4.7 Article

HESS Opinions 'More efforts and scientific rigour are needed to attribute trends in flood time series'

Journal

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 1379-1387

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-16-1379-2012

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The question whether the magnitude and frequency of floods have changed due to climate change or other drivers of change is of high interest. The number of flood trend studies is rapidly rising. When changes are detected, many studies link the identified change to the underlying causes, i.e. they attribute the changes in flood behaviour to certain drivers of change. We propose a hypothesis testing framework for trend attribution which consists of essential ingredients for a sound attribution: evidence of consistency, evidence of inconsistency, and provision of confidence statement. Further, we evaluate the current state-of-the-art of flood trend attribution. We assess how selected recent studies approach the attribution problem, and to which extent their attribution statements seem defendable. In our opinion, the current state of flood trend attribution is poor. Attribution statements are mostly based on qualitative reasoning or even speculation. Typically, the focus of flood trend studies is the detection of change, i.e. the statistical analysis of time series, and attribution is regarded as an appendix: (1) flood time series are analysed by means of trend tests, (2) if a significant change is detected, a hypothesis on the cause of change is given, and (3) explanations or published studies are sought which support the hypothesis. We believe that we need a change in perspective and more scientific rigour: detection should be seen as an integral part of the more challenging attribution problem, and detection and attribution should be placed in a sound hypothesis testing framework.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available