MDB Outlook Hydroclimate Literature Review2

Australia’s National
Science Agency
Hydroclimate trends and

future projections in the
Murray-Darling Basin
Francis H.S. Chiew, Hongxing Zheng, David A. Post,
David E. Robertson and R. Rojas.
December 2022

future projections in the Murray-Darling Basin | 1
Citation
Chiew FHS, Zheng H, Post DA, Robertson DE and Rojas R (2022) Hydroclimate trends and future projections
in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Technical report for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
Copyright
© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2022. To the extent permitted by law, all
rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any
form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.
Important disclaimer
CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete
or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that
information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent
permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for
any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any
information or material contained in it.
2 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1. INTRODUCTION 6
2. HYDROCLIMATE OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN 7

2.1 Climate and runoff across the Murray-Darling Basin 7
2.2 Temporal rainfall and runoff variability in the Murray-Darling Basin 11
2.3 Trends in hydroclimate in the Murray-Darling Basin 16
3. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE HYDROCLIMATE IN THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN 20

3.1 Projections of future climate and hydrology in the Murray-Darling Basin 20
3.2 Methods used to develop hydroclimate projections 26
3.2.1 Hydrological modelling of historical and future runoff 26
3.2.2 Future rainfall projections 27
3.2.3 Generating future daily rainfall series for hydrological impact modelling 29
3.3 Hydroclimate projections from different data sources and methods for the
Murray-Darling Basin 30
4. HYDROCLIMATE SCENARIOS AND WATER RESOURCES MODELLING 33

4.1 Modelling climate change impact on water by the MDBA and Basin States 33
4.2 Bottom-up climate impact assessment 35
4.3 Climate change consideration for stakeholder engagement and water resources
modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin 37
REFERENCES 40

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes current knowledge on the hydroclimate in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and future
projections under climate change. This hydroclimate review will contribute to the Murray-Darling Basin
Outlook reporting on the current condition and trend of the Basin.
Rainfall and runoff in the Murray-Darling Basin
Rainfall and runoff vary considerably across the MDB, with most of the runoff coming from the high
elevation areas in the south-eastern parts of the Basin. In the northern MDB, rainfall is higher in the
summer-half of the year, runoff is relatively uniform through the year, and most of the rivers only flow
intermittently. In the southern MDB, rainfall is higher in the winter-half of the year, runoff occurs mainly in
winter and spring, and most of the rivers are perennial. Averaged across the MDB, mean annual rainfall is
about 460 mm, and mean annual runoff is about 27 mm (only 6% of the rainfall). Runoff and surface water
availability are significantly higher in the southern Basin.
Rainfall in the MDB exhibits high inter-annual, multi-year and decadal variability. The temporal rainfall
variability is amplified in the runoff variability. The inter-annual variability of streamflow in the MDB is
almost twice that of rivers in similar climate regions elsewhere in the world. The period from 1895–1945
was relatively dry. This was followed by many wet years in the 1950s and 1970s. The period since 1995 has
also been relatively dry, which included the 1997–2009 Millennium drought particularly in the southern
Basin and the 2017–2019 drought across much of NSW.
Climate trend and hydroclimate variability in the Murray-Darling Basin
The temperature in the MDB has risen by about 1.4oC over the past 100 years, with most of the increase
occurring after 1970.
Rainfall and streamflow records over south-eastern Australia in the past 50 years of “living memory” show
a declining trend. This is because the recent decades were relatively dry and were preceded by wet
decades. The reduction in rainfall and streamflow over the relatively short recent decades is part of the
high natural hydroclimate variability in the Basin. For example, the first half of the 20th century was also
relatively dry, and the past two years have been relatively wet. Nevertheless, the low runoff in the recent
decades, particularly in the southern MDB, is mainly driven by the reduction in cool-season rainfall which
has been partly attributed to climate change.
Hydrological non-stationarity
Most catchments in the southern MDB and Victoria exhibit hydrological non-stationarity where less annual
streamflow is generated during and after the Millennium drought for the same annual rainfall compared to
pre-drought conditions. Understanding and modelling dominant hydrological processes during long dry
spells, catchment recovery from droughts, and changes in the landscape are essential as hydrological
models are extrapolated to predict a future with conditions not experienced in the historical data like
higher temperature, higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, and longer and more severe dry spells.

Hydroclimate projections for the Murray-Darling Basin
Water resources in the MDB is likely to reduce under climate change, driven by the projected reduction in
cool-season rainfall and accentuated by higher potential evapotranspiration. Hydroclimate modelling
project a median reduction in mean annual runoff of about 20% across the MDB under 2oC global average
warming (~2060 relative to ~1990). However, there is a large range in the projected change in future mean
annual runoff, ranging from -40% to +10% in the southern MDB and from -45% to +30% in the northern
MDB. Water resources modelling under historical and future climates should use a long hydroclimate
baseline (e.g., 1895–present) to encapsulate the variability in the hydroclimate characteristics. The
projections above reflect a change to this baseline hydroclimate under climate change.
The variability in the future hydroclimate will remain high, with long wet periods and long dry periods
continuing to occur against a background of declining rainfall and runoff trend. The downward shift in the
mean annual runoff would be reflected in more frequent and severe droughts. Under the median
projection, 3-year hydrological droughts experienced in the historical climate would occur up to twice more
frequently in the future.
Developing hydrological projections for the Murray-Darling Basin
The key components in developing hydrological projections are (i) obtaining and interpreting future climate
projections, (ii) generating future climate series for hydrological impact modelling, and (iii) hydrological
modelling. The future climate projections come from global climate models (many global datasets are
available) and/or the higher resolution dynamically downscaled models (MDB datasets are available from
products developed independently by the different states). The methods used to generate future daily
rainfall series include empirical scaling, bias correction and stochastic data.
The advantages and limitations of the different climate projection products and methods used to generate
future rainfall series, in the context of hydrological modelling in the MDB, are discussed and summarised in
Section 3.2. The approaches adopted or recommended by the different Basin States are described in
Section 4.1. Comparison of runoff projections from the different approaches is presented in Section 3.3.
Climate change consideration for stakeholder engagement and hydrological modelling
The availability of many hydroclimate projection products and datasets in the MDB is fortunate as they
provide opportunity for robust exploration of future hydroclimate and uncertainty in the projections.
However, interpreting and communicating the different products can be confusing.
A small number of simple scenarios is probably sufficient for broad-scale assessment and engagement with
stakeholders, particularly when practically all the datasets indicate a hotter and drier future in the MDB.
Broad-scale assessments could consider a “likely” future scenario using the median projection of 5%
reduction in mean annual rainfall and 20% reduction in mean annual runoff, and an extreme dry future
scenario of 15% reduction in mean annual rainfall and 40% reduction in mean annual runoff.
More detailed modelling should then adopt fit-for-purpose methods to assess climate impact and
adaptation options specific for the region and objectives, or possibly use all available projection datasets
and methods to capture the full range of modelled uncertainty.

1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes current knowledge on the hydroclimate trends in the Murray-Darling Basin and future
projections under climate change. This is based on a review and synthesis of technical reports and grey
literature, as well as scientific publications on the Murray-Darling Basin and hydroclimate and hydrological
modelling across Australia and globally.
This hydroclimate review and synthesis will contribute to the Murray-Darling Basin Outlook reporting on
the current condition and trend of the Basin (environment, communities, economies and cultural values)
and trajectories under climate change. As a first step to producing the Basin Outlook, the Murray-Darling
Basin Authority has commissioned a series of literature reviews on what is known about each of the major
themes. This hydroclimate synthesis is one of the reviews.
Section 2 of the report describes the hydroclimate of the Murray-Darling Basin. The section starts with a
description of the climate and hydrology (runoff, streamflow, inflow, water resources), the spatial
variability across the Basin, and temporal variability over different time scales. This is followed by a
synthesis and value-add analysis of the observed trend in the hydroclimate.
Section 3 focusses on projections of future hydroclimate in the Murray-Darling Basin. The first sub-section
presents broad scale projections of future climate and hydrology in the Basin. The second sub-section
describes the different projection products and datasets available for the Basin and the methods that can
be used to develop future climate inputs for hydrological impact modelling. The merits and limitations of
the different projection datasets and methods are discussed together with a comparison of the modelled
hydroclimate projections from previous studies.
Section 4 discusses the hydroclimate scenarios in the context of water resources modelling, focussing on
the technical considerations as well as the interpretation and communication, and provides some guidance
on hydroclimate scenarios for fit-for-purpose local scale application and whole-of-Basin hydrological
modelling.

2. HYDROCLIMATE OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN
2.1 Climate and runoff across the Murray-Darling Basin
The high spatial variability in the hydroclimate across the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) reflects the size of
the Basin (over 1 million square kilometres) and the diverse geography from rugged mountains to flat semi-
arid and arid plains. The climate of the Basin is sub-tropical in the north, semi-arid and arid in the west and
mostly temperate in the south. The mean annual rainfall varies from more than 1,500 mm in the eastern
and southern fringes of the Basin to less than 300 mm in the west and north-west of the Basin (Figure 1).
The mean annual rainfall averaged across the MDB (1900–2021) is 461 mm. Rainfall seasonality graduates
from summer dominant in the north to uniform or winter dominant in the south (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Mean annual rainfall, PET, runoff and aridity index across the MDB (averaged over 1900–2021)
[Boundary shows the northern Basin (entire Darling River Basin to just downstream of Wilcannia)
and the southern Basin (Murray River Basin and the lower Darling)].

Figure 2. Mean monthly rainfall and runoff averaged across the northern and southern MDB.
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) in the Basin is high, with mean annual areal potential evapotranspiration
(APET) (Evapotranspiration_overview.pdf (longpaddock.qld.gov.au), Morton 1983, Chiew and Leahy 2003)
ranging from more than 1,600 mm in the north to less than 1,300 mm in the south. The aridity or dryness
index, defined as the ratio of PET on rainfall, is greater than 1.0 in more than 95% of the Basin (Figure 1).
Rainfall is therefore insufficient to meet the demand of PET, and the landscape is at least seasonally dry and
vegetation growth is limited by water availability.
Most of the runoff in the MDB comes from the high elevation areas in the south-eastern parts of the Basin
(Figure 1). More than 80% of the Basin contributes almost no runoff to the river system, except in times of
flood. Averaged across the MDB, the mean annual runoff (1900–2021) is 27.4 mm (see Box 1). The runoff
coefficient, that is, the proportion of annual rainfall that becomes runoff, is only 6%. Runoff is significantly
higher in the southern Basin compared to the northern Basin. Most of the northern Basin rivers only flow
intermittently because of high transmission losses in the long lowland rivers. As such, the Darling River in
the northern Basin contributes, on average, only 15% of the total volume of the Murray River flows (CSIRO
2008, MDBA 2012). Most of the runoff in the south occurs in winter and spring (Figure 2). Runoff in the
north is relatively uniform through the year (Figure 2) because of higher rainfall but also higher PET in the
warm season and lower rainfall but also lower PET in the cool season.
The above descriptions summarise the catchment or landscape rainfall and runoff across the MDB. Large
volumes of runoff are captured in reservoirs and managed through regulation across the Basin. Description
of the flows and hydrology of the managed river system in the MDB can be found in Stewardson et al.
(2021), MDBA (2012) and CSIRO (2008).
Box 1
Runoff, streamflow, inflow and surface water availability
The source of the rainfall data is the 5 km gridded dataset from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Averaged across the MDB, the mean annual rainfall (1900–2021) is 461 mm (or 491,000 GL).
Runoff is generally estimated using a rainfall-runoff model. The modelled runoff used throughout this
report comes from the GR4J lumped conceptual daily rainfall-runoff model (Perrin et al. 2003). The GR4J
model is calibrated against gauged daily streamflow data from the Bureau of Meteorology Hydrologic
Reference Stations (Hydrologic Reference Stations: Water Information: Bureau of Meteorology
(bom.gov.au), Figure 4) (Zheng et al. 2019), and parameter values from the closest gauged catchments are

used to model runoff in all the 5 km grid cells across the Basin. The GR4J model is calibrated to best
reproduce the daily observed streamflow, by maximising the NSE-Bias (Daily Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency and
Overall Bias) objective function (Viney et al. 2009), which reflects a good simulation of daily streamflow
with little overall bias over the modelling period. The calibrations are satisfactory for the broad scale
regional assessment here, with daily NSE being greater than 0.6 in more than 80% of the catchments and
overall bias being less than 10% in 85% of the catchments. The 133 largely unimpaired gauged catchments
(Figure 4) are located mainly in the upland areas where most of the runoff is generated, therefore runoff
estimated for the upland areas is generally reasonable but comparatively poor in the lower landscapes. The
size of the calibration catchments ranges from 100 to 2,000 km2, therefore the runoff presented here can
be defined as runoff from 100–2000 km2 catchments that end up in rivers. Averaged across the MDB, the
mean annual runoff (1900–2021) is 27.4 mm (or 29,200 GL).
Rainfall-runoff modelling to provide broad scale regional assessment is a matured science and practice
(Chiew 2020, Bloschl et al. 2013), and all modelling for the MDB show the same spatial and temporal
variability and trend. Nevertheless, there can be differences in the total runoff estimated from different
models and approaches. For context, the mean annual runoff averaged across the MDB from readily
available sources are reported here: Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields (MDBSY) (27.3 mm over 1895–
2006) (Chiew et al. 2008, CSIRO 2008); Budyko global water-energy relationship (28.7 mm over 1900–2021)
(estimated using gridded 5 km mean annual rainfall and PET data, see also Teng et al. 2012a, Zhang et al.
2012); Australian Landscape Water Balance (Australian Landscape Water Balance (bom.gov.au)) (25.3 mm
over 1911–2021).
In the upland areas, runoff and streamflow are very similar and are often used interchangeably. However,
streamflow in large catchments will be smaller than the aggregated runoff because of transmission losses
particularly in the long meandering lowland rivers in the western parts of the Basin.
The MDBSY defined surface water availability as the maximum available flow in each river valley, that is,
the streamflow at the point where the river changes from a net gaining to a net losing river under without
development condition. The surface water availability across the MDB estimated in MDBSY is reproduced in
Figure B1.1. The MDBSY considered this to be the most useful assessment of surface water availability
because it is the maximum available flow in each river valley and occurs at locations where the surface
water models are reasonably well calibrated. The sum of mean annual surface water availability (1895–
2006) from all the MDB valleys estimated in MDBSY is 23,400 GL (CSIRO 2008).
The total capacity of public reservoirs or storages across the MDB is 22,300 GL, with about 80% of the
public storages located in the southern Basin (Water in storages | Murray-Darling Basin Authority
(mdba.gov.au)).
Groundwater and groundwater use in the MDB, impact of climate change on groundwater, and the
potential for enhanced groundwater use are discussed in Box 8.

Figure B1.1. Mean annual surface water availability across the MDB
(averaged over 1895–2006 under non development condition).
[From CSIRO 2008].

2.2 Temporal rainfall and runoff variability in the Murray-Darling Basin
Rainfall in the MDB exhibits high inter-annual, multi-year and decadal variability (Figure 3). The coefficient
of variation (Cv) of annual rainfall is about 0.25 across most of the Basin. The three major droughts
commonly referred to in the Basin are the Federation drought (~1895–1902), World War II drought (~1937–
1945) and the relatively recent Millennium drought (~1997–2009). The Millennium drought had a very
significant impact in the southern Basin and is characterised by significant reduction in the cool season
rainfall and lack of any high rainfall years during the period (Potter et al. 2010, Van Dijk et al. 2013). In
addition to the above droughts, 2017–2019 was the driest three-year period in 120+ years of instrumental
rainfall record across much of New South Wales, significantly impacting the northern Basin. The different
droughts are driven by different climatic teleconnections with the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans, and
have different temporal features and spatial extent (Previous droughts (bom.gov.au), Verdon and Kiem
2009, Kiem et al. 2016).
Figure 3. Annual rainfall and runoff series (1900–2021) averaged across the
northern Basin and southern Basin.
(Anomalies above the long-term average are shown in blue,
anomalies below the long-term average are shown in red).
(Black lines show 11-year moving average centred at the mid-point).
The main large-scale atmosphere-ocean circulation features that influence rainfall in the MDB are El Niño -
Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) (Box 2). Longer-
term or multi-decadal variability in rainfall (and droughts and floods) is partly influenced by the
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) that modulates the effect of ENSO (Kiem and Franks 2004, Vance et al.
2014, Salinger et al. 2001). For example, the period from 1895–1945 was persistently dry (Figure 3). This
was followed by many wet years in the 1950s and 1970s. The period since 1995 has been relatively dry, but
unlike the first half of the century, is broken by several wet years in between. It is difficult to characterise

the long-term or low frequency rainfall variability, as well the rarer or major droughts with long return
period, from the relatively short period (<130 years) of instrumental record. To overcome this, researchers
have developed much longer paleoclimate data, reconstructed from climate proxies from tree rings, cave
deposits, lake sediments, ice cores and corals (Box 3).
Box 2
Large-scale drivers of rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin
Figure B2.1 shows the large-scale climatic drivers that influence rainfall across Australia. A subset of these
has a particularly large influence on rainfall across the MDB, and these are described below.
Figure B2.1. Large-scale climate drivers influencing Australia’s climate.

[From About Australian Climate (bom.gov.au)].
El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) refers to the position of warm and cool water, the strength of winds,
and atmospheric pressure in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. During El Niño phases, trade winds are
weakened, and warm water is concentrated off the coast of South America, generally resulting in low
rainfall in the MDB. The opposite happens during La Niña, when moist air from the ocean off the coast of
northeast Australia bring rainfall to the MDB particularly in spring.
Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) describes the sea surface temperature in the western Indian Ocean relative to
the east. During positive IOD, the western Indian Ocean is warmer than in the east, winds are more
easterly, and there is less cloudiness in northwest Australia, generally resulting in less rainfall in the MDB.
The opposite happens during negative IOD, with the northwest cloud bands generally bringing rainfall to
the MDB particularly during winter and spring.

Southern Annular Mode (SAM) refers to the state of the Southern Ocean, and unlike ENSO or IOD, can
change phase rapidly (weeks). The SAM influences the strength and position of the frontal activity
impacting the southern MDB particularly in winter. A positive SAM phase contracts cold fronts towards
Antarctica, reducing rainfall across southern MDB. A negative SAM phase pushes cold fronts further north,
enhancing the likelihood of rainfall in southern MDB.
East Coast Low (ECL) refers to short-lived but intense low-pressure systems that form off the east coast of
Australia. The ECL can bring heavy and widespread rainfall, particularly in autumn and winter. The ECL does
not penetrate far inland, and therefore only affect rainfall in the eastern MDB.
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), like ENSO also relates to the movement of warm water in the Pacific
Ocean. The IPO impact ENSO and MDB rainfall over decadal time scales. When the IPO is positive, there is
likely to be stronger El Niños and the MDB is generally warmer and drier. When the IPO is negative, there is
likely to be stronger La Niñas and the MDB is generally cooler and wetter.
The sub-tropical ridge can potentially block these drivers from producing rainfall in the MDB. Its influence
and changing character under a warmer climate are described in Box 4.
An excellent animated representation of these drivers (referred to as “climate dogs”) can be found in The
Climatedogs — The six drivers that influence Victoria's climate | Understanding weather, climate and
forecasting | Climate and weather | Agriculture Victoria.
Box 3
Paleoclimate data
Paleoclimate data, reconstructed from climate proxies from tree rings, cave deposits, lake sediments, ice
cores and corals, can be used to extend climate data beyond the 130+ years of instrumental record.
Paleoclimate data is particularly useful in characterising low frequency variability such as very severe and
rarer or longer return period droughts. The paleoclimate proxies can either be related to large-scale climate
drivers such as the phase of the IPO and associated state of ENSO (Box 2), or they can be related directly to
rainfall. A review of techniques can be found in Ho et al. (2015a).
The uncertainties associated with paleoclimate reconstructions are larger than from direct instrumental
measurements. The sources of uncertainties include irregular sampling, age model uncertainty, and
potential changes in calibrated statistical relationships (largely from the instrumental period). Paleoclimate
reconstructions based on relationships with large-scale climate indices (e.g., IPO) must also rely on the
indices being appropriate predictors of rainfall and the relationships being consistent over time.
Key paleoclimate studies in the MDB, including reconstructed rainfall and streamflow datasets, methods
and uncertainties, include those by Gallant and Gergis (2011), Gallant et al. (2013), Ho et al. (2014, 2015a,
2015b), McGowan et al. (2009), Freund et al. (2017), Vance et al. (2013) and Dixon et al. (2017). Figure B3.1
shows the major wet and dry periods in eastern Australia in the past 1,000 years from Flack et al. (2020)
who combined 11 published paleoclimate datasets, many from the references above. The more recent
paleoclimate data are likely to be more reliable as they are based on more data.
A key application of paleoclimate data is to place droughts seen in the instrumental record in the context of
a much longer climate period. For example, based on the instrumental record, Potter et al. (2010)

estimated the Millennium drought streamflow in the southern MDB as a 1 in 300-year drought. Gallant and
Gergis (2011), using reconstructed MDB streamflow back to the late 1700s estimated the Millennium
drought streamflow as 1 in 1,500-year drought. This is consistent with Figure B3.1 where the three major
droughts in the past 100 years (Federation drought, World War II drought and Millennium drought) are rare
(only six) in the past 400 years. However, the longer paleoclimate record shows that droughts can be much
more severe like the “continuous” droughts from 1000 to 1150.
Figure B3.1. Major wet and dry periods in the past 1,000 years in eastern Australia
based on composite index from published paleoclimate data.
[From Flack et al. 2020].
The paleoclimate data provides an indication of the long-term natural climate variability under relatively
stationary atmospheric CO2 conditions. Anthropogenic climate change adds another level of complexity to
the long-term climate history revealed by paleoclimate data, making it even more likely that future climate
will be outside the range seen in the short instrumental record, and perhaps even that seen in the longer
paleoclimate data.
The high rainfall variability is amplified in the runoff variability (Figure 3). The Cv of Basin-average annual
runoff is 0.63 and is higher in the northern Basin (0.90) than in the southern Basin (0.57). Runoff in the
wettest years can be more than 20 times higher than runoff in the dry years. The prolonged Millennium
drought resulted in significant reductions in streamflow (up to 50% in some catchments), leading to low
storage levels in reservoirs, several years of severe water restrictions in towns, many years of low irrigation
water allocations in the southern Basin, suspension of water sharing arrangements in several river valleys,
and major impact on the environment (Young and Chiew 2011, Van Dijk et al. 2013). This high runoff
variability is a feature of Australian rivers, which exhibit higher inter-annual variability (almost twice)
compared to rivers in similar climate regions in other parts of the world (Peel et al. 2004, Chiew et al.
2002). This high runoff variability presents significant challenges to water resources management in
Australia, including requiring larger storages compared to elsewhere in the world to achieve the same
reliability of water supply.
The high hydroclimate variability is partly caused by the strong influence of ENSO on rainfall and runoff in
eastern Australia. Paradoxically, this strong ENSO-hydroclimate teleconnection (Chiew et al. 2002, Kirono et
al. 2010) can be used to predict rainfall and runoff several months or seasons ahead. The Australian Bureau
of Meteorology now operationally delivers 7-day continuous daily streamflow forecast (Hapuarachchi et al.
2022) and probabilistic seasonal streamflow forecast (Tuteja et al. 2019), using statistical and hydrological

modelling methods based on ENSO-rainfall relationship and serial or lag correlation in the runoff (Bennett
et al. 2014, Zhao et al. 2016, Robertson and Wang 2013). These forecasts have the potential to assist river
operation and seasonal planning to enhance water resources outcomes (Turner et al. 2017, Kaune et al.
2017).
Given the high variability in the hydroclimate, it is important that water resources management and
planning is based on a long dataset to encapsulate the different hydroclimate characteristics. For context,
Table 1 presents the long-term average rainfall and runoff across the MDB, northern Basin and southern
Basin for four different periods (entire dataset used here (1900–2021), modelling period that informed the
development of the Basin Plan (MDBA 2012) (1895–2009), period since 1976 recommended as a more
recent baseline period for water resources assessment in Victoria (DELWP 2020a, 2020b) (1976–2021), and
short recent period since the Millennium drought (1997–2021)). The long-term averages in the different
periods in Table 1 are very similar (except the lower runoff in the short recent period in the southern
Basin), and there is therefore good reason to use as long a dataset as possible to inform water resources
management in the MDB to represent the characteristics and variability over the different time scales.
Table 1. Long-term average rainfall and runoff over different time periods.
Murray-Darling Basin Northern Basin Southern Basin
Rainfall (mm)
1900–2021 461 482 439
1895–2009 459 481 436
1976–2021 469 496 438
1997–2021 462 493 428
Runoff (mm)
1900–2021 27.4 20.7 34.7
1895–2009 26.9 20.1 34.1
1976–2021 28.8 24.0 34.0
1997–2021 26.5 22.4 30.9

2.3 Trends in hydroclimate in the Murray-Darling Basin
As the past few decades were relatively dry with wet decades preceding it, any assessment using data from
only the recent history (“living memory”) would accentuate the dry periods. Figure 4 shows the decreasing
trends in the observed rainfall and streamflow in the Bureau of Meteorology Hydrologic Reference Station
(HRS) catchments from 1970 (1970–2021), and in the rainfall and modelled runoff across the Basin. There
are 37 HRS catchments in the northern Basin and 96 HRS catchments in the southern Basin. The statistical
significance shown in Figure 4 is for the slope of the linear regression (i.e., a correlation above 0.28 for the
52 data points (years) indicates that the trend is statistically significant at  < 0.05). Trend detection using
the range of parametric and non-parametric tests also show similar results. The results are also consistent
with the analysis of Zhang et al. (2016) for streamflow across Australia and the analysis by the Bureau of
Meteorology (2020) for rainfall and streamflow in the MDB.
Figure 4. Trend in rainfall, streamflow and runoff coefficient from 1970 to 2021.
[Results are shown for 133 catchments, background shows the linear trend].

The declining trend is much more significant in the southern Basin compared to the northern Basin. None
of the declining rainfall trend in the northern Basin is statistically significant, while the declining rainfall
trend in the southern Basin is statistically significant in 20% of the catchments. The declining trend in
streamflow is statistically significant in 20% of the catchments in the northern Basin and in more than 80%
of the catchments in the southern Basin.
This is because the Millennium drought is more severe in the southern Basin. In addition, a key feature of
the Millennium drought is the reduction in cool season rainfall which has persisted after the Millennium
drought. This decline in cool season rainfall has been partly attributed to changes in global circulation
under a warmer world pushing the cool season storm tracks further south (Box 4). Most of the runoff in the
southern Basin (and more so further south into Victoria) occurs in winter and spring and are therefore
significantly affected by the reduction in cool season rainfall (Potter and Chiew 2011). Streamflow during
the Millennium drought reduced by up to 50% in some catchments, and some catchments have not fully
recovered from the Millennium drought (Box 5).
The temperature in the Murray-Darling Basin has risen by about 1.4oC over the past 100 years, with most of
the increase occurring after 1970 (Figure 5). The higher temperature would increase water demand and
potential evapotranspiration (PET) accentuating the reduction in runoff. It is worth noting that in PET
formulations, the increase in PET largely comes from the increase in vapour pressure deficit driven by
higher temperature. Despite increases in temperature, decreases in pan evaporation have been reported
around the world (commonly referred to as the “pan evaporation paradox”), and this has been attributed
to reductions in wind speed and solar radiation (McVicar et al. 2012). However, this trend has plateaued
and reversed in recent decades (Stephens et al. 2018). Increasing vapour pressure deficit has become more
dominant, resulting in an increasing pan evaporation trend since 1994, and PET would continue to increase
with higher temperature under climate change.
Figure 5. Annual temperature series for the Murray-Darling Basin from 1910 to 2021.
[From Bureau of Meteorology website, accessed 21 Apr 2021].

Box 4
Changes in global circulation driving cool season rainfall decline in the southern Murray-Darling
Basin
The observed rainfall decline across south-eastern Australia has mainly occurred over the cool season
(Figure B4.1). This has been partly attributed to the intensification of the subtropical ridge under climate
change. The subtropical ridge refers to a belt of high pressure that encircles the globe in the mid-latitudes.
It is caused by the descending arm of the Hadley cell. During the warm season (Nov–Mar) the subtropical
ridge in the southern hemisphere sits to the south of Australia generally supressing rainfall from cold fronts
pushing them to the south of the continent. During the cool season (Apr-Oct) the ridge moves further
north, allowing frontal systems to move across southern MDB bringing rainfall to the region.
Figure B4.1. Deciles of cool season (Apr–Oct) rainfall in the past 22 years (2000–2021).
[From CSIRO and BoM 2022].
In recent decades, the Hadley cell has been expanding, resulting in the subtropical ridge becoming more
intense and moving further south and sitting over southern Australia. The strong subtropical ridge has been
associated with an increase in high pressure systems in southern MDB and Victoria, pushing the cool
season storm tracks further south into the ocean (DELWP 2020c, Timbal and Hendon 2011, Post et al.
2014). This is consistent with scientific understanding of changes in global circulation under a warmer
climate (Hu 2018, Lucas 2022, Timbal and Hendon 2011, Cai et al. 2011). The majority of climate models
also indicate that the reduction in cool season rainfall in recent decades would not have been as large
without the influence of increasing greenhouse gas concentration (Rauniyar and Power 2020, Grose et al.
2015).
Box 5
Hydrological non-stationarity and changing rainfall-runoff relationship
Most catchments in the southern MDB, and practically all catchments in Victoria, exhibit non-stationarity in
the rainfall-runoff relationship where less annual streamflow is generated during the 1997–2009

Millennium drought for the same annual rainfall compared to pre-drought conditions (Figure B5.1, Saft et
al. 2015, DELWP 2020). Extensive studies in the southern Basin and Victoria indicate that this is likely due to
changes in surface-groundwater interaction, subsurface water availability and vegetation water use in long
dry spells impacting runoff generation (Fowler et al. 2022a, Chiew et al. 2014). Changes in weather systems
and rainfall characteristics can also impact runoff generation (Fu et al. 2021, Pepler et al. 2020). The shift in
hydrological response and recovery following the drought can be different in different catchments, and
many catchments particularly in the drier areas in southwest MDB have not fully recovered from the
Millennium drought (Peterson et al. 2020).
Understanding and modelling hydrological non-stationarity is important particularly when projections

indicate that droughts will become more frequent and severe under climate change. Existing models and
modelling approaches tend to overestimate runoff during dry periods, and this will lead to an
underestimation of the reduction in future runoff (Saft et al. 2016, Vaze et al. 2010, Fowler et al. 2022b).
Research efforts to better model hydrological non-stationarity (this is a significant challenge identified as
one of the 23 unsolved problems by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Bloschl et al.
2019) include approaches to more robustly calibrate hydrological models to simulate dry and wet periods
(Fowler et al. 2016, Zheng et al. 2022) and adapting or developing models to better conceptualise dominant
hydrological processes during long dry spells (Fowler et al. 2018, 2021). As hydrological models are
extrapolated to predict the future, they may need to also consider changes in the landscape like farm dams
(Malerba et al. 2021, Peña-Arancibia et al. 2022, Robertson et al. 2022), fires (Brookhouse et al. 2013,
Khaledi et al. 2022), land use and farming practice, and conditions not experienced in the historical data
like higher temperature, higher atmospheric CO2, and longer and more severe dry spells (Chiew et al. 2014,
Fowler et al. 2022b).
Figure B5.1. Annual streamflow versus annual rainfall during Millennium drought
and pre-drought and post drought conditions.

3. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE HYDROCLIMATE IN THE MURRAY-
DARLING BASIN
3.1 Projections of future climate and hydrology in the Murray-Darling Basin
Temperature in the MDB has increased by 1.4oC in the past 100 years and will continue to increase under
climate change. The higher average temperature and more hot days will increase heat-related mortality
and morbidity for people and wildlife (Gasparrini et al. 2017, Lawrence et al. 2022), impact agriculture
through heat stress on crops and livestock and reduced winter chilling for horticulture (Zhang and Chiew
2018, Darbyshire et al. 2016, Moore and Gharamani 2013), and increase bushfire risk from more frequent
and severe dangerous fire weather conditions (Dowdy and Pepler 2018, Abram et al. 2021). The higher
temperature also increases potential evapotranspiration and demand for water from people, agriculture
and the environment.
Water resources in the MDB are likely to reduce under climate change, driven by the projected reduction in
rainfall (particularly cool season rainfall, Box 4) and accentuated by higher potential evapotranspiration. A
one percent change in mean annual rainfall in the MDB is typically amplified as a two to three percent
change in mean annual runoff (Chiew 2006). Hydrological modelling informed by climate change signal
from global climate models (see Section 3.2.1) project a median reduction in mean annual runoff of about
20% across the MDB for 2046–2075 relative to 1976–2005 under the high greenhouse gas emissions
scenario (RCP8.5, Box 6) (Figure 6, Section 3.2.1, Zheng et al. 2019, Whetton and Chiew 2021). However,
there is a large range in the future runoff projections, mainly because of the large range or uncertainty in
future rainfall projections. The projected change in mean annual runoff in the southern Basin (which is
strongly impacted by the projected reduction in cool season rainfall) range from (10th to 90th percentile) -
40% to +10%. The projected change in mean annual runoff in the northern Basin (driven also by warm
season rainfall for which the direction of rainfall change is less certain) has a large range from -45% to
+30%. The projections for the lower RCP4.5 greenhouse gas emissions scenario are about two thirds of the
projections in Figure 6 (Whetton and Chiew 2021).
There are multiple lines of evidence indicating that the MDB is likely to be drier under climate change.
Rainfall in the MDB, particularly in the cool season, has declined since the mid-1990s, and this has been
amplified in the runoff decline (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). The decline in cool season rainfall in southern
Australia is consistent with scientific understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes in a warmer
world (Box 4). Practically all the climate models project a drier cool season in the future in southern
Australia. The history of national climate projections for Australia since 1987, generally coinciding with the
release of the assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has consistently
projected rainfall reduction in southern Australia (Whetton et al. 2016, Grose et al. 2020).
The variability in the future hydroclimate will remain high, with long wet periods and long dry periods
continuing to occur against a background of declining rainfall and runoff trend (Figure 7). The downward
shift in the mean annual runoff would be reflected in more frequent and severe droughts. This is shown in
Figure 6, together with projected changes in high runoff and low runoff characteristics. The plots show that
3-year hydrological droughts experienced once every 20 years under the historical climate would occur
once every 10–15 years under a future climate in the median projection, and as often as once every 5 years
in the dry end projection.

The median projected reduction in water resources is of similar magnitude as the water recovered for the
environment under the Basin Plan. The reduction in water resources will therefore significantly impact
agriculture (irrigation), communities and the environment, as water is already a heavily contested resource.
Nevertheless, there is a large range or uncertainty in the future projections complicating the challenge of
responding and adapting to climate change (Neave et al. 2015, Prosser et al. 2021, Alexandra 2020, Hart
2016). In addition, the hazards from the different types of extreme events like heatwaves, droughts, fires
and floods (Box 7) can have cascading, compounding and aggregate impacts on communities, infrastructure
and supply-chains and services (Lawrence et al. 2022).
Figure 6. Projected change in runoff characteristics

for 2046–2075 relative to 1976–2005 under RCP8.5.
Figure 7. Annual time series of inflow to the River Murray (from MDBA 2020) showing high interannual
and multiyear variability, with illustration of projected change in mean annual inflow
(from Figure 6 and trend/change starting from 1998 (mid-point from assumed baseline of 1976–2021,
see Table 1 and end of Section 2.2)).
Box 6
Global warming trends, hydroclimate baseline and interpretation of projections
The global average surface temperature has risen by about 1.2oC since 1850–1900, with most of the
warming occurring after 1970. The observed warming is largely driven by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2021) expresses global
average surface warming relative to the pre-industrial period of 1850–1900. Under the high GHG emissions
scenario (RCP8.5), the “best (median) estimate” from IPCC (2021) synthesis of global climate modelling is
an increase in global average surface temperature of ~2.8oC by ~2060. Under the low/intermediate GHG
emissions scenario (RCP4.5), the IPCC (2021) “best estimate” is a warming of ~2.1oC by ~2060. The RCP
refers to “representative concentration pathways”, and RCP8.5 represents a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2
by 2100 (van Vuuren et al. 2011). Future GHG emissions will depend on socio-economic drivers and climate
change mitigation and given the current trajectory of climate change action and policies, the global average
surface warming is likely to peak at 2.5–3.5oC before the end of this century (higher than RCP4.5 but well
below RCP8.5) (Hausfather and Peters 2020).
The hydrological projections shown in Figure 6 are for 2046–2075 (mid-point of 2060) relative to 1976–
2005 (mid-point of 1990) for RCP8.5. The global average surface warming in 1990 relative to 1850–1900 is
0.5oC (IPCC 2021). The projections in Figure 6 can therefore be expressed as changes under 2.3oC warming
relative to 1990 or 2.8oC warming relative to the IPCC 1850–1900 pre-industrial period. Expressing the
projections as changes per degree global warming is useful because the projections scale relatively linearly
(Post et al. 2012a). This also highlights the benefit of climate change mitigation, as under a smaller global
warming, the median projected reduction in streamflow in the MDB will be lower and the uncertainty
range in the projection will also be smaller. Over the near-term (next 10–15 years) natural climate
variability will dominate and there is also little difference between the GHG emissions as the warming is
already locked in the system. Over the medium and longer term (>20 years), the impact of climate change
will be experienced through more frequent droughts and lower water security, and with bigger impact
under higher GHG emissions scenarios.

Another important consideration is the baseline hydroclimate, that is, what is the current hydroclimate and
what historical period should the projected changes in Figure 6 be applied to. This is less of an issue in the
MDB because the mean annual rainfall and runoff over the full period of data and over a long recent period
are similar (Table 1 and end of Section 2.2). As such, the projections can be considered as changes relative
to whatever historical hydroclimate baseline period is used to inform water resources management and
planning in the MDB. However, this is not the case in some regions, like far south-west Australia and to a
lesser extent Victoria, and water resources planning there use data from the mid-1970s to the present as
the hydroclimate baseline and consider the future projections as changes relative to this baseline period.
The hydroclimate over a short period can be persistently wet or dry because of the high variability in the
hydroclimate. For example, inflow into the River Murray over the past 20 years has been very low, and
lower than the projected reduction in long-term average inflow under climate change (Figure 7). This
largely reflects the high natural variability in the hydroclimate, although climate change has likely also
contributed to this decline (Box 5).
Box 7
Flood risk under climate change
Floods and droughts occur over very different and contrasting time scales. Hydrological droughts occur
over many years, with increasing devastation to agriculture, communities and the environment as the
drought progresses. Floods are events that occur over several days, significantly impacting people,
properties, businesses and infrastructure. Floods are the costliest natural disaster in Australia (Deloitte
2017).
Flood risk in built-up areas and small catchments will increase under climate change. This is because
extreme rainfall, particularly shorter (sub-daily) duration and higher extreme rainfall, will become more
intense under a warmer climate (Westra and Sisson 2011, Wasko and Sharma 2015, Bao et al. 2017). This
will increase pluvial flooding (flash flood from high intensity rainfall) in built-up areas and riverine flooding
from small catchments. In larger catchments, the change in flood magnitude is less certain because of flow
attenuation as rivers flow downstream and the compensating effect of more intense extreme rainfall
versus projected drier antecedent catchment conditions in the southern MDB (Johnson et al. 2016, Pedruco
et al. 2018, Wasko and Nathan 2019).
Moderate floods can have several benefits. They infill reservoirs, recharge groundwater, and replenish
natural environments. These benefits can accrue for several years after the flood has subsided (Chiew and
Prosser 2011, Oliver and Webster 2011). The higher rainfall intensity and peak flow under climate change
can also increase erosion, sediment and nutrient loads in waterways (Biswas et al. 2019, Lough et al. 2015)
(particularly when floods flow over cleared landscape following fires or long droughts) and exacerbate
problems from aging stormwater and wastewater infrastructure (WSAA 2016).
Box 8
Groundwater
Groundwater resources in the MDB occur mainly in three hydrogeological settings: fractured rock aquifers
of moderate productivity hosted in basement rocks of the Great Dividing Range and the Mount
Lofty/Flinders Ranges; major alluvial systems formed from coarse deposits associated with the main river
tributaries; and sedimentary aquifers of the Tertiary limestone of the western Murray Basin (Walker et al.
2020). A fourth hydrogeological setting covering most of the northern MDB corresponds to the deep
sedimentary aquifers associated with the Great Artesian Basin (Stewardson et al. 2021).
The annual groundwater use in the MDB averaged over the period 2012–2019 is 1482 GL, which is about
10% of the total water use in the Basin (MDBA 2020b). About 75% of the groundwater use in the MDB
comes from the eight major alluvial aquifers (Figure B8.1). Analysis of data from 910 groundwater
observation bores indicates a decreasing trend in groundwater level from 1971 to 2021. This trend can be
attributed to the decline in diffused groundwater recharge (Fu et al. 2022) and the increase in groundwater
use (Rojas et al. 2022) over the period.
Figure B8.1. Major alluvial aquifers with 75% of total groundwater use in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Climate change has a direct impact on groundwater through changes in diffuse recharge (Barron et al.
2011, Crosbie et al. 2010, Fu et al. 2020). Recharge is also a “threshold” event driven by high intensity
rainfall, with a small number of high intensity rainfall events generating most of the recharge (particularly
episodic recharge in semi-arid and arid regions) (Crosbie et al. 2012). As high extreme rainfall is likely to
become more intense under climate change, this moderates the reduction in recharge from the reduction
in mean rainfall. Recharge modelling for NSW indicates a 14% reduction in diffuse recharge under the
extreme dry NARCliM projected future rainfall (Crosbie et al. 2021). Groundwater can also be replenished

by localised recharge (particularly in the alluvial aquifers of the MDB close to or connected to rivers) and
irrigation recharge, which will also likely reduce under future conditions of reduced river water diversion
for irrigation, higher irrigation water use efficiency and land use changes (Walker et al. 2021).
Groundwater in the MDB is largely managed separately from surface water. There are opportunities to
enhance groundwater use, particularly through water banking and managed aquifer recharge (Gonzales et
al. 2020). There is also a need to better understand surface-groundwater interaction, particularly impact of
changing river characteristics (gaining versus losing stream) on low flows, floodplain return flows through
groundwater, and for conjunctive surface and groundwater management (Walker et al. 2021).

3.2 Methods used to develop hydroclimate projections
The modelling components and considerations in developing hydroclimate projections are shown in Figure
8 and discussed below.
Figure 8. Components in modelling climate change impact on streamflow.
3.2.1 Hydrological modelling of historical and future runoff
Climate change impact on streamflow is typically estimated using a hydrological model informed by future
projections from climate models. The hydrological model is generally calibrated against historical data, and
the optimised parameter values are used to simulate both the historical and future runoff (Chiew et al.
2009a).
The future hydrological projections shown in Figure 6 are modelled using the GR4J lumped conceptual daily
rainfall-runoff model (Perrin et al. 2003). Daily rainfall and PET are inputs into the model, and the model
simulates daily runoff. The GR4J model is calibrated against gauged daily streamflow data from the 133 HRS
catchments (Box 1, Figure 4), and parameter values from the closest gauged catchments are used to model
daily runoff in all the 5 km grid cells across the MDB (Zheng et al. 2019).
The future hydrological projections are developed by comparing the modelled runoff for 2046–2075
relative to the modelled runoff for 1976–2005 (Zheng et al. 2019). The future rainfall inputs (i.e., daily
rainfall series for 2046–2075) are obtained by empirically scaling the 1976–2005 daily rainfall series by the
change signal informed by the 42 CMIP5 global climate models (at annual and seasonal scales and reflecting
changes in the daily rainfall distribution) (see Section 3.2.3). The future PET is obtained by scaling the 1976–
2005 PET by the change in PET (at the seasonal level) estimated for 2046–2075 relative to 1976–2005 from
the climate variables simulated by the global climate models.
The difference in future runoff projections developed using different hydrological models is generally much
smaller than the range or uncertainty in the future rainfall projections (Teng et al. 2012b, Zheng et al. 2019,
Hattermann et al. 2018, Joseph et al. 2018). This is particularly so for mean annual runoff and medium and
high flows, with the differences between hydrological models being more evident for low flow metrics
(Chiew et al. 2018, Vaghefi et al. 2018). As the modelling simulates daily runoff, the model outputs can be
used to estimate most runoff metrics (Ekstrom et al. 2018, Zheng et al. 2019, Chiew et al. 2022).
Nevertheless, the projected change in mean annual runoff is often a reasonable surrogate for the potential
climate change impact on many runoff metrics, with the exception of low flow metrics which are poorly
simulated or not directly calibrated against in hydrological models. The mean annual runoff, and the
hydrological drought presented in Figure 6, are the key variables informing water resources management
as they describe the inflows into storages or reservoirs (and therefore water availability and water
security), with other flow metrics being dependent mainly on storage releases and river operation
decisions.
The use of the same parameter values to model the historical and future climates assume that the rainfall-
runoff relationship and model conceptualisation and parameterisation developed using the historical data
are the same under climate change. This is a significant limitation when the hydrological model is
extrapolated to predict the future under conditions not seen in the past. Hydrological modelling that does
not account for hydrological non-stationarity, like the modelling here, will tend to underestimate the
reduction in runoff in the MDB and the uncertainty range in the future runoff projection (Box 5).
Nevertheless, the uncertainty in not accounting for hydrological non-stationarity is likely to be smaller than
the range or uncertainty in the future rainfall projections.
3.2.2 Future rainfall projections
The climate projections come mainly from global climate models or regional climate models (or dynamical
downscaling). Global climate models (GCMs) run over coarse spatial scales greater than 100 or 200 km.
There are many outputs from GCMs produced by different modelling groups across the world, and they can
provide a useful indication of the uncertainty or range in the future climate projections. The climate model
outputs that are available online generally come from global and regional climate modelling experiments
coinciding with the assessment cycles of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This
includes the 42 CMIP5 GCMs (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) and the 40+ CMIP6 GCMs coinciding
with IPCC AR5 (Fifth Assessment Report) (IPCC 2013) and IPCC AR6 (IPCC 2021) respectively. The
hydrological projections in Figure 6 are informed by CMIP5 GCMs and are consistent with the Australian
climate projections for natural resources management regions (CSIRO and BoM 2015). The Australia
Government has committed to support the development of next generation climate projections for
Australia, over the next couple of years, informed by the IPCC AR6 global and regional climate models
(Karoly et al. 2021, DAWE 2022).
The largest uncertainty in the runoff projections come from the uncertainty in the future rainfall
projections. Numerous studies have explored reducing the uncertainty by putting more weight on, or using
only, the GCMs that best reproduce the current climatology. Although some studies show that this
approach can reduce the range in the rainfall projections in some regions, the majority of studies show
little correlation between the “better” GCMs and future rainfall projections, and therefore using only the
better GCMs tend to produce similar projections and uncertainty in the projections. The GCMs may also
perform differently under different evaluation criteria (e.g., ability to reproduce observed rainfall over a
region versus the whole of Australia, ability to reproduce large-scale atmospheric and oceanic indices or
drivers of rainfall (like ENSO), and ability to reproduce the relationship between large scale drivers and
regional rainfall), making the selection of GCMs difficult. For these reasons, many studies have chosen to
use all available projection data sources to represent the full range of modelled uncertainty in the future
rainfall projections. Selected Australian studies include CSIRO and BoM (2015), Chiew et al. (2009b), Smith
and Chandler (2009) and Suppiah et al. (2007).
Regional climate models (RCMs) or dynamical downscaling run at much higher spatial resolution over the
region of interest (5 to 20 km), using boundary conditions from the host GCM. They potentially add value
by modelling atmospheric processes at higher spatial resolution, as well as resolving spatial features like
mountains, coastlines and land use (Di Virgilio et al. 2020, Grose et al. 2019, Di Luca et al. 2013). However,
because of the long computer run times, there are limited outputs from dynamical downscaling, run
specifically for the region of interest with boundary conditions from a small number of host GCMs.
Future climate projections from dynamical downscaling available for the MDB are summarised in Table 2.
This is a relatively large dataset compared to high resolution (<12 km) dynamical downscaling outputs
available anywhere in the world, partly reflecting dynamical downscaling independently supported by the
different state governments and partly reflecting the importance of the MDB region. The different
dynamical downscaling datasets and products provide more opportunity to understand the dynamic
evolution of rainfall under climate change as well as quantify the plausible range in future rainfall
projections. However, the different datasets can also be confusing to researchers, stakeholders and
decision makers, particularly when rainfall projections from the different datasets can be different (Potter
et al. 2018, DELWP 2020a, Ekstrom et al. 2015, 2016, Section 3.2.4). The differences in the rainfall
projections can be partly explained by the different host GCMs used, and by the uncertainty related to
experimental setup and physical parameterisation in the dynamical downscaling.
Table 2. High resolution (<12 km) dynamical downscaling datasets in the Murray-Darling Basin.
State (Funding) Product Dynamical Resolution Coverage Number of host
downscaling model GCMs
Queensland Long Paddock CCAM 10 km All MDB 12 GMIP5 GCMs
New South Wales NARCliM1.0 WRF 10 km All MDB 4 CMIP3 GCMs
NARCliM1.5 WRF 10 km All MDB 3 CMIP5 GCMs
Victoria ESCI CCAM 12 km All MDB 5 CMIP5 GCMs
VCP19 CCAM 5 km Victoria 6 CMIP5 GCMs
• CCAM is the Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model dynamical downscaling model (McGregor 2005).
• WRF is the Weather Research and Forecasting regional climate model (Shamarock et al. 2008).
• Queensland CCAM modelling is described in Hoffman et al. (2016), Syktus et al. (2020) and Eccles et al. (2021).
• New South Wales WRF modelling is described in Nishant et al. (2021), Evans et al. (2014) and Ji et al. (2016).
• Victoria CCAM modelling is described in Clarke et al. (2019).
• Product acronyms: NARCliM is NSW and ACT Regional Climate Modelling; ESCI is Electricity Sector Climate
Information, VCP is Victorian Climate Projection.
Dynamical downscaling generally simulates the historical climate better than the GCMs because the physics
schemes and parameterisations for the dynamical downscaling are inevitably chosen to best reproduce the
historical climatology in the region. For the same reason, the range in the future rainfall projections from a
particular dynamical downscaling for a specific region also tends to be smaller than that from the GCMs
(Teng et al. 2021c, Burger et al. 2013). The downscaled rainfall projection, particularly from CCAM, can also
be quite different from the rainfall projection of the host GCM (after aggregation to compare at the GCM
scale) (DELWP 2020, Clarke et al. 2020). Therefore, although there is a clear value in dynamical downscaling
research to understand the processes and evolution of and changes in weather dynamics, it is difficult to
test if the future rainfall projections from particular downscaling simulations are more reliable or if the
projections are better than those from the GCMs.

3.2.3 Generating future daily rainfall series for hydrological impact modelling
There are three main categories of methods used to translate outputs from GCMs and RCMs to future
rainfall inputs for hydrological modelling.
Empirical scaling
In the empirical scaling method (also known as “delta change” method), the historical daily rainfall series is
scaled by the change signal in the climate model to obtain the future daily rainfall series (Zheng et al. 2019,
Mpelasoka et al. 2013, Chen et al. 2012). The empirical scaling can be done at the annual, seasonal or daily
level (annual scaling, seasonal scaling, and daily scaling, respectively). The daily scaling considers changes in
the daily rainfall distribution and therefore can reflect the increase in high extreme daily rainfall intensity
under climate change (Box 7). The empirical scaling method can be relatively easily applied and interpreted,
and can be used to reflect the change signal from all available GCMs and RCMs to represent the full range
of modelled uncertainty. The major limitation of the empirical scaling method is that it assumes the future
rainfall sequence is the same (but with different daily values) as the historical rainfall sequence.
Bias correction
To overcome the above limitation of empirical scaling, future simulations of daily rainfall from RCMs
(reflecting changes in all the rainfall characteristics including rainfall sequence and multi-year variability)
can be used. However, rainfall simulations from RCMs are not the same as observed rainfall, and bias
correction needs to be applied to the RCM rainfall to obtain catchment rainfall series to drive hydrological
models. The bias correction method develops a relationship between the RCM historical daily rainfall and
the observed catchment rainfall, and this relationship is then used to translate the future RCM daily rainfall
series to future catchment daily rainfall series. The main limitations of the bias correction method are that
(i) the bias that needs to be corrected is often much larger than the change signal itself, (ii) the seasonal
and annual change signals after bias correction can be different from the raw change signals, and (iii) it is
difficult to robustly bias correct all the rainfall characteristics (particularly number of rainfall days, multi-day
rainfall accumulations and spatial correlation) important for runoff generation (Potter et al. 2020, Charles
et al. 2020, Addor and Siebert 2014, Chen et al. 2013). Another limitation in the context of hydrological
modelling and impact assessment is that the historical bias corrected rainfall series is no longer the same as
the observed series resulting in a different baseline rainfall and modelled streamflow series to compare the
future simulations against.
Stochastic data
In this method, many ensembles or replicates (>100) of future daily rainfall are used to drive hydrological
models to provide a distribution (and probabilistic likelihood) of future hydrological outcomes. This method
is appealing as the stochastic data can represent both climate variability and climate change. The climate
variability is simulated by parameterising the stochastic model against past observations in the long
instrumental record, and palaeodata can also be used to characterise the low frequency variability (like the
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation). Changes to rainfall characteristics under climate change can be informed
by GCMs or RCMs, or climate change knowledge, or simply perturbed for a sensitivity or stress testing of
the hydrological system (Bennett et al. 2021, Leonard et al. 2019, Henley et al. 2011, Fowler et al. 2000).
The main limitation in using stochastic data is the challenge in running complex models of water resources
systems with a large number of stochastic replicates, particularly when the models are also used to explore
multiple adaptation and management scenarios.
Table 3. Summary of advantages and limitations in the different methods used to generate future daily
rainfall series for hydrological impact modelling.
Advantages Limitations
Empirical • Easy to interpret and communicate. • By adopting the historical daily rainfall
scaling • Relatively simple to apply, therefore can be sequence, the method assumes no change in
easily used with all available GCMs and RCMs other rainfall characteristics beyond the
to represent the full range of modelled monthly or seasonal means and the daily
uncertainty. rainfall distribution.
Bias • Considers changes in all the rainfall • RCM outputs need to be bias corrected, and
correction characteristics (including daily rainfall sequence the bias correction is often larger than the
and multi-year variability) as modelled by the change signal.
RCMs. • Difficult to robustly bias correct all the rainfall
characteristics (particularly multi-day rainfall
accumulations and spatial correlation)
important for runoff generation.
• Historical rainfall series is no longer the same
as observed series resulting in rainfall and
modelled runoff (generally underestimated)
that is different from observed runoff.
Stochastic • Method can represent both climate variability • Difficult to run river system models (and
data and climate change. consider multiple adaptation and management
• Flexibility in perturbing changes to future scenarios) with large number of stochastic
rainfall (e.g., changes can be applied only to replicates.
characteristics considered to be realistically
simulated by GCMs or RCMs).
3.3 Hydroclimate projections from different data sources and methods for the Murray-Darling
Basin
The hydroclimate projections developed using the different rainfall projection products described in
Section 3.2.2 and methods used to generate future daily rainfall series described in Section 3.2.3 are shown
in Figures 9 and 10. The plots in Figure 9 show the median change in future mean annual streamflow in the
133 HRS catchments modelled using future daily rainfall series developed with the seasonal scaling, daily
scaling and bias correction methods (Section 3.2.3) informed by the Queensland Long Paddock, New South
Wales NarCliM1.5 and Victoria ESCI rainfall projection products (Table 2). The plots in Figure 10 show all the
projected future changes in mean annual rainfall, mean annual streamflow, number of high flow days (days
above Q99 or the 99th percentile observed daily streamflow in the historical period) and number of 1-in-10
year hydrological drought for Catchment 415207 (Wimmera River at Eversley) modelled with future daily
rainfall series developed with the seasonal scaling, daily scaling and bias correction methods (Section 3.2.3)
informed by all the rainfall projection products in Table 2.
There are three key messages from Figures 9 and 10. First, there is a large range in the projections, within
each rainfall projection product (or data source) and across the different products. Second, the difference
between methods used to generate future rainfall series is much smaller than the range or uncertainty in
the rainfall projections. Third, practically all the projections indicate a drier future in the MDB, particularly
the southern MDB, with less high flow days and more frequent hydrological drought. Figures 9 and 10 are
reproduced from Chiew et al. (2022), and the results and implications for water resources management are
discussed in detail in the paper.

Figure 9. Median value of projected change in future mean annual streamflow in the 133 catchments
modelled with different rainfall projection datasets and methods used to generate future rainfall series.

Figure 10. Projected change in future mean annual rainfall and streamflow characteristics
in Catchment 415207 (Wimmera River at Eversley) modelled with different
rainfall projection datasets and methods used to generate future rainfall series.

4. HYDROCLIMATE SCENARIOS AND WATER RESOURCES
MODELLING
4.1 Modelling climate change impact on water by MDBA and Basin States
Climate change modelling to inform the development of the Basin Plan scaled the historical inflows into the
river system models to reflect climate change impact on the inflow (MDBA 2012, Teng et al. 2011). The
seasonal scaling factors are estimated from runoff modelling across the MDB, similar to the rainfall-runoff
modelling in MDBSY (Chiew et al. 2008). The climate change signal is informed by CMIP3 GCMs. This
approach is similar to the method used to develop the runoff projections in Figure 6, but using CMIP3
GCMs instead of CMIP5 GCMs for Figure 6. The median projected change in runoff used in the Basin Plan
modelling is relatively similar to the median projected change in Figure 6.
In Victoria, the guidelines for assessing climate change impact on water availability recommend using post-
1975 data as the historical baseline or reference period. Rainfall and streamflow projections for RCP8.5 for
~2040 and ~2065 (dry (10th percentile), median and wet (90th percentile) projections) are given in the
guidelines (DELWP 2020b). These projections are modelled using the SIMHYD daily rainfall-runoff model
(Chiew et al. 2002) with future rainfall series generated using the daily scaling method informed by change
signal from the 42 CMIP5 GCMs (Potter et al. 2016). The method used and the projections are relatively
similar to the projections in Figure 6. The DELWP guidelines recommend linearly interpolating the projected
change from 1995 (about mid-point of post-1975 to the present) to 2040 and 2065 and extrapolating to
future periods. In addition to the above projections, the guidelines also recommend using the post-1997
data to reflect a step change in climate scenario. Advice on optional considerations is also given including
the use of stochastic data to explore hydroclimate variability, sensitivity or stress testing of water resources
system (Section 4.2), and also considering CCAM dynamical downscaled climate projections from VCP19
(Table 2).
In New South Wales, climate change impact on water for most of the river valleys have been modelled
using stochastic climate data (NSW DPE 2020). The multi-site daily rainfall and multi-variable (rainfall and
PET) stochastic model (Leonard et al. 2019) used to generate 10,000 years of daily data is parameterised
using the past 129 years of instrumental data and the dwell period of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
(IPO) reconstructed from palaeodata (Henley et al. 2011). The dwell time of the paleoclimatic IPO
reconstruction used is slightly shorter than the instrumental IPO, therefore low frequency droughts
generated using the IPO reconstruction would be slightly less severe than droughts in the instrumental
period (although there will be more severe droughts in the much longer stochastic data). To reflect climate
change, the stochastic rainfall data is scaled by the median rainfall projection (using a different scaling
factor for each of the four seasons, i.e., seasonal scaling) for RCP4.5 in 2030, 2050, 2070 and 2090 from the
CSIRO Climate Futures Tool (similar to the median of the 42 CMIP5 GCMs) (Leonard et al. 2019).
Hydrological modelling studies by New South Wales have also explored scaling the stochastic rainfall data
with climate change signals from the NARCliM WRF regional climate modelling, particularly the driest
projection (Table 2) (NSW DPE 2020).
In Queensland, technical reviews and engagements with water modellers and catchment and water
resources managers have recommended the use of climate projections from the CCAM dynamical
downscaled outputs in Long Paddock (Table 2) (Alluvium 2019, 2020, Queensland Government 2020). The
products in Long Paddock come from several decades of climate change research in Queensland. The

dynamical downscaled outputs can be used to inform seasonal or daily scaling of the historical data to
obtain future rainfall time series to drive hydrological models.
The Bureau of Meteorology Australian Water Outlook product provides projections of future rainfall, soil
moisture, evapotranspiration and runoff for 5 km grid cells across continental Australia (Australian Water
Outlook (bom.gov.au)). These projections come from hydrological modelling with future rainfall series
generated using three bias correction methods informed by climate change projections from a coarse-scale
(50 km) dynamical downscaling constrained by four host CMIP5 GCMs.

4.2 Bottom-up climate impact assessment
Bottom-up or scenario-neutral climate impact assessment differs fundamentally from the traditional top-
down or scenario-led assessment discussed above. The top-down approach models hydrological outcomes
driven by projected change in future climate inputs obtained from GCMs or RCMs. In contrast, the bottom-
up approach starts with the system of interest and stress-test the system under plausible changes to the
climate inputs.
A typical outcome from a bottom-up assessment is illustrated very simplistically in Figure 11, showing that
the system reliability is significantly affected when there is a significant decrease in mean annual rainfall
and/or increase in temperature. The key climate variables and characteristics (can be many more than the
two as shown in the example in Figure 11) are dependent on the system considerations (e.g., multi-year
low rainfall for water security, big rainfall events for lateral connectivity). Plausible future climates (e.g.,
from GCMs and RCMs) can then be plotted on the exposure space (Figure 11) to provide an indication of
climate change risk to the system. Uncertainty in the understanding and modelling of the system can also
be represented (e.g., with gradation in the threshold instead of the clear definitive line in Figure 11).
Figure 11. Illustration of exposure space from bottom-up climate impact assessment.
Advocates of the bottom-up approach claim that it provides a clearer and better treatment of the inherent
uncertainty of climate modelling, and can incorporate multiple lines of evidence, like from climate models,
paleoclimate and lived experience. However, an estimate of the probabilistic likelihood of the climate risk is
still needed to make risk-reward management and adaptation decisions, therefore there is some circular
reasoning involved here. Complex systems, like the MDB, also have ill-defined objectives and multiple

considerations, making it difficult to define the exposure space and reliability or resilience thresholds as
neatly illustrated in Figure 11.
Some of the key papers on bottom-up approach to assess climate risks on water resources systems include
Brown et al. (2012), Fallon et al. (2014), Ceola et al. (2016), Culley et al. (2016) and Conway et al. (2019).
Recent examples of bottom-up climate impact assessments in Australia include water supply system for
Melbourne (Turner et al. 2014), runoff from a small catchment in South Australia (Guo et al. 2017),
managed aquifer recharge in Adelaide (Potter et al. 2018) and environmental flows in the Goulburn River
(John et al. 2021).
The Climate Resilience Analysis Framework and Tools (CRAFT) provide guidance and steps in bottom-up
climate risk assessment for natural and engineered systems (Bennett et al. 2018). A key requirement for
bottom-up stress testing is stochastic data to cover the plausible range of future climates. The inverse
approach developed by Guo et al. (2018) and Culley et al. (2019), now implemented as an R package
(Bennett et al. 2021), generates rainfall time series that cover a wider range than traditional stochastic data
generation methods, and is suited to generate the stochastic data needed to stress test the system. Some
of the tools required for stress testing of water resources systems (including stochastic data generation and
rainfall-runoff modelling) can also be found in Fowler et al. (2022c).

4.3 Climate change consideration for stakeholder engagement and water
resources modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin
The availability of many different hydroclimate projection products and datasets in the MDB is fortunate as
they provide opportunity for robust exploration of future hydroclimate and uncertainty in the projections.
However, interpreting and communicating the different products can be confusing, to stakeholders,
catchment and water resources managers, and decision makers. This is particularly so when different state
jurisdictions use different methods and hydroclimate projections whilst water resources planning and
adaptation in the MDB seek to enhance outcomes for the regions as well as the whole of the Basin.
The many datasets and large uncertainty in future hydroclimate projections can magnify the perception of
deficit in hydroclimate science, and the need to wait for more certainty in the science and projections
before considering climate change in water resources planning (MDBA 2019, Neave et al. 2015, Slatyer
2021, Alexandra 2020, Horne 2013). Although hydroclimate projections science will continue to improve,
the uncertainty in future projections is likely to remain large because of the challenges in understanding
and modelling the complex global and regional atmospheric and land surface processes. Water resources
management in the MDB need to plan for a hotter and drier future and consider risk versus reward
outcomes that acknowledge the uncertainty in the future projections. The datasets and modelling methods
used, and the level of complexity, should be fit-for-purpose for the particular objective, and some
recommendations and considerations are described below.
Bottom-up sensitivity modelling
It is good practice to carry out a bottom-up (also referred to as scenario neutral, decision scaling or systems
approach) modelling and assessment of the water resources system. Put it simply, this is modelling to
understand the system, and the reliability and impact on the system under changed climate inputs, water
use practice and/or management decisions. The system can be stress-tested in sensitivity experiments
using existing hydrological models to explore outcomes under different climate inputs (regardless of the
projections) and the level of change (and types of climate characteristics) that will significantly affect the
reliability and resilience of the system.
Simple hydroclimate scenarios or storylines
A small number of simple scenarios is sufficient for broad-scale assessment of climate change impact
(Zhang et al. 2020). This also allows for a clearer interpretation and communication of climate change
impact, to stakeholders, water resources managers and decision makers, as well as to technical experts and
modellers. This is particularly suitable for the MDB where practically all the different projections indicate a
hotter and drier future, but with uncertainty around how much and by when. For example, engagement
with stakeholders could consider a “likely” future scenario using the median projection (for ~2060 or ~2oC
global average warming) of 5% reduction in mean annual rainfall, 7% increase in PET, and 20% reduction in
mean annual runoff (and associated changes in other hydrological characteristics). An extreme dry future
scenario (e.g., 90th percentile from the range of projections) of 15% reduction in mean annual rainfall, 15%
increase in PET and 40% reduction in mean annual runoff, should also be considered to explore impacts
towards the dry end of plausible future.

Climate change considerations for more detailed modelling
Modelling and adaptation considerations that require a fuller understanding of the uncertainty in the
hydroclimate projections could then either use datasets and methods that are fit-for-purpose for the
specific application or use all available projection products and datasets to represent the full range of
modelled plausible futures. There are often constraints in running complex water resources system models
with the large number of projection datasets (particularly when stochastic replicates are also used),
concurrently with also exploring the different adaptation and management options. To overcome this, the
different management and policy options can be explored just with a limited number of future
hydroclimate scenarios (like the simple scenarios above), and the preferred options when they have been
determined can then be explored with the larger or full sample of hydroclimate projections.
Global climate models, regional climate models, methods to generate future hydroclimate series and
hydrological modelling
Some of the key considerations and recommendations are summarised below.

• Given the large range of projections within and across the different GCMs and RCMs, it is probably best
to consider all available GCMs and RCMs to provide an indication of the full range of modelled plausible
futures.
• Bias correction can be used with RCMs to provide an indication of changes in rainfall characteristics
beyond the long-term average and extreme high rainfall intensity. There is little point in applying bias
correction to GCMs because the coarse-scale GCMs are unlikely to have much skill in simulating the
rainfall characteristics being bias corrected for.
• The bias corrected historical rainfall (particularly the sequencing) is not the same as the observed
historical rainfall, and therefore the modelled historical runoff can be very different from the observed
historical runoff. The change in future runoff can still be assessed by comparing the modelled future
runoff against the modelled historical runoff, but many water resources applications need to be
assessed against observed runoff (or modelled runoff that is very similar to (calibrated against) observed
runoff). In addition, modelling constraints or the need for simpler hydrological modelling adopts the
scaling of historical inflows to reflect future inflows under climate change. Bias correction cannot be
easily used in such application because of the need to reproduce the daily hydrological lags and
recessions.
• The RCMs have the potential to simulate local scale changes better than the coarse-scale GCMs.
However, there are only limited RCM datasets generated from a subset of host GCMs. The RCM dataset
and GCM projections could be combined to impose the projected rainfall change from each GCM across
the region with the spatial rainfall changes from the RCM (Post et al. 2012b). The empirical scaling
methods can then be used to generate the future climate series, and although not accounting for
changes in all the rainfall characteristics from bias correction, it accounts for rainfall changes as
simulated by the RCMs at the local scale.
Hydroclimate projections for whole-of-Basin hydrological modelling
A more “complete” approach would be to carry out hydrological modelling using all available climate
projection products and methods to generate future climate inputs. The outputs from the modelling can
then be used to directly assess the impact on any hydrological metric, informing the distribution (or range
or uncertainty) in the hydrological metric under climate change. However, this may not be possible because
of the complexity of water resources models, and climate change is only one of many other considerations
in the modelling.

It is likely, and good practice, that different states and regions will adopt different methods that are fit-for-
purpose for assessing climate impact and adaptation options. A possible outcome for whole-of-Basin
hydrological modelling is to use semi-consensus projections for the Basin whilst acknowledging (with a
shared understand and interpretation) the use and need of different projections for the different
applications in the regions. The choice of this semi-consensus projection should be both informed by
science and practical shared consideration by technical experts and managers across the MDB. To facilitate
the latter, and given the many projection datasets and methods, it is useful to explore hydrological
outcomes from the different methods, for example through (the relatively simpler) modelling of catchment
runoff and impact across the MDB and (the more difficult) modelling of impact on the environment (and
possibly quadruple bottom line) for two or three river valleys. The outputs from this exercise would inform
the similarities and differences between the different datasets and methods, what matters or not for
decision making for the different outcomes, and other considerations, to guide the practical choice of
several key scenarios for the whole-of-Basin modelling.

REFERENCES
Abram NJ, Henley BJ, Sen Gupta A, Lippmann TJR, Clarke H, et al. (2021) Connections of climate change and
variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia. Communications Earth and
Environment, 2, 8.
Addor N and Siebert J (2014) Bias correction for hydrological impact studies – beyond the daily perspective.
Hydrological Processes 28, 4823–4828.
Alexandra J (2020) The science and politics of climate risk assessment in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin.
Environmental Science and Policy, 112, 17–27.
Alluvium (2019) Critical review of climate change and water modelling in Queensland. An independent
report completed for the Queensland Water Modelling Network, Queensland Government, 113 pp.
Alluvium (2020) Method for assessing the effects of climate change on water availability in Queensland
water plans. Report prepared for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and
Energy.
Bao J, Sherwood SC, Alexander LV and Evans JP (2017) Future increases in extreme precipitation exceed
observed scaling rates. Nature Climate Change, 7, 128–132.
Barron OV, Crosbie RS, Charles SP, Dawes WR, Ali R, et al. (2011) Climate change impact on groundwater
resources in Australia. Waterlines Series Report No 67, National Water Commission, Canberra, 223
pp.
Basin Plan (2012) Basin Plan 2012 (legislation.gov.au).
Bennett B, Devanand A, Culley S, Westra S, Gio D and Maier HR (2021) A modelling framework and R-
package for evaluating system performance under hydroclimate variability and change.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 139, 104999.
Bennett B, Zhang L, Potter N and Westra S (2018) Climate Resilience Analysis Framework: testing the
resilience of natural and engineered systems. Goyder Institute for Water Research, Technical Report
18/2, 12 pp.
Bennett JC, Robertson DE, Shrestha DL, Wang QJ, Enever D, Hapuarachchi P and Tuteja NK (2014) A system
for continuous hydrological ensemble forecasting (SCHEF) to lead times of 9 days. Journal of
Hydrology, 519, 2832–2846.
Biswas TK, Karim F, Kumar A, Wilcinson S, Guerschman J, et al. (2019) 2019–2020 bushfire impacts on
sediment and contaminant transport following rainfall in the upper Murray catchment. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management, 17, 1203–1214.
Bloschl G, Bierkens MFP, Chambel A, Cudennec C, Destouni G, et al. (2020) Twenty-three unsolved
problems in hydrology (UPH) – a community perspective. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 64, 1141–
1158.
Bloschl G, Sivapalan M, Wagener T, Viglione A and Savenije H (2013) Prediction in ungauged basins:
synthesis across processes, places and scales. Cambridge University Press, 1234 pp.
Brookhouse MT, Farquhar GD and Roderick ML (2013) The impact of bushfires on water yield from south-
east Australia’s ash forests. Water Resources Research, 49, 4493–4505.
Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M and Li K (2012) Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with
climate projections in the water sector. Water Resources Research, 48, W09537.

Bureau of Meteorology (2020) Trends and historical conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin. A report
prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority by the Bureau of Meteorology, 18 pp, bp-eval-2020-
BOM-trends-and-historical-conditions-report.pdf (mdba.gov.au).
Burger G, Sobie SR, Cannon AJ, Werner AT and Murdock TQ (2013) Downscaling extremes: an
intercomparison of multiple methods for future rainfall. Journal of Climate, 26, 3429–3449.
Cai W, van Rensch P and Cowan T (2011) Influence of global-scale variability on the subtropical ridge over
southeast Australia. Journal of Climate, 24, 6035–6053.
Ceola S, Montanari A, Krueger T, Dyer F, Kreibich H, et al. (2016) Adaptation of water resources systems to
changing society and environment: a statement by the International Association of Hydrology
Sciences. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61, 2803–2817.
Charles SP, Chiew FHS, Potter NJ, Zheng H, Fu G and Zhang L (2020) Impact of dynamically downscaled
rainfall biases on projected runoff changes. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences, 24, 2981–2997.
Chen J, Brisette FP, Chaumont B and Braun M (2012) Performance and uncertainty evaluation of empirical
downscaling methods in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology over two North
American river basins. Journal of Hydrology, 479, 200–214.
Chen J, Brisette FP, Chaumont B and Braun M (2013) Finding appropriate bias correction methods in
downscaling precipitation for hydrological impact studies over Northern America. Water Resources
Bulletin, 49, 4187–4205.
Chiew FHS (2006) Estimation of rainfall elasticity of streamflow in Australia. Hydrological Sciences Journal,
51, 613–625.
Chiew FHS (2010) Lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff models and simple water balance methods: overview
and applications in ungauged and data limited regions. Geography Compass, 4, 206–225.
Chiew FHS and Leahy C (2003) Comparison of evapotranspiration variables in Evapotranspiration Maps of
Australia with commonly used evapotranspiration variables. Australian Journal of Water Resources,
7, 1–11.
Chiew FHS and McMahon TA (2002) Global ENSO-streamflow teleconnection, streamflow forecasting and
interannual variability. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 47, 505–522.
Chiew F and Prosser I (2011) Water and climate. In: Water – Science and solution for Australia (Editor: I
Prosser) CSIRO Publishing, pp. 29–46.
Chiew FHS, Peel MC and Western AW (2002) Application and testing of the simple rainfall-runoff model
SIMHYD. In: Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications (Editors: VP Singh
and DK Frevert), Water Resources Publication, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 335–367.
Chiew FHS, Potter NJ, Vaze J, Petheram C, Zhang L, Teng J and Post DA (2014) Observed hydrologic non-
stationarity in far south-eastern Australia: implications and future modelling predictions. Stochastic
Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28, 3–15.
Chiew FHS, Teng J, Vaze J and Kirono DGC (2009b) Influence of global climate model selection on runoff
impact assessment. Journal of Hydrology, 379, 172–180.
Chiew FHS, Teng J, Vaze J, Post DA, Perraud J-M, Kirono DGC and Viney NR (2009a) Estimating climate
change impact on runoff across south-east Australia: method, results and implications of modelling
method. Water Resources Research, 45, W10414.
Chiew F, Vaze J, Viney N, Jordan P, Perraud J-M, et al. (2008) Rainfall-runoff modelling across the Murray-
Darling Basin A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin

Sustainable Yields Project, 62 pp, Technical Report - Rainfall-runoff modelling across the Murray-
Darling Basin (csiro.au).
Chiew FHS, Zheng H and Potter NJ (2018) Rainfall-runoff modelling considerations to predict streamflow
characteristics in ungauged catchments and under climate change. Water, 10, 1319.
Chiew FHS, Zheng H, Charles SP, Potter NJ, Robertson DE, Post DA, Bailey J, Job M and Coleman M (2021)
Assessment of catchment runoff and high flows in the Murray-Darling Basin under climate change.
Technical report for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, CSIRO, 16 pp.
Chiew FHS, Zheng H, Potter NJ, Charles SP, Thatcher M, Ji F, Syktus J, Robertson DE and Post DA (2022)
Different hydroclimate modelling approaches can lead to a large range of streamflow projections
under climate change: implications for water resources management. Water, 14, 2730.
Clarke JM, Grose M, Thatcher M, Hernaman V, Heady C, et al. (2019) Victorian Climate Projections 2019.
CSIRO Technical Report, 95 pp.
Conway D, Nicholls R, Bron S, Tebboth M, Adger W, et al. (2019) The need for bottom-up assessments of
climate risks and adaptation in climate-sensitive regions. Nature Climate Change, 9, 503–511.
Crosbie RS, Charles SP, Rojas R, Dawes W, Fu G, Rassam D, Barry K and Pickett T (2021) Impact of climate
change on groundwater in NSW - preliminary assessment of the sensitivity of recharge and
groundwater resources to a projected drying climate. CSIRO, EP2021-0774, 84 pp.
Crosbie RS, McCallum JL, Walker G and Chiew FHS (2010) Modelling climate-change impacts on
groundwater recharge in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeology Journal, 18, 1639–
1656.
Crosbie RS, McCallum JL, Walker G and Chiew FHS (2012) Episodic recharge and climate change in the
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeology Journal, 20, 245–261.
CSIRO (2008) Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin. A report from CSIRO to the Australian
Government.67 pp,
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/mdbsy/pdf/WaterAvailabilityInThe
MDB-FinalReport.pdf.
CSIRO and BoM (2015) Climate change in Australia information for Australia’s natural resource
management regions: Technical Report, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, 216 pp,
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au.
CSIRO and BoM (2022) State of the Climate 2022. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, 27 pp, 22-
00220_OA_REPORT_StateoftheClimate2022_WEB_221115 (1).pdf.
Culley S, Bennett B, Westra S and Maier HR (2019) Generating realistic perturbed hydrometeorological time
series to inform scenario-neutral climate impact assessments. Journal of Hydrology, 576, 111–122.
Culley S, Noble S, Yates A, Timbs S, Westra S (2016) A bottom-up approach to identifying the maximum
operational adaptive capacity of water resource systems to a changing climate. Water Resources
Research, 52, 6751–6768.
Darbyshire R, Measham P and Goodwin I (2016) A crop and cultivar-specific approach to assess future
winter chill for fruit and nut trees. Climatic change, 137, 541–556.
DAWE (2022) Climate projections roadmap for Australia. National partnership for climate projections,
Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, 26 pp.
Deloitte (2017) Building resilience to natural disasters in our states and territories. Deloitte Access
Economics, 112 pp, 56004_abrbuildingresilienceinourstatesand.pdf (preventionweb.net).

DELWP (2020a) Long term water resource assessment for southern Victoria. Victorian Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 169 pp, DELW0146_LTWRA_OverviewReport.pdf
(water.vic.gov.au).
DELWP (2020b) Guidelines for assessing the impact of climate change on water availability in Victoria.
Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 136 pp, Microsoft Word -
20201130-GuidelinesClimateChangeWaterAvailVic.docx.
DELWP (2020c) Victoria’s water in a changing climate. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water
and Planning, 97 pp, VICWACl_VictoriasWaterInAChangingClimate_FINAL.pdf.
Di Luca A, de Elia R and Laprise R (2013) Potential for small scale added value of RCM’s downscaled climate
change signals. Climate Dynamics, 40, 601–608.
Di Virgilio G, Evans JP, Di Luca A, Grose MR, Round V and Thatcher M (2020) Realised added value in
dynamic downscaling of Australian climate change. Climate Dynamics, 54, 4675–4692.
Dixon BC, Tyler JJ, Lorrey AM, Goodwin ID, Gergis J and Drysdale RN (2017) Low-resolution Australasian
paleoclimate records of the last 2000 years. Climate Past, 13, 1403–1433.
Dowdy A and Pepler A (2018) Pyroconvection risk in Australia: climatological changes in atmospheric
stability and surface fire weather conditions. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 2005–2013.
Eccles R, Zhang H, Hamilton D, Trancoso R and Syktus J (2021) Impacts of climate change on streamflow and
floodplain inundation in a coastal subtropical catchment. Advances in Water Research, 147,
103825.
Ekstrom M, Grose M and Whetton PH (2015) An appraisal of downscaling methods used in climate change
research. WIRES Climate Change, 6, 301–319.
Ekstrom M, Grose M, Heady C, Turner SS and Teng J (2016) The method of producing climate change
datasets impacts the resulting policy guidance and chance of maladaptation. Climate Services, 4,
13–29.
Ekstrom ME, Gutmann ED, Wilby RL, Tye MR and Kirono DGC (2018) Robustness of hydroclimate metrics for
climate change impact research. WIRES Water, 5, e1288.
Evans JP, Ji F, Lee C, Smith P, Arguese D and Fita L (2014) Design of a regional climate modelling projection
ensemble experiment – NARCliM. Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 621–629.
Falloon P, Challinor A, Dessai S, Hoang L, Johnson J and Koehler A-K (2014) Ensembles and uncertainty in
climate change impacts. Frontiers in Interdisciplinary Climate Studies, 2, 33.
Flack AL, Kiem AS, Vance TR, Tozer CR and Roberts JI (2020) Comparison of published paleoclimate records
suitable for reconstructing annual to sub-decadal hydroclimate variability in eastern Australia:
implications for water resources management and planning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
24, 5699–5712.
Fowler HJ, Klsby CG and O’Connell PE (2000) A stochastic rainfall model for the assessment of regional
water resource system under changed climatic condition. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, 4,
263–281.
Fowler K, Coxon G, Freer J, Peel MC, Wagener T, Western A, Woods R and Zhang L (2018) Simulating runoff
under changing climate conditions: a framework for model improvement. Water Resources
Research, 54, 9812–9832.
Fowler K, Ballis N, Horne A, John A, Nathan R and Peel M (2022c) Integrated framework for rapid climate
testing on a monthly timestep. Environmental Modelling and Software, 150, 105339.

Fowler K, Peel M, Saft M, Nathan R, Horne A, Wilby R, McCutcheon C and Peterson T (2022b) Hydrological
shifts threaten water resources. Water Resources Research, 58, e2021WR031210.
Fowler KJA, Coxon G, Freer JE, Knoben WJM, Peel MC, Wagener T, Western AW, Woods RA and Zhang L
(2021) Towards more realistic runoff projections by removing limits on simulated soil moisture
deficit. Journal of Hydrology, 600, 126505.
Fowler KJA, Peel MC, Saft M, Peterson TJ, Western A, et al. (2022a) Explaining changes in rainfall-runoff
relationships during and after Australia’s Millennium Drought: a community perspective. Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences, HESS-D, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-147.
Fowler KJA, Peel MC, Western AW, Zhang L and Peterson TJ (2016) Simulating runoff under changing
climatic conditions: revisiting an apparent deficiency of conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water
Resources Research, 52, 1829–1846.
Freund M, Henley BJ, Karoly DJ, Allen KJ and Baker PJ (2017) Multi-century cool- and warm-season rainfall
reconstructions for Australia’s major climatic regions. Climate Past, 13, 1751–1770.
Fu G, Chiew FHS, Zheng H, Robertson DE, Potter NJ, Teng J, Post DA, Charles SP and Zhang L (2021)
Statistical analysis of attributions of climate characteristics to non-stationary rainfall-streamflow
relationship. Journal of Hydrology, 603, 127017.
Fu G, Rojas R and Gonzalez D (2022) Trends in groundwater levels in alluvial aquifers of the Murray-Darling
Basin and their attributions. Water, 14, 1808.
Fu G, Zou Y, Crosbie RS and Barron O (2020) Climate changes and variability in the Great Artesian Basin
(Australia), future projections, and implications for groundwater management. Hydrogeology
Journal, 28, 375–391.
Gallant AJE and Gergis J (2011) An experimental streamflow reconstruction for the River Murray, Australia,
1783–1988. Water Resources Research, 47, W00G04.
Gallant AJE, Phipps SJ, Karoly DJ, Mullan AB and Lorrey AM (2013) Nonstationary Australasian
teleconnections and implications for paleoclimate reconstructions. Journal of Climate, 26, 8827–
8849.
Gasparrini A, Guo Y, Sera F, Vicedo-Cabrera AM, Huber V, et al. (2017) Projections of temperature-related
excess mortality under climate change scenarios. Lancet Planet Health, 1, e360–e367.
Gonzalez D, Dillon P, Page D and Vanderzalm J (2020) The potential for water banking in Australia’s Murray-
Darling Basin to increase drought resilience. Water, 12, 2936.
Grose MR, Narsey S, Delage FP, Dowdy AJ, Bador M, et al. (2020) Insights from CMIP6 for Australia’s future
climate. Earth’s Future, 8, e2019EF001469.
Grose MR, Syktus J, Thatcher M, Evans JP, Ji F, Rafer T and Remenyi T (2019) The role of topography on
projected rainfall change in mid-latitude mountain regions. Climate Dynamics, 53, 3675–3690.
Grose MR, Timbal B, Wilson L, Bathols J and Kent D (2015) The subtropical ridge in CMIP5 models, and
implications for projections of rainfall in southeast Australia. Australian Meteorological and
Oceanographic Journal, 65, 90–106.
Guo D, Westra S and Maier HR (2017) Use of a scenario-neutral approach to identify the key hydro-
meteorological attributes that impact runoff from a natural catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 554,
317–330.
Guo D, Westra S and Maier HR (2018) An inverse approach to perturb historical rainfall data for scenario-
neutral climate impact studies. Journal of Hydrology, 556, 877–890.

Hapuarachchi H, Bari M, Kabir A, Hasan M, Woldemeskel F, et al. (2022) Development of a national 7-day
ensemble streamflow forecasting service for Australia. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, HESS-
D, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-72.
Hart BT (2016) The Australian Murray-Darling Basin Plan: challenges in its implementation (part 2).
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 32, 835–852.
Hattermann FF, Vetter T, Breuer L, Su B, Daggupati P, et al. (2018) Sources of uncertainty in hydrological
impact assessment in a cross-scale study. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 015006.
Hausfather Z and Peters GP (2020) Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature, 577, 618–
620.
Henley BJ, Thyer MA, Kuczera G and Franks SW (2011) Climate-informed stochastic hydrological modelling:
incorporating decadal-scale variability using paleo data. Water Resources Research, 47, W11509.
Ho M, Kiem AS and Verdon-Kidd DC (2015a) A paleoclimate rainfall reconstruction in the Murray-Darling
Basin (MDB), Australia: 1. Evaluation of different paleoclimate archives, rainfall networks and
reconstruction techniques. Water Resources Research, 51, 8362–8379.
Ho M, Kiem AS and Verdon-Kidd DC (2015b) A paleoclimate rainfall reconstruction in the Murray-Darling
Basin (MDB), Australia: 2. Assessing hydroclimatic risk using paleoclimate records of wet and dry
periods. Water Resources Research, 51, 8380–8396.
Ho M, Verdon-Kidd DC, Kiem AS and Drysdale RN (2014) Broadening the spatial applicability of paleoclimate
information – a case-study for the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Journal of Climate, 27, 2477–
2495.
Hoffman P, Katzfey J, McGregor JL and Thatcher M (2016) Bias and variance correction of sea surface
temperature used for dynamic downscaling. Journal of Geophysics Research: Atmosphere, 121,
12877–12890.
Horne J (2013) The 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan – issues to watch. International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 30, 152–163.
Hu Y, Huang H and Zhou C (2018) Widening and weakening of the Hadley circulation under global warming.
Science Bulletin, 63, 640–644.
IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers: In: Climate Change 2014: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group 1 to the Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Editors: TF Stocker et al.], Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
IPCC (2021) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group 1 to the Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Editors: V Masson-Delmotte et al.], Cambridge University Press.
Ji F, Evans JP, Teng J, Scorgie Y, Argueso D and Di Luca A (2016) Evaluation of long-term precipitation and
temperature Weather Research and Forecasting simulations for southeast Australia. Climate
Research, 67, 99–115.
John A, Horne A, Nathan R, Fowler K, Webb JA and Stewardson M (2021) Robust climate change adaptation
for environmental flows in the Goulburn River, Australia. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9,
789206.
Johnson F, White CJ, van Dijk A, Ekstrom M, Evans JP, et al. (2016) Natural hazards in Australia: floods.
Climatic Change, 139, 21–35.

Joseph J, Ghosh S, Pathak A and Sahai AK (2018) Hydrologic impacts of climate change: comparisons
between hydrological parameter uncertainty and climate model uncertainty. Journal of Hydrology,
566, 1–22.
Karoly D, Grose M, Clarke J, Colman R, Evans R, et al. (2021) Australia’s next generation of regional climate
projections: final report to the National Climate Science Advisory Committee. Earth Systems and
Climate Change Hub, Report 23, 38 pp, EP211333.pdf.
Kaune A, Chowdhury F, Werner M and Bennett J (2020) Complex relationship between seasonal streamflow
forecast skill and value in reservoir operations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 24, 3851–
3870.
Khaledi J, Lane PNJ, Nitschke CR and Nyman P (2022) Wildfire contribution to streamflow variability across
Australian temperate zone. Journal of Hydrology, 609, 127728.
Kiem AS and Franks SW (2004) Multi-decadal variability of drought risk, eastern Australia. Hydrological
Processes, 18, 2039–2050.
Kiem AS, Johnson F, Westra S, van Dijk A, Evans JP, et al. (2014) Natural hazards in Australia: droughts.
Climatic Change, 139, 37–54.
Kirono DGC, Chiew FHS and Kent DM (2010) Identification of best predictors for forecasting seasonal
rainfall and runoff in Australia. Hydrological Processes, 24, 1237–1247.
Lawrence J, Mackey B, Chiew F, Costello MJ, Hennessy K, Lansbury N, Nidumolu UB, Pecl G, Rickards L,
Tapper N Woodward A and Wreford A (2022) Australasia. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Editors: H-O Portner, DC Roberts et al.), Cambridge University Press.
Leonard M, Westra S and Bennett B (2019) Multisite rainfall and evaporation data generation for the
Macquarie water infrastructure project. University of Adelaide, 50 pp.
Lough JM, Lewis SE and Cantin NE (2015) Freshwater impacts n the central Great Barrier Reef: 1648–2011.
Coral Reefs, 34, 739–751.
Lucas C, Rudeva I, Nguyen H, Boschat G and Hope P (2022) Variability and changes to the mean meridional
circulation in isentropic coordinates. Climate Dynamics, 58, 257–276.
Malerba ME, Wright N and Macreadie PI (2021) A continental-scale assessment of density, size, distribution
and historical trends of farm dams using deep learning convolutional neural networks. Remote
Sensing, 13, 319.
McGowan HA, Marx SK, Denholm J, Soderholm J and Kamber BS (2009) Reconstructing annual inflows to
the headwater catchments of the Murray River, Australia using the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L06707.
McGregor JL (2005) C-CAM: Geometric aspects and dynamical formulation. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
Research Technical Paper 70, 43 pp.
McVicar TR, Roderick ML, Donohue RJ, Li LL, van Niel TG, et al. (2012) Global review and synthesis of trends
in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: implications for evaporation. Journal of Hydrology,
416–417, 182–205.
MDBA (2012) Hydrological modelling to inform the proposed Basin Plan: methods and results. MDBA
Publication 17/12, 325 pp, Hydrologic modelling to inform the proposed Basin Plan: Methods and
results (mdba.gov.au).

MDBA (2014) Basin-wide environmental watering strategy. MDBA Publication 10/14, 128 pp, Basin-wide-e-
watering-strategy-Nov14.pdf (mdba.gov.au).
MDBA (2019) Climate change and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan – MDBA discussion paper. MDBA
Publication 09/19, 29 pp, Climate change and the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (mdba.gov.au).
MDBA (2020) The 2020 Basin Plan evaluation. MDBA Publication 50/20, 140 pp, bp-eval-2020-full-
report.pdf (mdba.gov.au).
Moore AD and Ghahramani A (2013) Climate change and broadacre livestock production across southern
Australia. 1. Impacts of climate change on pasture and livestock productivity, and on sustainable
levels of profitability. Global Change Biology, 19, 1440–1455.
Morton FI (1983) Operational estimates of areal evapotranspiration and their significance to the science
and practice of hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, 66, 1–76.
Mpelasoka FS and Chiew FHS (2009) Influence of rainfall scenario construction methods on runoff
projections. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 10, 1168–1183.
Neave I, McLeod A, Riasin G and Swirepik J (2015) Managing water in the Murray-Darling Basin under a
variable and changing climate. Water, Australian Water Association, 6, 102–107.
Nishant N, Evans JP, Di Virgilo D, Downes SM, Ji F, et al. (2021) introducing NARCliM1.5: evaluating the
performance of regional climate projections for southeast Australia for 1950–2010. Earth’s Future,
e2020EF001833.
NSW DPE (2020) New climate analysis informs NSW’s regional water strategies. NSW Department of
Planning, Industry and Environment, Publication 20/435, 12 pp, New climate analysis informs NSW'S
regional water strategies.
Oliver R and Webster I (2011) Water for the environment. In: Water – Science and solution for Australia
(Editor: I Prosser) CSIRO Publishing, pp. 119–134.
Pedruco P, Szemis JM, Brown R, Lett R, Ladson AR, Kiem AS and Chiew FHS (2018) Assessing climate change
impacts on rural flooding in Victoria. INl Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium (HWRS2018):
Water and Communities, Engineers Australia, Melbourne, Dec 2018, pp. 645–648.
Peel MC, McMahon TA and Finlayson BL (2004) Continental differences in the variability of annual runoff –
update and reassessment. Journal of Hydrology, 295, 185–197.
Pena-Arancibia JL and Malerba ME (2022) Expansion and dynamics of farm dams across the Murray-Darling
Basin: a remote sensing assessment using the Google Earth Engine Landscape archive. In Preparation.
Pepler AS, Dowdy AJ and Hope P (2021) The differing role of weather systems in southern Australian rainfall
between 1979–1996 and 1997–2015. Climate Dynamics, 56, 2289–2302.
Perrin C, Michel C and Andreassian V (2003) Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow
simulations. Journal of Hydrology, 279, 275–289.
Peterson TJ, Saft M, Peel MC and John A (2021) Watersheds may not recover from drought. Science, 372,
745–749.
Post DA, Chiew FHS, Teng J, Viney NR, Ling FLN, et al. (2012b) A robust methodology for conducting large-
scale assessments of current and future water availability and use: a case study for Tasmania,
Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 412 – 413, 233–245.
Post DA, Chiew FHS, Teng J, Wang B and Marvanek S (2012a) Projected changed in rainfall and runoff for
south-eastern Australia under 1oC of global warming. Proceedings of the 34th Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Sydney, Nov 2012, Engineers Australia, pp. 587–594.
Post DA, Timbal B, Chiew FHS, Hendon HH, Nguyen H and Moran R (2014) Decrease in southeastern
Australian water availability linked to ongoing Hadley cell expansion. Earth’s Future, 2, 231–238.
Potter NJ and Chiew FHS (2011) An investigation into changes in climate characteristics causing the recent
very low runoff in the southern Murray-Darling Basin using rainfall-runoff models. Water Resources
Research, 47, W00G10.
Potter NJ, Chiew FHS and Frost AJ (2010) An assessment of the severity of recent reductions in rainfall and
runoff in the Murray-Darling Basin. Journal of Hydrology, 381, 52–64.
Potter NJ, Chiew FHS, Charles SP, Fu G, Zheng H and Zhang L (2020) Bias in downscaled rainfall
characteristics. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 24, 2963–2979.
Potter NJ, Chiew FHS, Zheng M, Ekstrom M and Zhang L (2016) Hydroclimate projections for Victoria at
2040 and 2065. CSIRO, 51 pp, [Final] VicCI project 8 report (csiro.au).
Potter NJ, Ekstrom ME, Chiew FHS, Zhang L and Fu G (2018) Change-signal impacts in downscaled data and
its influence on hydrological projections. Journal of Hydrology, 564, 12–25.
Potter NJ, Zhang L, Bennett B and Westra S (2018) Case study for Climate Resilience Analysis Framework
and Tools (CRAFT): managed aquifer recharge at Parafield airport. Goyder Institute for Water
Research, Technical Report 18/3, 18 pp.
Prosser IP, Chiew FHS and Stafford Smith M (2021) Adapting water management to climate change in the
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water, 13, 2504.
Queensland Government (2020) Making our water models climate change ready: are they up to the task?
Queensland Water Modelling Network, Queensland Government, 17 pp.
Rauniyar SP and Power SB (2020) The impact of anthropogenic forcing and natural processes on past,
present and future rainfall over Victoria, Australia. Journal of Climate, 33, 8807–8106.
Robertson DE and Wang QJ (2013) Seasonal forecasts of unregulated inflows into the Murray River,
Australia. Water Resources Management, 27, 2747–2769.
Robertson DE, Zheng H, Pena-Arancibia J, Chiew FHS, Aryal S, Potter NJ, Malerba ME (2022) What is the
effect of on-farm storages on catchment runoff under climate change? In Preparation.
Rojas R, Fu G and Gonzalez D (2022) Groundwater level trends and aquifer prioritisation in the Murray-
Darling Basin. MD-WERP Deliverable T.8b.2, 52 pp.
Saft M, Western AW, Zhang L, Peel MC and Potter NJ (2015) The influence of multiyear drought on the
annual rainfall-runoff relationship: an Australian perspective. Water Resources Research, 51, 2444–
2463.
Saft M. Peel MC, Western AW, Perraud J-M & Zhang L (2016) Bias in streamflow projections due to climate-
induced shifts in catchment response. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 1574–1581.
Salinger MJ, Renwick JA and Mullan AB 92021) Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and South Pacific climate.
International Journal of Climatology, 21, 1705–1721.
Shamarock WC, Klwemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, et al. (2008) A description of the advanced
research WRF Version 3. NCAR Technical Note, NCAR, Boulder, 113 pp.
Slatyer A (2021) Adaptation and policy responses to climate change impacts in the Murray-Darling Basin. In:
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia – Its Future Management (Editors: BT Hart et al.), pp. 275–286.
Smith IN and Chandler E (2009) Refining rainfall projections for the Murray-Darling Basin of south-eastern
Australia – the effect of sampling model results based on performance. Climatic Change, 102, 377–
393.
Stephens CM, McVicar TR, Johnson FM and Marshall LA (2018) Revisiting pan evaporation trends in
Australia a decade on. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 11164–11172.
Stewardson MJ, Walker G and Coleman M (2021) Hydrology of the Murray-Darling Basin. In: Murray-Darling
Basin, Australia – Its Future Management (Editors: BT Hart et al.), pp. 47–93.
Suppiah R, Hennessy KJ, Whetton PH, McInnes K, Macadam I, Bathols J, Ricketts J and Page CM (2007)
Australian climate change projections derived from simulations performed for the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report, Australian Meteorological Magazine, 56, 131–152.
Syktus J, Toombs N, Wong K, Trancoso R and Ahrens D (2020) Queensland future climate dataset –
downscaled CMIP5 climate projections for RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, Version 1.0.2. Terrestrial Research
Network (TERN), https://doi.org/10.25901/5e3ba30f141b7.
Teng J, Chiew FHS, Timbal B. Wang Y, Vaze J and Wang B (2012c) Assessment of an analogue downscaling
method for modelling climate change impacts on runoff. Journal of Hydrology, 472–473, 111–125.
Teng J, Chiew FHS, Vaze J, Marvanek S and Kirono DGC (2012a) Estimation of climate change impact on
mean annual runoff across continental Australia under Budyko and Fu equations and hydrological
models. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 13, 1094–1106.
Teng J, Vaze J, Chiew FHS, Wang B, Perraud JM and Marvanek S (2011) Estimation of climate change impact
on daily river inflows using a consistent method across the Murray-Darling Basin. Proceedings of
the 33rd Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Brisbane, July 2011, pp. 1538–1545.
Teng J, Vaze J, Chiew FHS, Wang B and Perraud J-M (2012b) Estimating the relative uncertainties sources
from GCMs and hydrological models in modelling climate change impact on runoff. Journal of
Hydrometeorology, 13, 122–139.
Timbal B and Hendon H (2011) The role of tropical modes of variability in the current rainfall deficit across
the Murray-Darling Basin. Water Resources Research, 47, W00G09.
Turner SWD, Bennett JC, Robertson DE and Galelli S (2017) Complex relationship between seasonal
streamflow forecast skill and value in reservoir operations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
21, 4841–4859.
Tuteja NK, Zhou S, Lerat J, Wang QJ, Shin D and Robertson DE (2019) Overview of communication strategies
for uncertainty in hydrological forecasting in Australia. In: Handbook of hydrometeorological
forecasting (Editors: Q Duan et al.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1161–1178.
Vaghefi SA, Iravani M, Sauchyn D, Andreichuk Y, Goss G and Faramarzi M (2019) Regionalisation and
parameterisation of a hydrologic model significantly affect the cascade of uncertainty in climate-
impact projections. Climate Dynalics, 53, 2862–2886.
van Dijk AIJM, Beck HE, Crosbie R, De Jeu RAM, Liu YY, Podger GM, Timbal B and Viney N (2013) The
Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009) Natural and human causes and implications
for water resources, ecosystems, economy and society. Water Resources Research, 2013, 49, 1040–
1057.
van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, et al. (2011) The representative concentration
pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 109, 5–31.
Vance TR, Ommen TDV, Curran MAJ, Plummer CT and Moy AD (2013) A millennial proxy record of ENSO
and eastern Australian rainfall from the Law Dome Ice Core, East Antarctica. Journal of Climate, 26,
710–725.

Vance TR, Roberts JL, Plummer CT, Kiem AS and van Ommen TD (2014) Interdecadal Pacific variability and
eastern Australian megadroughts over the last millennium. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 129–
137.
Viney NR, Perraud J, Vaze J, Chiew FH, Post DA and Yang A (2009) The usefulness of bias constraints in
model calibration for regionalisation to ungauged catchments. MODSIM 2009 International
Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Cairns, July 2009, pp. 3421–3427.
Walker G, Barnett S and Richardson S (2020) Developing a coordinated groundwater management plan for
the interstate Murray-Darling Basin. In: Sustainable Groundwater Management (Editors: JD Rinaudo
et al.), pp. 143–161.
Walker GR, Crosbie RS, Chiew FHS, Peeters L and Evans R (2021) Groundwater impacts and management
under a drying climate in southern Australia. Water, 13, 3588.
Wasko C and Nathan R (2019) Influence of changes in rainfall and soil moisture trends in flooding. Journal
of Hydrology, 575, 432–441.
Wasko C and Sharma A (2015) Steeper temporal distribution of rainfall intensity at higher temperatures
within Australian storms. Nature Geoscience, 8, 527–529.
Westra S and Sisson SA (2011) Detection of non-stationarity in precipitation extremes using a max-stable
process model. Journal of Hydrology, 406, 119–128.
Whetton P and Chiew F (2021) Climate change impacts in the Murray-Darling Basin. In: Murray-Darling
Basin, Australia – Its Future Management (Editors: BT Hart et al.), pp. 253–274.
Whetton PH, Grose MR and Hennessy KJ (2016) A short history of the future: Australian climate projections
1987–2015. Climate Services, 2–3, 1–14.
WSAA (2016) Climate change adaptation guidelines. Water Services Association of Australia, 89 pp, Report
(wsaa.asn.au).
Young WJ and Chiew FHS (2011) Climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin: implications for water use and
environmental consequences: In: Water Resources Planning and Management: Challenges and
Solutions (Editors: RQ Grafton and K Hussey), Cambridge University Press, 439–459.
Zhang L and Chiew FHS (2018) Climate change impact on water and irrigated agriculture in south-east
Australia. Consultancy report prepared for Canadian Pension Fund, 44 pp.
Zhang L, Zheng HX, Teng J, Chiew FHS and Post D (2020) Plausible hydroclimate futures for the Murray-
Darling Basin. A report for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, CSIRO, Australia, 34 pp.
Zhang XS, Amirthanathan GE, Bari MA, Laugesen RM, Shin D, Kent DM, MacDonald AM, Turner ME and
Tuteja NK (2016) How streamflow has changed across Australia since the 1950s: evidence from the
network of hydrologic reference stations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 3947–3965.
Zhang YQ and Chiew FHS (2012) Estimation of mean annual runoff across southeast Australia by
incorporating vegetation types into Budyko framework. Australian Journal of Water Resources, 15,
109–120.
Zheng H, Chiew FHS and Zhang L (2022) Can model parameterisation accounting for hydrological non-
stationarity improve robustness in future runoff projection? Journal of Hydrometeorology, In Press.
Zheng H, Chiew FHS, Potter NJ and Kirono DGC (2019) Projections of water futures for Australia: an update.
MODSIM 2019 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Canberra, December 2019, pp.
1000–1006, zhengH.pdf (mssanz.org.au).

MDB Outlook Hydroclimate Literature Review2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MDB Outlook Hydroclimate Literature Review2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

MDB Outlook Hydroclimate Literature Review2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australia’s National

Hydroclimate trends and

Hydroclimate trends and

2 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

2. HYDROCLIMATE OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN 7

3. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE HYDROCLIMATE IN THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN 20

4. HYDROCLIMATE SCENARIOS AND WATER RESOURCES MODELLING 33

Hydroclimate trends and

Rainfall and runoff in the Murray-Darling Basin

Climate trend and hydroclimate variability in the Murray-Darling Basin

4 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Developing hydrological projections for the Murray-Darling Basin

Climate change consideration for stakeholder engagement and hydrological modelling

Hydroclimate trends and

6 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

2.1 Climate and runoff across the Murray-Darling Basin

Hydroclimate trends and

8 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

10 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

Figure B2.1. Large-scale climate drivers influencing Australia’s climate.

12 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

14 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

16 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

18 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Understanding and modelling hydrological non-stationarity is important particularly when projections

Hydroclimate trends and

3.1 Projections of future climate and hydrology in the Murray-Darling Basin

20 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Figure 6. Projected change in runoff characteristics

22 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

24 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

Figure 8. Components in modelling climate change impact on streamflow.

3.2.1 Hydrological modelling of historical and future runoff

3.2.2 Future rainfall projections

28 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

30 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

32 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

34 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

36 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Bottom-up sensitivity modelling

Simple hydroclimate scenarios or storylines

Hydroclimate trends and

Some of the key considerations and recommendations are summarised below.

Hydroclimate projections for whole-of-Basin hydrological modelling

38 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and

40 | CSIRO Australia’s National Science Agency

Hydroclimate trends and