Modified Crossing Empirical Trend Analysis (MCETA) for meteorological time series

IF 5.9 1区地球科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL

Journal of Hydrology Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133003

Fereshteh Modaresi , Ebrahim Asadi Oskouei , Zohreh Janvanshiri , Iman Sardarian Bajgiran

{"title":"Modified Crossing Empirical Trend Analysis (MCETA) for meteorological time series","authors":"Fereshteh Modaresi , Ebrahim Asadi Oskouei , Zohreh Janvanshiri , Iman Sardarian Bajgiran","doi":"10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Trend analysis of extreme events is an efficient method for assessment of climate change effects on hydro-meteorological variables. However, famous methods like Mann-Kendall test are able to detect only one trend slope for all of data series. The crossing empirical trend analysis (CETA) method, recently presented, can detect trend slope for every risk level of data. The aim of this study is to present a modified methodology for CETA method (MCETA) to strengthen it in the cases with non-monotonic peaks in high and low values of data, or with different trend directions in high and low risk level of data. The MCETA modifies the search ranges of slopes and the location of pivot points of the CETA test. The ability of MCETA compared to CETA and Mann-Kendall tests was assessed for trend analysis of spring rainfall for the period 1980–2010 in eastern Iran for 5%, 50%, and 95% risk levels of data. The results showed that the MCETA changed considerably the slope values of 5% and 95% risk levels of data compared to CETA specially for Semnan from 3.65 to −0.55 (for 5%), and from 5.80 to 7.06 (for 95%), as well as Zahedan from −1.80 to −0.59 (for 5%) and from −1.87 to −0.95 (for 95%). Moreover, the slope of 50% in MCETA for almost all stations was lower than that of the M−K test. The MCETA also provides a slope range for each risk level of data that implies the reliability of slopes and improves the test flexibility.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hydrology","volume":"656 ","pages":"Article 133003"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hydrology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169425003415","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trend analysis of extreme events is an efficient method for assessment of climate change effects on hydro-meteorological variables. However, famous methods like Mann-Kendall test are able to detect only one trend slope for all of data series. The crossing empirical trend analysis (CETA) method, recently presented, can detect trend slope for every risk level of data. The aim of this study is to present a modified methodology for CETA method (MCETA) to strengthen it in the cases with non-monotonic peaks in high and low values of data, or with different trend directions in high and low risk level of data. The MCETA modifies the search ranges of slopes and the location of pivot points of the CETA test. The ability of MCETA compared to CETA and Mann-Kendall tests was assessed for trend analysis of spring rainfall for the period 1980–2010 in eastern Iran for 5%, 50%, and 95% risk levels of data. The results showed that the MCETA changed considerably the slope values of 5% and 95% risk levels of data compared to CETA specially for Semnan from 3.65 to −0.55 (for 5%), and from 5.80 to 7.06 (for 95%), as well as Zahedan from −1.80 to −0.59 (for 5%) and from −1.87 to −0.95 (for 95%). Moreover, the slope of 50% in MCETA for almost all stations was lower than that of the M−K test. The MCETA also provides a slope range for each risk level of data that implies the reliability of slopes and improves the test flexibility.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Hydrology 地学-地球科学综合

CiteScore

11.00

自引率

12.50%

发文量

1309

审稿时长

7.5 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Hydrology publishes original research papers and comprehensive reviews in all the subfields of the hydrological sciences including water based management and policy issues that impact on economics and society. These comprise, but are not limited to the physical, chemical, biogeochemical, stochastic and systems aspects of surface and groundwater hydrology, hydrometeorology and hydrogeology. Relevant topics incorporating the insights and methodologies of disciplines such as climatology, water resource systems, hydraulics, agrohydrology, geomorphology, soil science, instrumentation and remote sensing, civil and environmental engineering are included. Social science perspectives on hydrological problems such as resource and ecological economics, environmental sociology, psychology and behavioural science, management and policy analysis are also invited. Multi-and interdisciplinary analyses of hydrological problems are within scope. The science published in the Journal of Hydrology is relevant to catchment scales rather than exclusively to a local scale or site.