Modelling Climate Changes with Stationary Models: Is It Possible or Is It a Paradox?

  • Davide Luciano De LucaEmail author
  • Andrea Petroselli
  • Luciano Galasso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11974)


Climate is changing; many studies of time series confirm this sentence, but this does not imply that the past is no more representative of the future, and then that ‘‘stationarity is dead’’.

In fact, “stationarity” and “change” are not mutually exclusive. As examples: (1) according to Newton’s first law, without an external force, the position of a body in motion changes in time but the velocity is unchanged; (2) according to Newton’s second law, a constant force implies a constant acceleration and a changing velocity.

Consequently, “non-stationarity” is not synonymous with change; change is a general notion applicable everywhere, including the real (material) world, while stationarity and non-stationarity only regard the adopted models. Thus, stationary models can be also adopted for environmental changes.

With this aim, in this work Authors show some numerical experiments concerning rainfall processes. In detail, a Neymann Scott Rectangular Pulse model (NRSP), with some changing temporal scenarios for its parameters, is adopted, and the derived Annual Maximum Rainfall (AMR) time series are investigated for several temporal resolutions (sub-hourly and hourly scales). The goal is to analyze if there are some particular scales in which the assumed temporal changes in parameters could be “hidden” when AMR series (which are nowadays more available and longer than high-resolution continuous time series for many sites in the world) are studied, and then stationary models for Extreme Value distributions could be adopted.

The results confirm what is obtained from analysis of AMR series in some parts of Italy, for which it is not essential to remove the hypothesis of stationary parameters: significant trends could not appear only from the observed AMR data, as a relevant rate of outlier events also occurred in the central part of the last century.


Rainfall processes Climate changes Stationary models 


  1. 1.
    IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], pp. 1–1535. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trenberth, K.E.: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res. 47, 123–138 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EEA—European Environment Agency: Climate Change Adaptation ad Disaster Risk Reduction in Europe, vol. 15, pp. 1–171. EEA, Kongens Nytorv (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale: Il Clima Futuro in Italia: Analisi delle proiezioni dei modelli regionali, vol. 58, pp. 1–64. ISPRA, Rome (2015). ISBN 978-88-448-0723-8. (in Italian)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ban, N., Schmidli, J., Schär, C.: Heavy precipitation in a changing climate: does short-term summer precipitation increase faster? Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 1165–1172 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, S.C., Kendon, E.J., Fowler, H.J., Blenkinsop, S., Roberts, N.M., Ferro, C.A.T.: The value of high-resolution Met Office regional climate models in the simulation of multi-hourly precipitation extremes. J. Clim. 27, 6155–6174 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Luca, D.L., Galasso, L.: Stationary and non-stationary frameworks for extreme rainfall time series in Southern Italy. Water 10, 1477 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Cox, D.R., Isham, V.: Some models for rainfall based on stochastic point processes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 410, 269–288 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Febres De Power, B., Valdes, J.B.: Rectangular pulses point process models for rainfall: analysis of empirical data. J. Geophys. Res 92, 9645–9656 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cowpertwait, P.S.P.: Further developments of the Neyman-Scott clustered point process for modeling rainfall. Water Resour. Res. 27, 1431–1438 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cowpertwait, P.S.P.: A Poisson-cluster model of rainfall: high-order moments and extreme values. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 454, 885–898 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cross, D., Onof, C., Winter, H., Bernardara, P.: Censored rainfall modelling for estimation of fine-scale extremes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 727–756 (2018). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calenda, G., Napolitano, F.: Parameter estimation of Neyman-Scott processes for temporal point rainfall simulation. J. Hydrol. 225(1–2), 45–66 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kottegoda, N.T., Rosso, R.: Applied Statistics for Civil and Environmental Engineers, p. 736. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken (2008). ISBN 978-1-405-17917-1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koutsoyiannis, D., Montanari, A.: Negligent killing of scientific concepts: the stationarity case. Hydrol. Sci. J. 60, 1174–1183 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serinaldi, F., Kilsby, C.G.: Stationarity is undead: uncertainty dominates the distribution of extremes. Adv. Water Resour. 77, 17–36 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Modelling, Electronics and System EngineeringUniversity of CalabriaArcavacata di RendeItaly
  2. 2.DEIM Department - Water Engineering SectionTuscia UniversityViterboItaly

Personalised recommendations