). JE: writing (review and editing). GV:
writing (review and editing). HJF: writing (review and editing).
moisture conditions prior to an extreme rainfall event
are largely becoming drier, and hence losses are pro-
jected to increase (Ho et al., 2023). These changes in an-
Competing interests. The contact author has declared that none of
tecedent moisture conditions have been shown to mod-
the authors has any competing interests.
ulate both historical and future frequent floods with a
lower impact on rarer floods (Wasko and Nathan, 2019;
Wasko et al., 2023). Disclaimer. Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains
7. Sea levels have risen across Australia, impacting estuar- neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, pub-
ine flooding and resulting in much of Australia’s coast- lished maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical rep-
resentation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes ev-
line retreating. With future increases in sea level pro-
ery effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility
jected with global warming, estuarine flooding events lies with the authors.
will become increasingly predictable. However, the
changes to the interaction between coastal sea levels and
pluvial riverine flooding remain poorly understood. Financial support. This work was supported by the Department
To synthesize findings for changes in rainfall intensity of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Con-
quantitatively, a meta-analysis was performed. The uncer- rad Wasko received support from the Australian Research Coun-
tainty presented in the meta-analysis serves to demonstrate cil (grant no. DE210100479) and the Melbourne Climate Futures
Climate Research Accelerator programme. Acacia Pepler, Andrew
that a single line of evidence is not sufficient for deciding
Dowdy, Jason Evans, Kathleen McInnes, and Timothy Raupach re-
on the impact of climate change. As studies vary widely ceived funding from the Climate System Hub of the Australian
in the approaches and assumptions, multiple lines of evi- National Environmental Science Program. Fiona Johnson was sup-
dence should be considered in decision-making related to ported by the ARC Training Centre in Data Analytics for Resources
climate change and the latest climate science reviewed in and Environments (grant no. IC190100031).
decision-making. Although Australia is not a climatically ho-
mogenous nation, there is not enough information to dis-
tinguish extreme rainfall changes regionally, highlighting Review statement. This paper was edited by Thom Bogaard and re-
the need for continental-scale, high-resolution (convection- viewed by Michael Nones and one anonymous referee.
permitting) modelling efforts to help understand the impact
of climate change on extreme rainfall. Nevertheless, there is
now a large body of work on changes to flood drivers as a
References
result of climate change, and whilst significant uncertainty
remains, this work can be used to form the basis for pro- Afzali-Gorouh, Z., Faridhosseini, A., Bakhtiari, B., Mosaedi,
ducing improved methods for defensible estimates of future A., and Salehnia, N.: Monitoring and projection of climate
flood risk. change impact on 24-h probable maximum precipitation in

the Southeast of Caspian Sea, Nat. Hazards, 114, 77–99, Ball, J. E.: The influence of storm temporal patterns
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05380-1, 2022. on catchment response, J. Hydrol., 158, 285–303,
Agilan, V. and Umamahesh, N. V.: Detection and attribution of https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)90058-2, 1994.
non-stationarity in intensity and frequency of daily and 4-h ex- Bao, J., Sherwood, S. C., Alexander, L. V., and Evans,
treme rainfall of Hyderabad, India, J. Hydrol., 530, 677–697, J. P.: Future increases in extreme precipitation exceed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.028, 2015. observed scaling rates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 128–132,
Agilan, V. and Umamahesh, N. V.: What are the best covari- https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3201, 2017.
ates for developing non-stationary rainfall Intensity–Duration– Barbero, R., Westra, S., Lenderink, G., and Fowler, H.
Frequency relationship?, Adv. Water Resour., 101, 11–22, J.: Temperature-extreme precipitation scaling: a two-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.12.016, 2017. way causality?, Int. J. Climatol., 38, e1274–e1279,
Ahmed, A., Yildirim, G., Haddad, K., and Rahman, A.: Re- https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5370, 2017.
gional Flood Frequency Analysis: A Bibliometric Overview, Wa- Bates, B., McLuckie, D., Westra, S., Johnson, F., Green, J., Mum-
ter (Switzerland), 15, 658, https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091658, mery, J., and Abbs, D.: Chapter 6. Climate Change Considera-
2023. tions, Book 1: Scope and Philosophy, in: Australian Rainfall and
Alexander, L. V. and Arblaster, J. M.: Historical and projected Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation, edited by: Ball, J., Babis-
trends in temperature and precipitation extremes in Australia in ter, M., Nathan, R., Weinmann, E., Retallick, M., and Testoni, I.,
observations and CMIP5, Weather Clim. Extrem., 15, 34–56, Commonwealth of Australia, https://arr.ga.gov.au/arr-guideline
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.02.001, 2017. (last access: 21 August 2023), 2019.
Ali, H., Fowler, H. J., and Mishra, V.: Global Observational Ev- Bates, B. C., Chandler, R. E., and Dowdy, A. J.: Esti-
idence of Strong Linkage Between Dew Point Temperature mating trends and seasonality in Australian monthly light-
and Precipitation Extremes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 320–330, ning flash counts, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 3973–3983,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080557, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD023011, 2015.
Ali, H., Fowler, H. J., Lenderink, G., Lewis, E., and Pritchard, D.: Beauchamp, J., Leconte, R., Trudel, M., and Brissette, F.: Estima-
Consistent Large-Scale Response of Hourly Extreme Precipita- tion of the summer–fall PMP and PMF of a northern watershed
tion to Temperature Variation Over Land, Geophys. Res. Lett., under a changed climate, Water Resour. Res., 49, 3852–3862,
48, GRL61841, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090317, 2021a. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20336, 2013.
Ali, H., Peleg, N., and Fowler, H. J.: Global Scaling of Rain- Bell, S. S., Chand, S. S., Tory, K. J., Dowdy, A. J., Turville, C.,
fall With Dewpoint Temperature Reveals Considerable Ocean– and Ye, H.: Projections of Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone
Land Difference, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL093798, track density using CMIP5 models, Clim. Dynam., 52, 6065–
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093798, 2021b. 6079, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4497-4, 2019.
Allen, J. T., Karoly, D. J., and Walsh, K. J.: Future Australian Severe Ben Alaya, M. A., Zwiers, F. W., and Zhang, X.: Probable max-
Thunderstorm Environments. Part II: The Influence of a Strongly imum precipitation in a warming climate over North America
Warming Climate on Convective Environments, J. Climate, 27, in CanRCM4 and CRCM5, Climatic Change, 158, 611–629,
3848–3868, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00426.1, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02591-7, 2020.
Allen, M. R. and Ingram, W. J.: Constraints on future changes Bennett, B., Leonard, M., Deng, Y., and Westra, S.: An
in climate and the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, empirical investigation into the effect of antecedent pre-
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01092, 2002. cipitation on flood volume, J. Hydrol., 567, 435–445,
Ashcroft, L., Karoly, D. J., and Dowdy, A. J.: Historical extreme https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.025, 2018.
rainfall events in southeastern Australia, Weather Clim. Extrem. Berg, A., Sheffield, J., and Milly, P. C. D.: Divergent surface and
25, 100210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100210, 2019. total soil moisture projections under global warming, Geophys.
Ayat, H., Evans, J. P., Sherwood, S. C., and Soderholm, J.: Intensifi- Res. Lett., 44, 236–244, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071921,
cation of subhourly heavy rainfall, Science (80–.), 378, 655–659, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn8657, 2022. Bergemann, M., Lane, T. P., Wales, S., Narsey, S., and Louf, V.:
Bahramian, K., Nathan, R., Western, A. W., and Ryu, High-resolution simulations of tropical island thunderstorms:
D.: Probabilistic Conditioning and Recalibration of an Does an increase in resolution improve the representation of
Event-Based Flood Forecasting Model Using Real-Time extreme rainfall?, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 148, 3303–3318,
Streamflow Observations, J. Hydrol. Eng., 28, 04023003, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4360, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002236, 2023. Berghuijs, W. R. and Slater, L. J.: Groundwater shapes North
Ball, J., Babister, M., Nathan, R., Weeks, W., Wienmann, R., Retal- American river floods, Environ. Res. Lett., 18, 034043,
lick, M., and Testoni, I. (Eds.): Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acbecc, 2023.
Guide to Flood Estimation, Commonwealth of Australia, https:// Bevacqua, E., Maraun, D., Vousdoukas, M. I., Voukouvalas, E.,
arr.ga.gov.au/arr-guideline (last access: 21 August 2023), 2019a. Vrac, M., Mentaschi, L., and Widmann, M.: Higher probabil-
Ball, J., Babister, M., Retallick, M., and Weinmann, E.: Chap- ity of compound flooding from precipitation and storm surge
ter 1. Introduction, Book 1: Scope and philosophy, in: Aus- in Europe under anthropogenic climate change, Sci. Adv., 5,
tralian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation, edited eaaw5531, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5531, 2019.
by: Ball, J., Babister, M., Nathan, R., Weeks, W., Weinmann, Bevacqua, E., Vousdoukas, M. I., Shepherd, T. G., and Vrac,
E., Retallick, M., and Testoni, I., Commonwealth of Australia, M.: Brief communication: The role of using precipitation
https://arr.ga.gov.au/arr-guideline (last access: 21 August 2023), or river discharge data when assessing global coastal com-
2019b.

pound flooding, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1765–1782, Cavicchia, L., Pepler, A., Dowdy, A., Evans, J., Di Luca, A.,
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1765-2020, 2020. and Walsh, K.: Future Changes in the Occurrence of Hybrid
Bhatia, K., Vecchi, G., Murakami, H., Underwood, S., and Kossin, Cyclones: The Added Value of Cyclone Classification for the
J.: Projected Response of Tropical Cyclone Intensity and Inten- East Australian Low-Pressure Systems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
sification in a Global Climate Model, J. Climate, 31, 8281–8303, e2019GL085751, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085751, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0898.1, 2018. Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J.,
Bishop-Taylor, R., Sagar, S., Lymburner, L., and Beaman, R. J.: Be- and Blenkinsop, S.: The characteristics of summer sub-hourly
tween the tides: Modelling the elevation of Australia’s exposed rainfall over the southern UK in a high-resolution con-
intertidal zone at continental scale, Estuar. Coast. Shelf S., 223, vective permitting model, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 094024,
115–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.03.006, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094024, 2016.
Bishop-Taylor, R., Nanson, R., Sagar, S., and Lymburner, L.: Map- Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Berthou, S., Fosser, G., Lewis, E., and
ping Australia’s dynamic coastline at mean sea level using Fowler, H. J.: Europe-wide precipitation projections at convec-
three decades of Landsat imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 267, tion permitting scale with the Unified Model, Clim. Dynam., 55,
112734, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112734, 2021. 409–428, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05192-8, 2020.
Black, A. S., Risbey, J. S., Chapman, C. C., Monselesan, D. Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Fowler, H. J., Kahraman, A., Crook,
P., Moore II, T. S., Pook, M. J., Richardson, D., Sloyan, J., Ban, N., and Prein, A. F.: Large-scale dynamics moderate
B. M., Squire, D. T., and Tozer, C. R.: Australian North- impact-relevant changes to organised convective storms, Com-
west Cloudbands and Their Relationship to Atmospheric mun. Earth Environ., 4, 8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-
Rivers and Precipitation, Mon. Weather Rev., 149, 1125–1139, 00669-2, 2023a.
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0308.1, 2021. Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Fowler, H. J., Youngman, B. D., Dale,
Boughton, W. and Droop, O.: Continuous simulation for design M., and Short, C.: New extreme rainfall projections for improved
flood estimation—a review, Environ. Model. Softw., 18, 309– climate resilience of urban drainage systems, Clim. Serv., 30,
318, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00004-5, 2003. 100375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100375, 2023b.
Brocca, L., Melone, F., Moramarco, T., and Singh, V. P.: Chand, S. S., Dowdy, A. J., Ramsay, H. A., Walsh, K. J. E., Tory,
Assimilation of Observed Soil Moisture Data in Storm K. J., Power, S. B., Bell, S. S., Lavender, S. L., Ye, H., and
Rainfall-Runoff Modeling, J. Hydrol. Eng., 14, 153–165, Kuleshov, Y.: Review of tropical cyclones in the Australian re-
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:2(153), gion: Climatology, variability, predictability, and trends, WIREs
2009. Clim. Change, 10, e602, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.602, 2019.
Brown, A. and Dowdy, A.: Severe Convective Wind En- Chand, S. S., Walsh, K. J. E., Camargo, S. J., Kossin, J. P., Tory, K.
vironments and Future Projected Changes in Aus- J., Wehner, M. F., Chan, J. C. L., Klotzbach, P. J., Dowdy, A. J.,
tralia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD034633, Bell, S. S., Ramsay, H. A., and Murakami, H.: Declining tropical
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD034633, 2021. cyclone frequency under global warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 12,
Brown, I. W., McDougall, K., Alam, M. J., Chowdhury, R., 655–661, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01388-4, 2022.
and Chadalavada, S.: Calibration of a continuous hydrologic Chang, W., Stein, M. L., Wang, J., Kotamarthi, V. R., and
simulation model in the urban Gowrie Creek catchment in Moyer, E. J.: Changes in spatiotemporal precipitation patterns
Toowoomba, Australia, J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 40, 101021, in changing climate conditions, J. Climate, 29, 8355–8376,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101021, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0844.1, 2016.
Bruyère, C. L., Done, J. M., Jaye, A. B., Holland, G. J., Buck- Chegwidden, Oriana, S., Rupp, D. E., and Nijssen, B.: Climate
ley, B., Henderson, D. J., Leplastrier, M., and Chan, P.: change alters flood magnitudes and mechanisms in climatically-
Physically-based landfalling tropical cyclone scenarios in sup- diverse headwaters across the northwestern United States, En-
port of risk assessment, Weather Clim. Extrem., 26, 100229, viron. Res. Lett., 15, 094048, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100229, 2019. 9326/ab986f, 2020.
Bui, A., Johnson, F., and Wasko, C.: The relationship of Chen, H., Sun, J., and Chen, X.: Projection and uncer-
atmospheric air temperature and dew point tempera- tainty analysis of global precipitation-related extremes
ture to extreme rainfall, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 074025, using CMIP5 models, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 2730–2748,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2a26, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3871, 2014.
Bureau of Meteorology: Assessment Reports, https://awo.bom.gov. Chen, X., Hossain, F., and Leung, L. R.: Probable Maxi-
au/about/overview/assessment-reports#regionsandreports (last mum Precipitation in the U. S. Pacific Northwest in a
access: 21 August 2023), 2022. Changing Climate, Water Resour. Res., 53, 9600–9622,
Callaghan, J. and Power, S. B.: Major coastal flooding in southeast- https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021094, 2017.
ern Australia 1860–2012, associated deaths and weather systems, Chen, Y.-R., Yu, B., and Jenkins, G.: Secular variation
Aust. Meteorol. Ocean., 64, 183–213, 2014. in rainfall and intensity–frequency–duration curves in
Carey-Smith, T., Henderson, R., and Singh, S.: High Inten- Eastern Australia, J. Water Clim. Change, 4, 244–251,
sity Rainfall Design System Version 4, NIWA Client Rep. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2013.138, 2013.
2018022CH, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Re- Chevuturi, A., Klingaman, N. P., Turner, A. G., and Hannah, S.:
search Ltd., Wellington, https://niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/ Projected Changes in the Asian-Australian Monsoon Region in
2018022CH_HIRDSv4_Final.pdf (last access: 24 March 2020), 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C Global-Warming Scenarios, Earths Future, 6,
2018. 339–358, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000734, 2018.

Chow, V., Maidment, D., and Mays, L.: Applied Hydrology, de Bruijn, K. M., Lips, N., Gersonius, B., and Middelkoop,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 572 pp., ISBN 0-07-100174-3, 1988. H.: The storyline approach: a new way to analyse and im-
Clavet-Gaumont, J., Huard, D., Frigon, A., Koenig, K., Slota, prove flood event management, Nat. Hazards, 81, 99–121,
P., Rousseau, A., Klein, I., Thiémonge, N., Houdré, F., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2074-2, 2016.
Perdikaris, J., Turcotte, R., Lafleur, J., and Larouche, B.: Prob- DeConto, R. M. and Pollard, D.: Contribution of Antarctica
able maximum flood in a changing climate: An overview to past and future sea-level rise, Nature, 531, 591–597,
for Canadian basins, J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 13, 11–25, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17145, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.07.003, 2017. Dey, R., Lewis, S. C., Arblaster, J. M., and Abram, N. J.: A review of
Clayton, A.: Revision of hydrological design loss rates for the cen- past and projected changes in Australia’s rainfall, WIREs Clim.
tral and eastern Kimberley region of western Australia, in: 34th Change, 10, e577, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.577, 2019.
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Sydney, Australia, Dowdy, A. J.: Long-term changes in Australian tropi-
19–22 November 2012, 947–953, ISBN 9781922107626, 2012. cal cyclone numbers, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 15, 292–298,
Climate Change in Australia: https://www. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.502, 2014.
climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/communication-resources/ Dowdy, A. J.: Climatology of thunderstorms, convective rainfall
reports/ (last access: 19 July 2023), 2020. and dry lightning environments in Australia, Clim. Dynam., 54,
Colberg, F. and McInnes, K. L.: The impact of future 3041–3052, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05167-9, 2020.
changes in weather patterns on extreme sea levels over Dowdy, A. J. and Catto, J. L.: Extreme weather caused by concur-
southern Australia, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C08001, rent cyclone, front and thunderstorm occurrences, Sci. Rep.-UK,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007919, 2012. 7, 40359, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40359, 2017.
Colberg, F., McInnes, K. L., O’Grady, J., and Hoeke, R.: Atmo- Dowdy, A. J., Pepler, A., Di Luca, A., Cavicchia, L., Mills,
spheric circulation changes and their impact on extreme sea lev- G., Evans, J. P., Louis, S., McInnes, K. L., and Walsh,
els around Australia, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1067– K.: Review of Australian east coast low pressure systems
1086, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1067-2019, 2019. and associated extremes, Clim. Dynam., 53, 4887–4910,
Collins, M., Sutherland, M., Bouwer, L., Cheong, S.-M., Frölicher, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04836-8, 2019.
T., Jacot Des Combes, H., Koll Roxy, M., Losada, I., McInnes, Du, H., Alexander, L. V., Donat, M. G., Lippmann, T., Sri-
K., Ratter, B., Rivera-Arriaga, E., Susanto, R. D., Swingedouw, vastava, A., Salinger, J., Kruger, A., Choi, G., He, H. S.,
D., and Tibig, L.: Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Fujibe, F., Rusticucci, M., Nandintsetseg, B., Manzanas, R.,
Risk, in: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere Rehman, S., Abbas, F., Zhai, P., Yabi, I., Stambaugh, M. C.,
in a Changing Climate, edited by: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. Wang, S., Batbold, A., Oliveira, P. T., Adrees, M., Hou, W.,
C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, Zong, S., Santos e Silva, C. M., Lucio, P. S., and Wu, Z.:
E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Pet- Precipitation From Persistent Extremes is Increasing in Most
zold, J., Rama, B., and Weyer, N. M., Cambridge University Regions and Globally, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 6041–6049,
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 589–655, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL081898, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.008, 2019. Earl, N., Remenyi, T. A., King, A., Love, P. T., Rollins, D., and Har-
Condon, L. E., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T.: Climate ris, R. M. B.: Changing compound rainfall events in Tasmania,
change and non-stationary flood risk for the upper Truc- Int. J. Climatol., 43, 538–557, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7791,
kee River basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 159–175, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-159-2015, 2015. Eliot, M. and Pattiaratchi, C.: Remote forcing of water levels by
Contractor, S., Donat, M. G., and Alexander, L. V.: In- tropical cyclones in southwest Australia, Cont. Shelf Res., 30,
tensification of the Daily Wet Day Rainfall Distribution 1549–1561, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.06.002, 2010.
Across Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 8568–8576, Emanuel, K.: A fast intensity simulator for tropical
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078875, 2018. cyclone risk analysis, Nat. Hazards, 88, 779–796,
Cordery, I.: Antecedent wetness for design flood estimation, Civ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2890-7, 2017.
Eng. Trans. Inst. Eng. Aust., 12, 181–185, 1970. Emori, S. and Brown, S. J.: Dynamic and thermody-
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology: Climate Change in Australia namic changes in mean and extreme precipitation un-
Projections for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Re- der changed climate, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L17706,
gions: Technical Report, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023272, 2005.
Australia, ISBN 9781921232947, 2015. England Jr., J. F., Cohn, T. A., Faber, B. A., Stedinger, J. R., Thomas
Cyphers, L., Sutton, A., Hopkinson, L. C., and Quaranta, J. D.: Jr., W. O., Veilleux, A. G., Kiang, J. E., and Mason Jr., R.
Probable Maximum Precipitation Evaluation for a West Vir- R.: Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency—Bulletin
ginia Watershed, United States, J. Hydrol. Eng., 27, 04022014, 17C, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002191, 2022. Chap. B5, 148 pp., https://doi.org/10.3133/tm4B5, 2018.
Dale, M.: Managing the effects of extreme sub-daily rainfall and England, J. F., Sankovich, V. L., and Caldwell, R. J.: Review of
flash floods – A practitioner’s perspective, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, probable maximum precipitation procedures and databases used
379, 20190550, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0550, 2021. to develop hydrometeorological reports, U.S. Nuclear Regula-
Dare, R. A., Davidson, N. E., and McBride, J. L.: Tropical Cyclone tory Commission Washington D.C., https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
Contribution to Rainfall over Australia, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, ML2004/ML20043E110.pdf (last access: 12 March 2024), 2020.
3606–3619, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00340.1, 2012. Faulkner, D., Warren, S., Spencer, P., and Sharkey, P.: Can we still
predict the future from the past? Implementing non-stationary

flood frequency analysis in the UK, J. Flood Risk Manag., 13, in a Changing Environment, Water Resour. Res., 54, 3913–3936,
e12582, https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12582, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR021987, 2018.
Field, A. P. and Gillett, R.: How to do a meta- Geng, T., Jia, F., Cai, W., Wu, L., Gan, B., Jing, Z., Li, S.,
analysis, Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psy., 63, 665–694, and McPhaden, M. J.: Increased occurrences of consecutive
https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733, 2010. La Niña events under global warming, Nature, 619, 774–781,
Fowler, H. J., Blenkinsop, S., and Tebaldi, C.: Linking climate https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06236-9, 2023.
change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in down- Ghanghas, A., Sharma, A., Dey, S., and Merwade, V.: How
scaling techniques for hydrological modelling, Int. J. Climatol., Is Spatial Homogeneity in Precipitation Extremes Chang-
27, 1547–1578, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1556, 2007. ing Globally?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL103233,
Fowler, H. J., Lenderink, G., Prein, A. F., Westra, S., Allan, R. P., https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103233, 2023.
Ban, N., Barbero, R., Berg, P., Blenkinsop, S., Do, H. X., Guer- Grose, M. R., Narsey, S., Delage, F. P., Dowdy, A. J., Bador,
reiro, S., Haerter, J. O., Kendon, E. J., Lewis, E., Schaer, C., M., Boschat, G., Chung, C., Kajtar, J. B., Rauniyar, S., Fre-
Sharma, A., Villarini, G., Wasko, C., and Zhang, X.: Anthro- und, M. B., Lyu, K., Rashid, H., Zhang, X., Wales, S., Tren-
pogenic intensification of short-duration rainfall extremes, Nat. ham, C., Holbrook, N. J., Cowan, T., Alexander, L., Ar-
Rev. Earth Environ., 2, 107–122, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017- blaster, J. M., and Power, S.: Insights From CMIP6 for Aus-
020-00128-6, 2021. tralia’s Future Climate, Earths Future, 8, e2019EF001469,
Fox-Kemper, B., Hewitt, H. T., Xiao, C., Aðalgeirsdóttir, G., Dri- https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001469, 2020.
jfhout, S. S., Edwards, T. L., Golledge, N. R., Hemer, M., Kopp, Gründemann, G. J., van de Giesen, N., Brunner, L., and van der Ent,
R. E., Krinner, G., Mix, A., Notz, D., Nowicki, S., Nurhati, I. R.: Rarest rainfall events will see the greatest relative increase in
S., Ruiz, L., Sallée, J.-B., Slangen, A. B. A., and Yu, Y.: Ocean, magnitude under future climate change, Commun. Earth Envi-
Cryosphere and Sea Level Change, in: Climate Change 2021: ron., 3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00558-8, 2022.
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to Gu, X., Zhang, Q., Li, J., Liu, J., Xu, C. Y., and Sun, P.: The chang-
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ing nature and projection of floods across Australia, J. Hydrol.,
Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pi- 584, 124703, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124703,
rani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, 2020.
Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, Gu, X., Ye, L., Xin, Q., Zhang, C., Zeng, F., Nerantzaki, S. D., and
E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, Papalexiou, S. M.: Extreme Precipitation in China: A Review on
O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cam- Statistical Methods and Applications, Adv. Water Resour., 163,
bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1211–1362, 104144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2022.104144, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.011, 2021. Guerreiro, S. B., Fowler, H. J., Barbero, R., Westra, S., Lenderink,
François, B., Schlef, K. E., Wi, S., and Brown, C. M.: G., Blenkinsop, S., Lewis, E., and Li, X.-F.: Detection of
Design considerations for riverine floods in a chang- continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes, Nat.
ing climate – A review, J. Hydrol., 574, 557–573, Clim. Change, 8, 803–807, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.068, 2019. 0245-3, 2018.
Franks, S. and Kuczera, G.: Flood frequency analysis: Ev- Guo, S., Xiong, L., Chen, J., Guo, S., Xia, J., Zeng, L., and Xu,
idence and implications of secular climate variability, C. Y.: Nonstationary Regional Flood Frequency Analysis Based
New South Wales, Water Resour. Res., 38, 20–1-20–7, on the Bayesian Method, Water Resour. Manag., 37, 659–681,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000232, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03394-9, 2023.
Frost, A. J., Ramchurn, A., and Smith, A.: The Australian land- Gutiérrez, J. M., Jones, R. G., Narisma, G. T., Alves, L. M., Amjad,
scape water balance model (AWRA-L v6). Technical Descrip- M., Gorodetskaya, I. ., Grose, M., Klutse, N. A. B., Krakovska,
tion of the Australian Water Resources Assessment Landscape S., Li, J., Martínez-Castro, D., Mearns, L. O., Mernild, S. H.,
model version 6, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Aus- Ngo-Duc, T., Hurk, B. van den, and Yoon, J.-H.: Atlas, in: Cli-
tralia, 50 pp., https://awo.bom.gov.au/assets/notes/publications/ mate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
AWRALv6_Model_Description_Report.pdf (last access: 17 Jan- of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the In-
uary 2020), 2018. tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-
Fu, G., Chiew, F. H. S., and Post, D. A.: Trends and variability Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C.,
of rainfall characteristics influencing annual streamflow: A case Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I.,
study of southeast Australia, Int. J. Climatol., 43, 1407–1430, Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., May-
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7923, 2023. cock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B.,
Gamage, S. H. P. W., Hewa, G. A., and Beecham, S.: Probability Cambridge University Press, http://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ (last
distributions for explaining hydrological losses in South Aus- access: 1 October 2023), 2021.
tralian catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4541–4553, Hague, B. S., Jones, D. A., Jakob, D., McGregor, S.,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4541-2013, 2013. and Reef, R.: Australian Coastal Flooding Trends and
Gamage, S. H. P. W., Hewa, G. A., and Beecham, S.: Modelling Forcing Factors, Earths Future, 10, e2021EF002483,
hydrological losses for varying rainfall and moisture conditions https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002483, 2022.
in South Australian catchments, J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 4, 1–21, Hague, B. S., Grayson, R. B., Talke, S. A., Black, M. T.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.04.005, 2015. and Jakob, D.: The effect of tidal range and mean sea-level
Gangrade, S., Kao, S., Naz, B. S., Rastogi, D., Ashfaq, M., Singh, changes on coastal flood hazards at Lakes Entrance, south-east
N., and Preston, B. L.: Sensitivity of Probable Maximum Flood

Australia, J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. Sci., 73, 116–130, event database for Great Britain, Int. J. Climatol., 43, 6020–6037,
https://doi.org/10.1071/ES22036, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.8187, 2023.
Hajani, E. and Rahman, A.: Characterizing changes in rainfall: a Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
case study for New South Wales, Australia, Int. J. Climatol., 38, Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schep-
1452–1462, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5258, 2018. ers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Bal-
Hakala, K., Addor, N., Teutschbein, C., Vis, M., Dakhlaoui, samo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M.,
H., and Seibert, J.: Hydrological Modeling of Cli- Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R.,
mate Change Impacts, in: Encyclopedia of water: Sci- Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger,
ence, technology, and society, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119300762.wsts0062, 2019. S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., Rosnay, P.,
Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.: The ERA5
Kjeldsen, T. R., Kriaučiūnienė, J., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lang, global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049,
M., Llasat, M. C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N., Mediero, L., https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.
Merz, B., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Hershfield, D. M.: Method for Estimating Probable Maxi-
Parajka, J., Perdigão, R. A. P., Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Sali- mum Rainfall, J. Am. Water Works Ass., 57, 965–972,
nas, J. L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A., and https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.1965.tb01486.x, 1965.
Blöschl, G.: Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a Hill, P. and Thomson, R.: Chapter 3. Losses, Book 5: Flood Hydro-
state-of-the-art assessment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2735– graph Estimation, in: Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide
2772, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014, 2014. to Flood Estimation, edited by: Ball, J., Babister, M., Nathan, R.,
Han, X., Mehrotra, R., and Sharma, A.: Measuring the spa- Weinmann, E., Retallick, M., and Testoni, I., Commonwealth of
tial connectivity of extreme rainfall, J. Hydrol., 590, 125510, Australia, https://arr.ga.gov.au/arr-guideline (last access: 21 Au-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125510, 2020. gust 2023), 2019.
Han, X., Mehrotra, R., Sharma, A., and Rahman, A.: Incorporating Hill, P., Nathan, R., and Zhang, J.: Application of AWRA-L gridded
nonstationarity in regional flood frequency analysis procedures soil moisture data for flood estimation, in: 37th Hydrology and
to account for climate change impact, J. Hydrol., 612, 128235, Water Resources Symposium 2016: Water, Infrastructure and the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128235, 2022. Environment, Queenstown, New Zealand, 28 November–2 De-
Hannaford, J., Mackay, J. D., Ascott, M., Bell, V. A., Chitson, cember 2016, 179–186, ISBN 978-1-5108-7764-1, 2016.
T., Cole, S., Counsell, C., Durant, M., Jackson, C. R., Kay, Hitchcock, S. M., Lane, T. P., Warren, R. A., and Soderholm, J.
A. L., Lane, R. A., Mansour, M., Moore, R., Parry, S., Rudd, S.: Linear Rainfall Features and Their Association with Rainfall
A. C., Simpson, M., Facer-Childs, K., Turner, S., Wallbank, J. Extremes near Melbourne, Australia, Mon. Weather Rev., 149,
R., Wells, S., and Wilcox, A.: The enhanced future Flows and 3401–3417, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0007.1, 2021.
Groundwater dataset: development and evaluation of nationally Ho, M., Nathan, R., Wasko, C., Vogel, E., and Sharma,
consistent hydrological projections based on UKCP18, Earth A.: Projecting changes in flood event runoff coeffi-
Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2391–2415, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15- cients under climate change, J. Hydrol., 615, 128689,
2391-2023, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128689, 2022.
Hazeleger, W., Van Den Hurk, B. J. J. M., Min, E., Van Olden- Ho, M., Wasko, C., O’Shea, D., Nathan, R., Vogel, E.,
borgh, G. J., Petersen, A. C., Stainforth, D. A., Vasileiadou, E., and Sharma, A.: Changes in flood-associated rainfall
and Smith, L. A.: Tales of future weather, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, losses under climate change, J. Hydrol., 625, 129950,
107–113, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2450, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129950, 2023.
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, Holland, G. and Bruyère, C. L.: Recent intense hurricane re-
F.: A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach, sponse to global climate change, Clim. Dynam., 42, 617–627,
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 219–236, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0, 2014.
219-2013, 2013. Holland, G. J., Lynch, A. H., and Leslie, L. M.: Australian East-
Heneker, T. M., Lambert, M. F., and Kuczera, G.: Overcoming the Coast Cyclones. Part I: Synoptic Overview and Case Study, Mon.
joint probability problem associated with initial loss estimation Weather Rev., 115, 3024–3036, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
in desgn flood estimation, Australas. J. Water Resour., 7, 101– 0493(1987)115<3024:AECCPI>2.0.CO;2, 1987.
109, https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2003.11465233, 2003. Hosking, J. R. M. and Wallis, J. R.: Regional Fre-
Herath, S. M., Sarukkalige, P. R., and Nguyen, V. T. V.: quency Analysis, Cambridge University Press,
A spatial temporal downscaling approach to development https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529443, 1997.
of IDF relations for Perth airport region in the con- Institute of Hydrology: Flood Estimation Handbook (five volumes),
text of climate change, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61, 2061–2070, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Centre for Ecology & Hydrol-
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1083103, 2016. ogy Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, ISBN 978-1-906698-00-3,
Herold, N., Downes, S. M., Gross, M. H., Ji, F., Nishant, N., 1999.
Macadam, I., Ridder, N. N., and Beyer, K.: Projected changes in Ishak, E. and Rahman, A.: Investigation into probabilistic nature
the frequency of climate extremes over southeast Australia, En- of continuing loss in four catchments in Victoria, in: 30th Hy-
viron. Res. Commun., 3, 011001, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515- drology & Water Resources Symposium: Past, Present & Fu-
7620/abe6b1, 2021. ture, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 4–7 December 2006, 432–437, ISBN
Herrera, R. V., Blenkinsop, S., Guerreiro, S. B., and Fowler, H. 0858257904, 2006.
J.: The creation and climatology of a large independent rainfall

Ishak, E. H., Rahman, A., Westra, S., Sharma, A., and Kuczera, Kim, H. and Villarini, G.: On the attribution of an-
G.: Trend analysis of Australian annual maximum flood data: nual maximum discharge across the conterminous
exploring relationship with climate and catchment character- United States, Adv. Water Resour., 171, 104360,
istics, in: 35th Hydrology And Water Resources Symposium, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2022.104360, 2023.
Perth, Western Australia, 24–27 February 2014, 445–452, ISBN Knutson, T., Camargo, S. J., Chan, J. C. L., Emanuel, K., Ho, C.-
9781634399357, 2014. H., Kossin, J., Mohapatra, M., Satoh, M., Sugi, M., Walsh, K.,
Ishak, E. H., Rahman, A., Westra, S., Sharma, A., and and Wu, L.: Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment:
Kuczera, G.: Evaluating the non-stationarity of Aus- Part I: Detection and Attribution, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
tralian annual maximum flood, J. Hydrol., 494, 134–145, 1987–2007, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0189.1, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.021, 2013. Knutson, T., Camargo, S. J., Chan, J. C. L., Emanuel, K.,
Ishida, K., Ohara, N., Kavvas, M. L., Chen, Z. Q., and An- Ho, C.-H., Kossin, J., Mohapatra, M., Satoh, M., Sugi, M.,
derson, M. L.: Impact of air temperature on physically-based Walsh, K., and Wu, L.: Tropical Cyclones and Climate
maximum precipitation estimation through change in mois- Change Assessment: Part II: Projected Response to Anthro-
ture holding capacity of air, J. Hydrol., 556, 1050–1063, pogenic Warming, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, E303–E322,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.008, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0194.1, 2020.
Ivancic, T. J. and Shaw, S. B.: Examining why trends in very Kossin, J. P.: A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation
heavy precipitation should not be mistaken for trends in speed, Nature, 558, 104–107, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-
very high river discharge, Climatic Change, 133, 681–693, 018-0158-3, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1476-1, 2015. Kossin, J. P., Emanuel, K. A., and Vecchi, G. A.: The poleward
Jakob, D., Smalley, R., Meighen, J., Xuereb, K., and Taylor, B.: migration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum inten-
Climate change and probable maximum precipitation, Bureau of sity, Nature, 509, 349–352, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13278,
Meteorology, Melbourne, 179 pp., HRS Report No. 12, 2009. 2014.
Jayaweera, L., Wasko, C., Nathan, R., and Johnson, F.: Non- Kossin, J. P., Knapp, K. R., Olander, T. L., and Velden, C. S.: Global
stationarity in extreme rainfalls across Australia, J. Hydrol., 624, increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over
129872, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129872, 2023. the past four decades, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 11975–
Ju, J., Wu, C., Yeh, P. J.-F., Dai, H., and Hu, B. X.: Global 11980, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920849117, 2020.
precipitation-related extremes at 1.5 °C and 2 °C of global Krysanova, V., Donnelly, C., Gelfan, A., Gerten, D., Arheimer,
warming targets: Projection and uncertainty assessment based B., Hattermann, F., and Kundzewicz, Z. W.: How the perfor-
on the CESM-LWR experiment, Atmos. Res., 264, 105868, mance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projec-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105868, 2021. tions under climate change, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 696–720,
Kahraman, A., Kendon, E. J., Chan, S. C., and Fowler, H. J.: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1446214, 2018.
Quasi-Stationary Intense Rainstorms Spread Across Europe Un- Kundzewicz, Z. W. and Stakhiv, E. Z.: Are climate models “ready
der Climate Change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL092361, for prime time” in water resources management applications,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092361, 2021. or is more research needed?, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 55, 1085–1089,
Kawagoe, S. and Sarukkalige, R.: Estimation of probable maximum https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.513211, 2010.
precipitation at three provinces in Northeast Vietnam using his- Kunkel, K. E., Karl, T. R., Easterling, D. R., Redmond, K.,
torical data and future climate change scenarios, J. Hydrol. Reg. Young, J., Yin, X., and Hennon, P.: Probable maximum precipi-
Stud., 23, 100599, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100599, tation and climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1402–1408,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50334, 2013.
Kemp, D. and Daniell, T.: Stuck in the 1960s – the need for funda- Labonté-Raymond, P.-L., Pabst, T., Bussière, B., and Bresson, É.:
mental change in flood hydrology in Australia, in: 37th Hydrol- Impact of climate change on extreme rainfall events and surface
ogy & Water Resources Symposium 2016: Water, Infrastructure water management at mine waste storage facilities, J. Hydrol.,
and the Environment, Queenstown, New Zealand, 28 November– 590, 125383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125383,
2 December 2016, 220–227, ISBN 978-1-5108-7764-1, 2016. 2020.
Kemp, D., Loffler, T., and Daniell, T.: The strange case of first Lagos-Zúñiga, M. A. and Vargas M., X.: PMP and PMF es-
creek – If the flood doesn’t fit the curve should the curve fit timations in sparsely-gauged Andean basins and climate
the flood?, 30th Hydrol. Water Resour. Symp. HWRS 2006, change projections, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 59, 2027–2042,
30th Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium: Past, Present https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.877588, 2014.
& Future, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 4–7 December 2006, ISBN Lanzante, J. R.: Uncertainties in tropical-cyclone translation speed,
0858257904, 2020. Nature, 570, E6–E15, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1223-
Kendon, E. J., Ban, N., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J., Roberts, M. 2, 2019.
J., Chan, S. C., Evans, J. P., Fosser, G., and Wilkinson, J. M.: Do Lavender, S. L. and Abbs, D. J.: Trends in Australian rainfall: con-
convection-permitting regional climate models improve projec- tribution of tropical cyclones and closed lows, Clim. Dynam., 40,
tions of future precipitation change?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 317–326, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1566-y, 2013.
79–93, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-0004.1, 2017. Lawrence, D. and Hisdal, H.: Hydrological projections for floods
Kiem, A. S. and Verdon-Kidd, D. C.: The importance of understand- in Norway under a future climate, NVE Report, Norwegian Wa-
ing drivers of hydroclimatic variability for robust flood risk plan- ter Resources and Energy Directorate, Middelthunsgate 29, Oslo,
ning in the coastal zone, Australas. J. Water Resour., 17, 126– Report no. 5 – 2011 Hydrological, 47 pp., ISBN 9788241007538,
134, https://doi.org/10.7158/W13-015.2013.17.2, 2013. 2011.

Laz, O. U., Rahman, A., Yilmaz, A., and Haddad, K.: Trends Liu, T., Li, B., Jin, L., Wang, S., Wen, J., and Wang, H.: Esti-
in sub-hourly, sub-daily and daily extreme rainfall events mation of probable maximum precipitation of a high-mountain
in eastern Australia, J. Water Clim. Change, 5, 667–675, basin in a changing climate, Hydrol. Res., 53, 221–240,
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2014.035, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2021.084, 2022b.
Le, P. D., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.: Spatially dependent Loveridge, M. and Rahman, A.: Trend analysis of rainfall
flood probabilities to support the design of civil infras- losses using an event-based hydrological model in east-
tructure systems, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4851–4867, ern NSW, in: 20th International Congress on Modelling
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4851-2019, 2019. and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Aus-
Lee, K. and Singh, V. P.: Analysis of uncertainty and tralia and New Zealand (MSSANZ), edited by: Pianta-
non-stationarity in probable maximum precipita- dosi, J., Anderssen, R. S., and Boland, J., MODSIM2013,
tion in Brazos River basin, J. Hydrol., 590, 125526, Inc., Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013, 2569–2575,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125526, 2020. https://doi.org/10.36334/modsim.2013.L7.loveridge, 2017.
Lee, O., Park, Y., Kim, E. S., and Kim, S.: Projection of Loveridge, M. and Rahman, A.: Effects of Probability-Distributed
Korean Probable Maximum Precipitation under Future Cli- Losses on Flood Estimates Using Event-Based Rainfall-Runoff
mate Change Scenarios, Adv. Meteorol., 2016, 3818236, Models, Water, 13, 2049, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152049,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3818236, 2016. 2021.
Lee, O., Sim, I., and Kim, S.: Application of the non- Magan, B., Kim, S., Wasko, C., Barbero, R., Moron, V., Nathan,
stationary peak-over-threshold methods for deriving rainfall ex- R., and Sharma, A.: Impact of atmospheric circulation on the
tremes from temperature projections, J. Hydrol., 585, 124318, rainfall–temperature relationship in Australia, Environ. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124318, 2020. Lett., 15, 094098, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abab35,
Lenderink, G., Belušiæ, D., Fowler, H. J., Kjellström, E., Lind, 2020.
P., van Meijgaard, E., van Ulft, B., and de Vries, H.: System- Mantegna, G. A., White, C. J., Remenyi, T. A., Corney,
atic increases in the thermodynamic response of hourly pre- S. P., and Fox-Hughes, P.: Simulating sub-daily Intensity-
cipitation extremes in an idealized warming experiment with a Frequency-Duration curves in Australia using a dynamical high-
convection-permitting climate model, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, resolution regional climate model, J. Hydrol., 554, 277–291,
074012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab214a, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.025, 2017.
Li, J., Thyer, M., Lambert, M., Kuczera, G., and Metcalfe, A.: McInnes, K. L., White, C. J., Haigh, I. D., Hemer, M. A., Hoeke,
An efficient causative event-based approach for deriving the R. K., Holbrook, N. J., Kiem, A. S., Oliver, E. C. J., Ranasinghe,
annual flood frequency distribution, J. Hydrol., 510, 412–423, R., Walsh, K. J. E., Westra, S., and Cox, R.: Natural hazards in
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.035, 2014. Australia: sea level and coastal extremes, Climatic Change, 139,
Li, J., Sharma, A., Johnson, F., and Evans, J.: Evaluating the 69–83, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1647-8, 2016.
effect of climate change on areal reduction factors using re- McMahon, G. M. and Kiem, A. S.: Large floods in South
gional climate model projections, J. Hydrol., 528, 419–434, East Queensland, Australia: Is it valid to assume they
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.067, 2015. occur randomly?, Aust. J. Water Resour., 22, 4–14,
Li, J., Wasko, C., Johnson, F., Evans, J. P., and Sharma, https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2018.1446677, 2018.
A.: Can Regional Climate Modeling Capture the Observed Meucci, A., Young, I. R., Hemer, M., Kirezci, E., and Ranasinghe,
Changes in Spatial Organization of Extreme Storms at R.: Projected 21st century changes in extreme wind-wave events,
Higher Temperatures?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4475–4484, Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz7295, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz7295,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077716, 2018. 2020.
Liang, S., Wang, D., Ziegler, A. D., Li, L. Z. X., and Zeng, Mills, G., Webb, R., Davidson, N. E., Kepert, J., Seed, A., and Abbs,
Z.: Madden–Julian Oscillation-induced extreme rainfalls con- D.: The Pasha Bulker east coast low of 8 June 2007, The Centre
strained by global warming mitigation, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CAWCR Techni-
5, 67, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00291-1, 2022. cal Report No. 023, ISBN 978-1-921605-77-2, 2010.
Lighthill, J., Zheng, Z., Holland, G. J., and Emanuel, K. (Eds.): Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.
Tropical Cyclone Disasters, in: Proceedings of the ICSU/WMO M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Stouf-
International Symposium, Beijing, China, 12–16 October 1992, fer, R. J.: CLIMATE CHANGE: Stationarity Is Dead:
ISBN 9787301020869, 1993. Whither Water Management?, Science (80–.), 319, 573–574,
Linacre, E. and Geerts, B.: Climates & Weather Explained, Rout- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915, 2008.
ledge, London, New York, ISBN 0415125197, 432 pp., 1997. Moon, I.-J., Kim, S.-H., and Chan, J. C. L.: Climate
Liu, H., Lei, T. W., Zhao, J., Yuan, C. P., Fan, Y. T., and change and tropical cyclone trend, Nature, 570, E3–E5,
Qu, L. Q.: Effects of rainfall intensity and antecedent soil https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1222-3, 2019.
water content on soil infiltrability under rainfall conditions Musselman, K. N., Lehner, F., Ikeda, K., Clark, M. P., Prein, A. F.,
using the run off-on-out method, J. Hydrol., 396, 24–32, Liu, C., Barlage, M., and Rasmussen, R.: Projected increases and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.028, 2011. shifts in rain-on-snow flood risk over western North America,
Liu, J., Wu, D., Li, Y., Ren, H., Zhao, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 808–812, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
H., and Ji, M.: Spatiotemporal variation of precipitation on 018-0236-4, 2018.
a global scale from 1960 to 2016 in a new normalized Nathan, R., Weinmann, E., and Hill, P.: Use of Monte Carlo Sim-
daily precipitation dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 42, 3648–3665, ulation to Estimate the Expected Probability of Large to Ex-
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7437, 2022a. treme Floods, in: 28th International Hydrology and Water Re-

sources Symposium: About Water, Wollongong, Australia, 10– storms to southern Australian rainfall, Clim. Dynam., 55, 1489–
13 November 2003, 105–112, ISBN 0858240602, 2003. 1505, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05338-8, 2020.
Nathan, R. J. and Bowles, D. S.: A Probability-Neutral Approach to Pepler, A. S., Dowdy, A. J., and Hope, P.: The differing role
the Estimation of Design Snowmelt Floods, in: 24th Hydrology of weather systems in southern Australian rainfall between
and Water Resources Symposium, 24th Hydrology and Water 1979–1996 and 1997–2015, Clim. Dynam., 56, 2289–2302,
Resources Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand, 24–27 Novem- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05588-6, 2021.
ber 1997, 125–130, 1997. Peter, J., Vogel, E., Sharples, W., Bende-Michl, U., Wilson, L.,
Neri, A., Villarini, G., Slater, L. J., and Napolitano, F.: On Hope, P., Dowdy, A., Kociuba, G., Srikanthan, S., Duong, V. C.,
the statistical attribution of the frequency of flood events Roussis, J., Matic, V., Khan, Z., Oke, A., Turner, M., Baron-Hay,
across the U. S. Midwest, Adv. Water Resour., 127, 225–236, S., Johnson, F., Mehrotra, R., Sharma, A., Thatcher, M., Azarv-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.03.019, 2019. inand, A., Thomas, S., Boschat, G., Donnelly, C., and Argent, R.:
O’Grady, J. G., McInnes, K. L., Hemer, M. A., Hoeke, R. K., Continental-scale bias-corrected climate and hydrological pro-
Stephenson, A. G., and Colberg, F.: Extreme Water Levels jections for Australia, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint],
for Australian Beaches Using Empirical Equations for Shore- https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-7, in review, 2023.
line Wave Setup, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 124, 5468–5484, Pfahl, S., O’Gorman, P. A., and Fischer, E. M.: Under-
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014871, 2019. standing the regional pattern of projected future changes
O’Shea, D., Nathan, R., Wasko, C., and Hill, P.: Im- in extreme precipitation, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 423–427,
plications of event-based loss model structure on https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3287, 2017.
simulating large floods, J. Hydrol., 595, 126008, Pilgrim, D. and Cordery, I.: Flood runoff, in: Handbook of Hy-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126008, 2021. drology, edited by: Maidment, D., McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-
Osburn, L., Hope, P., and Dowdy, A.: Changes in hourly 0070397323, 1993.
extreme precipitation in victoria, Australia, from the ob- Power, S. B. and Callaghan, J.: The frequency of major flooding in
servational record, Weather Clim. Extrem., 31, 100294, coastal southeast Australia has significantly increased since the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100294, 2021. late 19th century, J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. Sci., 66, 2–11,
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoff- https://doi.org/10.1071/es16002, 2016.
mann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Prosdocimi, I. and Kjeldsen, T.: Parametrisation of change-
Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, permitting extreme value models and its impact on the de-
J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., scription of change, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 35, 307–324,
Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stew- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01940-8, 2021.
art, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whit- Quintero, F., Villarini, G., Prein, A. F., Zhang, W., and Kra-
ing, P., and Moher, D.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an up- jewski, W. F.: Discharge and floods projected to increase
dated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372, n71, more than precipitation extremes, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14738,
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14738, 2022.
Paquet, E., Garavaglia, F., Garçon, R., and Gailhard, J.: The Rahman, A., Weinmann, E., and Mein, R. G.: The Use of
SCHADEX method: A semi-continuous rainfall–runoff simu- Probability-Distributed Initial Losses in Design Flood
lation for extreme flood estimation, J. Hydrol., 495, 23–37, Estimation, Australas. J. Water Resour., 6, 17–29,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.045, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2002.11465207, 2002.
Parker, C. L., Bruyère, C. L., Mooney, P. A., and Lynch, A. H.: The Rakhecha, P. R. and Kennedy, M. R.: A generalised tech-
response of land-falling tropical cyclone characteristics to pro- nique for the estimation of probable maximum precipitation
jected climate change in northeast Australia, Clim. Dynam., 51, in India, J. Hydrol., 78, 345–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
3467–3485, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4091-9, 2018. 1694(85)90112-X, 1985.
Pathiraja, S., Westra, S., and Sharma, A.: Why continu- Rastogi, D., Kao, S., Ashfaq, M., Mei, R., Kabela, E. D., Gan-
ous simulation? The role of antecedent moisture in de- grade, S., Naz, B. S., Preston, B. L., Singh, N., and Anan-
sign flood estimation, Water Resour. Res., 48, W06534, tharaj, V. G.: Effects of climate change on probable maximum
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010997, 2012. precipitation: A sensitivity study over the Alabama–Coosa–
Patricola, C. M. and Wehner, M. F.: Anthropogenic influences Tallapoosa River Basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 4808–
on major tropical cyclone events, Nature, 563, 339–346, 4828, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026001, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0673-2, 2018. Raupach, T. H.: Code to calculate warming lev-
Pendergrass, A. G.: What precipitation is extreme?, Science (80–.), els from CMIP6 and CMIP5, Zenodo [code],
360, 1072–1073, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1871, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10785698, 2024.
Pendergrass, A. G. and Hartmann, D. L.: Changes in the distribution Reid, K. J., O’Brien, T. A., King, A. D., and Lane, T. P.: Extreme
of rain frequency and intensity in response to global warming, Water Vapor Transport During the March 2021 Sydney Floods
J. Climate, 27, 8372–8383, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14- in the Context of Climate Projections, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48,
00183.1, 2014. e2021GL095335, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095335, 2021.
Pepler, A. S. and Dowdy, A. J.: Australia’s Future Extratropical Cy- Reid, K. J., King, A. D., Lane, T. P., and Hudson, D.: Trop-
clones, J. Climate, 35, 7795–7810, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI- ical, Subtropical, and Extratropical Atmospheric Rivers
D-22-0312.1, 2022. in the Australian Region, J. Climate, 35, 2697–2708,
Pepler, A. S., Dowdy, A. J., van Rensch, P., Rudeva, I., Catto, J. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0606.1, 2022.
L., and Hope, P.: The contributions of fronts, lows and thunder-

Robertson, D. E., Chiew, F. H. S., and Potter, N.: Adapting rain- and intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) curves, J. Hydrol., 616,
fall bias-corrections to improve hydrological simulations gen- 128757, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128757, 2023.
erated from climate model forcings, J. Hydrol., 619, 129322, Schleiss, M.: How intermittency affects the rate at which rainfall
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129322, 2023. extremes respond to changes in temperature, Earth Syst. Dynam.,
Roderick, T. P., Wasko, C., and Sharma, A.: An Improved Covari- 9, 955–968, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-955-2018, 2018.
ate for Projecting Future Rainfall Extremes?, Water Resour. Res., Seneviratne, S. I., Corti, T., Davin, E. L., Hirschi, M.,
56, e2019WR026924, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026924, Jaeger, E. B., Lehner, I., Orlowsky, B., and Teuling,
2020. A. J.: Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a
Rohde, R. A. and Hausfather, Z.: The Berkeley Earth Land/O- changing climate: A review, Earth-Sci. Rev., 99, 125–161,
cean Temperature Record, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3469–3479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3469-2020, 2020. Seneviratne, S. I., Zhang, X., Adnan, M., Badi, W., Dereczynski,
Rossman, L.: Storm Water Management Model – User’s Manual C., Luca, A. Di, Ghosh, S., Iskandar, I., Kossin, J., Lewis, S.,
Version 5.0, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Otto, F., Pinto, I., Satoh, M., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Wehner,
OH, 285 pp., https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report. M., and Zhou, B.: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a
cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=114231 (last access: 7 March Changing Climate, in: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Sci-
2024), 2010. ence Basis, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani,
Rouhani, H. and Leconte, R.: Uncertainties of Precip- A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y.,
itable Water Calculations for PMP Estimates in Cur- Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy,
rent and Future Climates, J. Hydrol. Eng., 25, 04019066, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001877, 2020. O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Rousseau, A. N., Klein, I. M., Freudiger, D., Gagnon, P., Frigon, A., bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1513–1766,
and Ratté-Fortin, C.: Development of a methodology to evaluate https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.013, 2023.
probable maximum precipitation (PMP) under changing climate Sharma, A., Hettiarachchi, S., and Wasko, C.: Estimating design hy-
conditions: Application to southern Quebec, Canada, J. Hydrol., drologic extremes in a warming climate: alternatives, uncertain-
519, 3094–3109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.053, ties and the way forward, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, 20190623,
2014. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0623, 2021.
Salas, J. D. and Obeysekera, J.: Revisiting the Concepts Sheikh, V., Visser, S., and Stroosnijder, L.: A simple model to pre-
of Return Period and Risk for Nonstationary Hydro- dict soil moisture: Bridging Event and Continuous Hydrologi-
logic Extreme Events, J. Hydrol. Eng., 19, 554–568, cal (BEACH) modelling, Environ. Model. Softw., 24, 542–556,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000820, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.005, 2009.
Salas, J. D., Obeysekera, J., and Vogel, R. M.: Techniques Shepherd, T. G., Boyd, E., Calel, R. A., Chapman, S. C., Des-
for assessing water infrastructure for nonstationary ex- sai, S., Dima-West, I. M., Fowler, H. J., James, R., Maraun,
treme events: a review, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 325–352, D., Martius, O., Senior, C. A., Sobel, A. H., Stainforth, D. A.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1426858, 2018. Tett, S. F. B., Trenberth, K. E., van den Hurk, B. J. J. M.,
Salas, J. D., Anderson, M. L., Papalexiou, S. M., and Frances, Watkins, N. W., Wilby, R. L., and Zenghelis, D. A.: Story-
F.: PMP and Climate Variability and Change: A Review, lines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in phys-
J. Hydrol. Eng., 25, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943- ical aspects of climate change, Climatic Change, 151, 555–571,
5584.0002003, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2317-9, 2018.
Sarkar, S. and Maity, R.: Increase in probable maximum precipita- Shields, C. A., Kiehl, J. T., and Meehl, G. A.: Future changes in
tion in a changing climate over India, J. Hydrol., 585, 124806, regional precipitation simulated by a half-degree coupled climate
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124806, 2020. model: Sensitivity to horizontal resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sauter, C., White, C. J., Fowler, H. J., and Westra, S.: Temporally Sy., 8, 863–884, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000584, 2016.
compounding heatwave–heavy rainfall events in Australia, Int. Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X., and Bronaugh,
J. Climatol., 43, 1050–1061, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7872, D.: Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensem-
2023. ble: Part 2. Future climate projections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
Schaefer, M.: PMP and Other Extreme Storms: Concepts and Prob- 118, 2473–2493, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50188, 2013.
abilities, in: Proceedings, Association of State Dam Safety Of- Sobel, A. H., Camargo, S. J., Hall, T. M., Lee, C.-Y.,
ficials National Conference, Baltimore, MD, 11–14 September, Tippett, M. K., and Wing, A. A.: Human influence on
61–73, 1994. tropical cyclone intensity, Science (80–.), 353, 242–246,
Schlef, K. E., François, B., Robertson, A. W., and Brown, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6574, 2016.
C.: A General Methodology for Climate-Informed Ap- Srikanthan, S., Azarnivand, A., Bende-Michl, U., Carrara, E., Don-
proaches to Long-Term Flood Projection—Illustrated With nelly, C., Dowdy, A., Duong, V., Hope, P., Khan, Z., Kociuba, G.,
the Ohio River Basin, Water Resour. Res., 54, 9321–9341, Loh, S., Matic, V., Oke, A., Peter, J. R., Roussis, J., Sharples, W.,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023209, 2018. Thomas, S., Turner, M., and Wilson, L.: National Hydrological
Schlef, K. E., Kunkel, K. E., Brown, C., Demissie, Y., Letten- Projections – Design and Methodology, Bureau Research Report
maier, D. P., Wagner, A., Wigmosta, M. S., Karl, T. R., East- No. 061, Bureau of Meteorology, 63 pp., ISBN 978-1-925738-
erling, D. R., Wang, K. J., François, B., and Yan, E.: Incorporat- 37-7, 2022.
ing non-stationarity from climate change into rainfall frequency

Stedinger, J., Vogel, R., and Foufoula-Georgiou, E.: Frequency value models and flood generating processes, J. Hydrol., 519,
analysis of extreme events, in: Handbook of Hydrology, edited 549–558, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.052, 2014.
by: Maidment, D., McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0070397323, 1993. Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M., and Parsons, D.
Stedinger, J. R. and Griffis, V. W.: Getting from here to where? B.: The changing character of precipitation, B. Am. Meteorol.
Flood frequency analysis and climate, J. Am. Water Resour. As., Soc., 84, 1205–1217, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205,
47, 506–513, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00545.x, 2003.
2011. Ukkola, A. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Roderick, M. L., Abramowitz,
Stephens, C. M., Johnson, F. M., and Marshall, L. A.: Im- G., and Pitman, A. J.: Robust Future Changes in Meteo-
plications of future climate change for event-based hy- rological Drought in CMIP6 Projections Despite Uncertainty
drologic models, Adv. Water Resour., 119, 95–110, in Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087820,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.07.004, 2018a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087820, 2020.
Stephens, C. M., McVicar, T. R., Johnson, F. M., and Mar- US Army Cops of Engineers: HEC-HMS: Hydrologic Modeling
shall, L. A.: Revisiting Pan Evaporation Trends in Aus- System–Technical reference manual, US Army Corps of En-
tralia a Decade on, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11,164-11,172, gineers, Davis, CA, https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079332, 2018b. hec-hms/documentation/HEC-HMS_Technical%20Reference%
Stephens, D., Nathan, R., Hill, P., and Scorah, M.: Incorporation 20Manual_(CPD-74B).pdf (last access: 12 March 2024), 2000.
of snowmelt into joint probability event based rainfall-runoff Vecchi, G. A., Delworth, T. L., Murakami, H., Underwood, S. D.,
modelling, in: 37th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium Wittenberg, A. T., Zeng, F., Zhang, W., Baldwin, J. W., Bha-
2016: Water, Infrastructure and the Environment, Queenstown, tia, K. T., Cooke, W., He, J., Kapnick, S. B., Knutson, T. R.,
New Zealand, 28 November–2 December 2016, 532–540, ISBN Villarini, G., van der Wiel, K., Anderson, W., Balaji, V., Chen,
9781922107954, 2016. J., Dixon, K. W., Gudgel, R., Harris, L. M., Jia, L., Johnson,
Sun, Q., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F., Westra, S., and Alexander, N. C., Lin, S.-J., Liu, M., Ng, C. H. J., Rosati, A., Smith, J.
L. V.: A Global, Continental, and Regional Analysis of A., and Yang, X.: Tropical cyclone sensitivities to CO2 dou-
Changes in Extreme Precipitation, J. Climate, 34, 243–258, bling: roles of atmospheric resolution, synoptic variability and
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0892.1, 2021. background climate changes, Clim. Dynam., 53, 5999–6033,
Sunwoo, W. and Choi, M.: Robust Initial Wetness Condi- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04913-y, 2019.
tion Framework of an Event-Based Rainfall–Runoff Model Villarini, G. and Denniston, R. F.: Contribution of tropical cyclones
Using Remotely Sensed Soil Moisture, Water, 9, 77, to extreme rainfall in Australia, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 1019–1025,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020077, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4393, 2016.
Tan, X. and Shao, D.: Precipitation trends and teleconnections iden- Villarini, G. and Wasko, C.: Humans, climate and streamflow, Nat.
tified using quantile regressions over Xinjiang, China, Int. J. Cli- Clim. Change, 11, 725–726, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
matol., 37, 1510–1525, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4794, 2017. 021-01137-z, 2021.
Tauvale, L. and Tsuboki, K.: Characteristics of Tropical Cyclones Visser, J. B., Wasko, C., Sharma, A., and Nathan, R.: Resolv-
in the Southwest Pacific, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 97, 711– ing Inconsistencies in Extreme Precipitation-Temperature
731, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-042, 2019. Sensitivities, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089723,
Teutschbein, C. and Seibert, J.: Bias correction of regional climate https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089723, 2020.
model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact stud- Visser, J. B., Wasko, C., Sharma, A., and Nathan, R.: Eliminating
ies: Review and evaluation of different methods, J. Hydrol., 456– the “hook” in Precipitation-Temperature Scaling, J. Climate, 34,
457, 12–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052, 2012. 9535–9549, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0292.1, 2021.
Thompson, C. S. and Tomlinson, A. I.: A guide to probable maxi- Visser, J. B., Kim, S., Wasko, C., Nathan, R., and Sharma,
mum precipitation in New Zealand, NIWA Science and Technol- A.: The Impact of Climate Change on Operational Proba-
ogy Series No. 19, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand, 1995. ble Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Water Resour. Res.,
Tolhurst, G., Hope, P., Osburn, L., and Rauniyar, S.: Approaches 58, e2022WR032247, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032247,
to Understanding Decadal and Long-Term Shifts in Observed 2022.
Precipitation Distributions in Victoria, Australia, J. Appl. Me- Visser, J. B., Wasko, C., Sharma, A., and Nathan, R.:
teorol. Clim., 62, 13–29, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22- Changing Storm Temporal Patterns with Increasing Tem-
0031.1, 2023. peratures across Australia, J. Climate, 36, 6247–6259,
Towler, E., Rajagopalan, B., Gilleland, E., Summers, R. S., Yates, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0694.1, 2023.
D., and Katz, R. W.: Modeling hydrologic and water quality Vogel, E., Johnson, F., Marshall, L., Bende-Michl, U., Wilson, L.,
extremes in a changing climate: A statistical approach based Peter, J. R., Wasko, C., Srikanthan, S., Sharples, W., Dowdy,
on extreme value theory, Water Resour. Res., 46, W11504, A., Hope, P., Khan, Z., Mehrotra, R., Sharma, A., Matic, V.,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008876, 2010. Oke, A., Turner, M., Thomas, S., Donnelly, C., and Duong, V.
Tramblay, Y., Bouvier, C., Martin, C., Didon-Lescot, C.: An evaluation framework for downscaling and bias correc-
J. F., Todorovik, D., and Domergue, J. M.: Assess- tion in climate change impact studies, J. Hydrol., 622, 129693,
ment of initial soil moisture conditions for event-based https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129693, 2023.
rainfall-runoff modelling, J. Hydrol., 387, 176–187, Vousdoukas, M. I., Mentaschi, L., Voukouvalas, E., Verlaan,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.04.006, 2010. M., Jevrejeva, S., Jackson, L. P., and Feyen, L.: Global
Tramblay, Y., Amoussou, E., Dorigo, W., and Mahé, G.: Flood risk probabilistic projections of extreme sea levels show inten-
under future climate in data sparse regions: Linking extreme

sification of coastal flood hazard, Nat. Commun., 9, 2360, Wasko, C., Lu, W. T., and Mehrotra, R.: Relationship of ex-
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04692-w, 2018. treme precipitation, dry-bulb temperature, and dew point tem-
Walland, D. J., Meighen, J., Xuereb, K. C., Beesley, C. A., and perature across Australia, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 074031,
Hoang, T. M. T.: Revision of the Generalised Tropical Storm https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad135, 2018.
Method for Estimating Probable Maximum Precipitation, HRS Wasko, C., Nathan, R., and Peel, M. C.: Changes in An-
Report No. 8, Hydrology Report Series, Bureau of Meteorol- tecedent Soil Moisture Modulate Flood Seasonality in a
ogy Melbourne, Australia, August 2003, 78 pp., http://www. Changing Climate, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026300,
bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/document/HRS8.pdf (last ac- https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026300, 2020.
cess: 12 March 2024), 2003. Wasko, C., Nathan, R., Stein, L., and O’Shea, D.: Evi-
Walsh, K., White, C. J., McInnes, K., Holmes, J., Schuster, S., dence of shorter more extreme rainfalls and increased flood
Richter, H., Evans, J. P., Di Luca, A., and Warren, R. A.: Natu- variability under climate change, J. Hydrol., 603, 126994,
ral hazards in Australia: storms, wind and hail, Climatic Change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126994, 2021a.
139, 55–67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1737-7, 2016. Wasko, C., Westra, S., Nathan, R., Orr, H. G., Villarini, G., Vil-
Wang, J., Church, J. A., Zhang, X., and Chen, X.: Rec- lalobos Herrera, R., and Fowler, H. J.: Incorporating climate
onciling global mean and regional sea level change in change in flood estimation guidance, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379,
projections and observations, Nat. Commun., 12, 990, 20190548, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0548, 2021b.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21265-6, 2021. Wasko, C., Shao, Y., Vogel, E., Wilson, L., Wang, Q. J.,
Wang, S., Ma, X., Zhou, S., Wu, L., Wang, H., Tang, Z., Frost, A., and Donnelly, C.: Understanding trends in hy-
Xu, G., Jing, Z., Chen, Z., and Gan, B.: Extreme atmo- drologic extremes across Australia, J. Hydrol., 593, 125877,
spheric rivers in a warming climate, Nat. Commun., 14, 3219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125877, 2021c.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38980-x, 2023. Wasko, C., Guo, D., Ho, M., Nathan, R., and Vogel, E.: Diverging
Warren, R. A., Jakob, C., Hitchcock, S. M., and White, B. A.: Heavy projections for flood and rainfall frequency curves, J. Hydrol.,
versus extreme rainfall events in southeast Australia, Q. J. Roy. 620, 129403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129403,
Meteor. Soc., 147, 3201–3226, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4124, 2023.
2021. Wehner, M. F., Reed, K. A., Loring, B., Stone, D., and Krishnan,
Wasko, C.: Review: Can temperature be used to inform changes to H.: Changes in tropical cyclones under stabilized 1.5 and 2.0 °C
flood extremes with global warming?, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, global warming scenarios as simulated by the Community Atmo-
20190551, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0551, 2021. spheric Model under the HAPPI protocols, Earth Syst. Dynam.,
Wasko, C.: Floods differ in a warmer future, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 9, 187–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-187-2018, 2018.
1090–1091, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01541-z, 2022. Westra, S. and Sisson, S. A.: Detection of non-stationarity in pre-
Wasko, C. and Guo, D.: Understanding event runoff coefficient vari- cipitation extremes using a max-stable process model, J. Hydrol.,
ability across Australia using the hydroEvents R package, Hy- 406, 119–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.06.014,
drol. Process., 36, e14563, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14563, 2011.
2022. Westra, S., Alexander, L., and Zwiers, F.: Global increasing trends
Wasko, C. and Nathan, R.: Influence of changes in rainfall and in annual maximum daily precipitation, J. Climate, 26, 3904–
soil moisture on trends in flooding, J. Hydrol., 575, 432–441, 3918, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00502.1, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.054, 2019. Westra, S., Leonard, M., and Zheng, F.: Chapter 5. Interaction of
Wasko, C. and Sharma, A.: Quantile regression for investigating Coastal and Catchment Flooding, Book 6: Flood Hydraulics,
scaling of extreme precipitation with temperature, Water Resour. in: Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estima-
Res., 50, 3608–3614, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015194, tion, edited by: Ball, J., Babister, M., Nathan, R., Weinmann,
2014. E., Retallick, M., and Testoni, I., Commonwealth of Australia,
Wasko, C. and Sharma, A.: Steeper temporal distribution of rain https://arr.ga.gov.au/arr-guideline (last access: 21 August 2023),
intensity at higher temperatures within Australian storms, Nat. 2019.
Geosci., 8, 527–529, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2456, 2015a. White, N. J., Haigh, I. D., Church, J. A., Koen, T., Wat-
Wasko, C. and Sharma, A.: Changed Design Temporal Patterns with son, C. S., Pritchard, T. R., Watson, P. J., Burgette, R.
Higher Temperatures, in: 36th Hydrology and Water Resources J., McInnes, K. L., You, Z.-J., Zhang, X., and Trego-
Symposium: The art and science of water, Hobart, Tasmania, 7– ning, P.: Australian sea levels—Trends, regional variabil-
10 December 2015, 1237–1244, ISBN 9781922107497, 2015b. ity and influencing factors, Earth-Sci. Rev., 136, 155–174,
Wasko, C. and Sharma, A.: Continuous rainfall gen- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.05.011, 2014.
eration for a warmer climate using observed tem- Wilks, D. S.: Multisite generalization of a daily stochastic
perature sensitivities, J. Hydrol., 544, 575–590, precipitation generation model, J. Hydrol., 210, 178–191,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.002, 2017a. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00186-3, 1998.
Wasko, C. and Sharma, A.: Global assessment of flood and storm Wilson, L., Bende-Michl, U., Sharples, W., Vogel, E., Peter, J.,
extremes with increased temperatures, Sci. Rep.-UK, 7, 7945, Srikanthan, S., Khan, Z., Matic, V., Oke, A., Turner, M.,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08481-1, 2017b. Co Duong, V., Loh, S., Baron-Hay, S., Roussis, J., Kociuba,
Wasko, C., Sharma, A., and Westra, S.: Reduced spatial extent of G., Hope, P., Dowdy, A., Donnelly, C., Argent, R., Thomas,
extreme storms at higher temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, S., Kitsios, A., and Bellhouse, J.: A national hydrological
4026–4032, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068509, 2016. projections service for Australia, Clim. Serv., 28, 100331,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100331, 2022.

WMO: Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation Zhang, J., Gao, S., and Fang, Z.: Investigation of Infiltration Loss in
(PMP), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, North Central Texas by Retrieving Initial Abstraction and Con-
Switzerland, ISBN 978-92-63-11045-9, 2009. stant Loss from Observed Rainfall and Runoff Events, J. Hydrol.
Woldemeskel, F. and Sharma, A.: Should flood regimes Eng., 28, 04023013, https://doi.org/10.1061/jhyeff.heeng-5883,
change in a warming climate? The role of antecedent 2023.
moisture conditions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7556–7563, Zhang, S., Zhou, L., Zhang, L., Yang, Y., Wei, Z., Zhou, S.,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069448, 2016. Yang, D., Yang, X., Wu, X., Zhang, Y., Li, X., and Dai,
Woldemeskel, F. M., Sharma, A., Mehrotra, R., and Wes- Y.: Reconciling disagreement on global river flood changes
tra, S.: Constraining continuous rainfall simulations for de- in a warming climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 1160–1167,
rived design flood estimation, J. Hydrol., 542, 581–588, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01539-7, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.09.028, 2016. Zhang, W., Villarini, G., and Wehner, M.: Contrasting the re-
Woodham, R., Brassington, G. B., Robertson, R., and Alves, O.: sponses of extreme precipitation to changes in surface air
Propagation characteristics of coastally trapped waves on the and dew point temperatures, Climatic Change, 154, 257–271,
Australian Continental Shelf, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 118, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02415-8, 2019.
4461–4473, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20317, 2013. Zhang, X., Alexander, L., Hegerl, G. C., Jones, P., Tank, A.
Wu, W., McInnes, K., O’Grady, J., Hoeke, R., Leonard, M., and K., Peterson, T. C., Trewin, B., and Zwiers, F. W.: Indices
Westra, S.: Mapping Dependence Between Extreme Rainfall for monitoring changes in extremes based on daily tempera-
and Storm Surge, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 123, 2461–2474, ture and precipitation data, WIREs Clim. Change, 2, 851–870,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013472, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.147, 2011.
Wu, X.-Y., Ye, C., He, W., Chen, J., Xu, L., and Zhang, H.: Atmo- Zhang, X. S., Amirthanathan, G. E., Bari, M. A., Laugesen, R.
spheric rivers impacting mainland China and Australia: clima- M., Shin, D., Kent, D. M., MacDonald, A. M., Turner, M. E.,
tology and interannual variations, J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. and Tuteja, N. K.: How streamflow has changed across Aus-
Sci., 70, 70–87, https://doi.org/10.1071/ES19029, 2020. tralia since the 1950s: evidence from the network of hydro-
Yamaguchi, M., Chan, J. C. L., Moon, I.-J., Yoshida, K., and logic reference stations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3947–3965,
Mizuta, R.: Global warming changes tropical cyclone translation https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3947-2016, 2016.
speed, Nat. Commun., 11, 47, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- Zheng, F., Westra, S., and Sisson, S. A.: Quantifying
019-13902-y, 2020. the dependence between extreme rainfall and storm
Yilmaz, A. G. and Perera, B. J. C.: Extreme Rainfall Non- surge in the coastal zone, J. Hydrol., 505, 172–187,
stationarity Investigation and Intensity – Frequency – https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.054, 2013.
Duration Relationship, J. Hydrol. Eng., 19, 1160–1172, Zheng, F., Westra, S., and Leonard, M.: Opposing local
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000878, 2014. precipitation extremes, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 389–390,
Yu, G., Wright, D. B., Zhu, Z., Smith, C., and Holman, K. D.: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2579, 2015.
Process-based flood frequency analysis in an agricultural wa- Zommers, Z., Marbaix, P., Fischlin, A., Ibrahim, Z. Z., Grant, S.,
tershed exhibiting nonstationary flood seasonality, Hydrol. Earth Magnan, A. K., Pörtner, H.-O., Howden, M., Calvin, K., Warner,
Syst. Sci., 23, 2225–2243, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2225- K., Thiery, W., Sebesvari, Z., Davin, E. L., Evans, J. P., Rosen-
2019, 2019. zweig, C., O’Neill, B. C., Patwardhan, A., Warren, R., van Aalst,
Zalnezhad, A., Rahman, A., Nasiri, N., Haddad, K., Rahman, M. K., and Hulbert, M.: Burning embers: towards more transpar-
M. M., Vafakhah, M., Samali, B., and Ahamed, F.: Arti- ent and robust climate-change risk assessments, Nat. Rev. Earth
ficial Intelligence-Based Regional Flood Frequency Analysis Environ., 1, 516–529, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0088-
Methods: A Scoping Review, Water (Switzerland), 14, 2677, 0, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172677, 2022.
Zhan, W., Buckley, S., Genova, P., Grobler, J., Redenbach, M., and
Eskola, K.: Selecting and Processing High Resolution Climate
Projections in Queensland Mine Water Planning and Hydrologic
Assessment, in: Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium,
HWRS 2022, online, 30 November–1 December 2022, 518–533,
ISBN 978-1-925627-64-0, 2022.

Hess-24-A Systematic Review of Climate Change Science Relevant To Australian Design Flood Estimation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hess-24-A Systematic Review of Climate Change Science Relevant To Australian Design Flood Estimation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

, 28, 1251–1285, 2024

A systematic review of climate change science relevant to

Kensington, New South Wales, Australia

Kensington, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence: Conrad Wasko ([email protected])

Received: 28 September 2023 – Discussion started: 10 October 2023

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

1 Introduction ening the thermodynamic influence on rainfall extremes de-

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

≤ 1 h (% K−1 ) > 1 h and < 24 h ≥24 h (% K−1 )

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Natural Resource Management Region IL (% °C−1 ) CL (% °C−1 )

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

Scenario 2050 2100 2150

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Method Quantity Findings

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, 2024

You might also like