To anticipate monthly rainfall time series, autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling was performed using R studio. For a period of 30 years, the monthly rainfall data (in mm) were gathered for eight localities in the Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh: Bharol, Chachiyot, Jogindernagar, Karsog, Kataula, Mandi, Sarkaghat, and Sundernagar. The augmented Dickey–Fuller test was performed to determine whether the rainfall data were steady before applying the ARIMA model. The minimal values of the Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, autocorrelation function, and partial autocorrelation function were used to select the best models. The best fit was determined to be ARIMA (0,0,2) (2,1,0)12 for five stations and ARIMA (0,0,0) (1,1,0)12 for the remaining three stations. A box test is performed to validate the ARIMA model and verify the autocorrelation in the data. Using the ARIMA model, forecasts are made for the 10 years (2021–2030). The validity and performance of the ARIMA models were evaluated using error statistics (mean absolute error = 34.65, root-mean-square error = 33.58, and R2 = 0.93). The projected data's mean and standard deviation were close to the actual data. As a result, the ARIMA model's monthly rainfall prediction parameters were satisfactory.

  • Autoregressive integrated moving average modelling is beyond the traditional applications, which has been applied for the first time in the study area.

  • Minimal work has been done on forecasting of rainfall in the study area.

Water resources hold a unique position among other natural resources since they are present everywhere and affect both the environment and human existence. The need to increase human food production has led to the practice of land irrigation for millennia (Figuères et al. 2012). India's main economic sector is agriculture. Rainfall is one of the most important natural resources for a country like India where the majority of people depend on agriculture and irrigation. Several water reservoirs can be employed for agricultural purposes, including rivers, canals, and sand bore wells. However, the primary source of water for these reservoirs is rainfall. Rainfall is a natural climatic phenomenon that is difficult to forecast. Given how much the agriculture industry contributes to the country's economy, its forecast plays a crucial role in combatting water scarcity issues in agriculture (Agrawal 2006). The main reasons why rainfall predictions are far from accurate are unreliable starting circumstances, subscale modelling methods, and a lack of adequate spatial resolution (Bustamante et al. 1999; Chou et al. 2005).

Rainfall is an essential part of the water cycle (Eltahir & Bras 1996; Trenberth et al. 2003), and, in the field of meteorology and climatology, it is the most important and dynamic factor associated with atmospheric circulation (Kidd & Huffman 2011). Organisms are predominantly composed of liquid water, which serves numerous functions and should never be regarded only as an inactive solvent. However, after extensive research, several characteristics of water remain baffling. Life is said to rely on the exceptional characteristics of water (Chaplin 2001). Precise and dependable data on precipitation are essential for analysing climatic patterns and fluctuations, as well as for effectively managing water resources and making accurate weather, climate, and hydrological forecasts (Larson & Peck 1974; Jiang et al. 2012). Typically, gauge measurements are employed to directly monitor precipitation at the Earth's surface (Kidd 2001). Nevertheless, gauge measurements suffer from many limitations, including inadequate area coverage and shortcomings in regions near oceanic and low population density (Xie & Arkin 1996; Rana et al. 2015; Kidd et al. 2017). Satellite observations compensate for these shortcomings by utilising sophisticated infrared and microwave equipment to offer more consistent spatial coverage and complete temporal coverage for large regions of the world (Xie et al. 2003; Kidd & Levizzani 2011). These various forms of precipitation data products have demonstrated their utility in a diverse array of study domains. Global and regional climate change patterns have been measured and demonstrated using several sets of data. The data products have been used to study climatology and changes in climate means and extremes in several regions (Alexander et al. 2006; Kunkel et al. 2015).

To represent hydrological time series including runoff, rainfall, evaporation, and monthly stream flow, a number of stochastic models have been developed. All three of these models – autoregressive moving average, seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average, and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) – have varying orders. Yule (1927), Keskin et al. (2006), Modarres (2007), Nirmala & Sundaram (2010), Asklany et al. (2011), Hassan Ali & Mahgoub Mohamed (2015), and Meshram et al. (2015) are only a few examples of using the aforementioned models. A multidisciplinary analytical technique used to handle prediction concerns is time series forecasting. Because all that is needed for implementation are historical observations of the required variables, it is simple and adaptable (Alsharif et al. 2019). The Box-Jenkins approach is the most important time series model, also known as ARIMA (Ali 2013). The three stages of model creation should be followed when applying the Box-Jenkins model, or generally any stochastic model, to a specific problem (Hipel et al. 1977). An ARIMA model combines three operators: an autoregressive (AR) function applied to historical rainfall values, a moving average function applied to completely random values, and an integration (I) component acting as the differencing operator by minimizing the difference between them (Swain et al. 2018). Usually, time series with temporal correlation is simulated and forecasted using the linear statistical model ARIMA (Wang et al. 2021). Observations from the past and random disturbance term processes are the basis of AR processes. White noises are linearly modelled by moving average approaches. Similar to artificial neural networks, the ARIMA model, which combines moving average and AR processes, is a popular approach for forecasting rainfall (Ahmed Osmani et al. 2021). The predictive power of the ARIMA model has been greatly improved by technological breakthroughs in fields like computers, communication, remote sensing, and geographic information systems.

Previous research on Himachal Pradesh concentrated on trends in seasonal and annual rainfall (Jaswal et al. 2015), trends in rainfall analysis (Ganguly et al. 2015), trends in rainfall impacts (Sharma et al. 2019), and trends in rainfall assessment (Mohd Wani et al. 2017). The Mann–Kendall test is used in all of the aforementioned articles to analyse rainfall trends. In this work, monthly rainfall in Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), India, was predicted and simulated using ARIMA models.

The specific objectives were as follows:

  • (a) To determine the variation in distribution over the area studied with statistical parameters.

  • (b) To determine the pattern of rainfall.

  • (c) To forecast rainfall using ARIMA modelling.

Study area and data collection

For this study, the Mandi district was selected, which is located at 31°72′N latitude and 76° 92′E longitude (Figure 1). The geographical area of the Mandi district is 3,951 km2 (1,525 miles2), which is 7.10% area of the state and its elevation ranges from 450 to 4,800 m. Mandi is bound by six districts: Bilaspur, Hamirpur, Kangra, Kullu, Shimla, and Solan. Mandi experiences yearly temperature ranges between 6.7 °C (44.06 °F) and 39.6 °C (103.28 °F). The temperature ranges from 6.7 °C (44.06 °F) to 26.2 °C (79.16 °F) in the winter and from 18.9 °C (66.02 °F) to 39.6 °C (103.28 °F) in the summer. The relative humidity values are 100, 65, and 92% for the maximum, minimum, and average, respectively. Rainfall in the Mandi district ranges from 800 to 1,800 mm each year. The Köppen–Geiger climate classification system characterises the selected stations for investigation as having a humid subtropical climate influenced by the monsoons. This climatic zone is defined by hot, humid summers and cool winters. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley Research Center's Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resource (POWER), which utilises its satellite to calculate the amount of electromagnetic energy emitted by the raindrop or cloud, provided the rainfall data. For eight localities in the Mandi district, including Bharol, Chachiyot, Jogindernagar, Karsog, Kataula, Mandi, Sarkaghat, and Sundernagar, monthly rainfall data (in mm) for 30 years from 1991 to 2020 were extracted for rainfall modelling and forecasting.

Design of model

Establishing time series

Building time series for modelling and forecasting is the first stage in modelling (Meng et al. 2019). The data from Excel were converted into a time series format to make it compatible with R studio. The command employed in this action is:
where ‘ts’, frequency = 12, and c(1,991,1) denotes time series, number of months, and start period, respectively.

Autocorrelation test of time series

A series' autocorrelation function (ACF) can be utilised to see how its dynamics change over time. ACFs evaluate how closely a series is linked to its past, indicating how persistent it is (Abadir et al. 2013). The following functions were used to test for any degree of correlation in the time series data using the ACF and partial autocorrelation function (PACF) coefficients using commands in R studio as mentioned below:

Check for stationarity of data

The time series data were checked for stationarity to ensure that the mean and variance remained constant. The stationary test makes use of the augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) test. The R studio's adf.test() tool uses the ADF test as a unit root test to determine the time series property of rainfall data (Tam 2013).

Autoregressive integrated moving average model

A key forecasting tool that serves as the foundation for many fundamental time analysis concepts is the ARIMA model. The ARIMA approach is defined by three order parameters, p, d, and q, which, respectively, stand for the order of the AR model, the order of differencing, and the order of moving average (Awan & Aslam 2020). The final estimate is impacted by these factors. As a result, the prediction equation for the ARIMA (p, d, and q) process is as follows:
(1)
The model parameters in the aforementioned equation are 0, 1, and 1; εt is the white noise error term (i.e., the form of unidentifiable data devoid of any patterns) (Kaur & Ahuja 2017). The command for the ARIMA modelling was:

Parameter estimation and model selection

The R package ‘forecast's ‘auto.Arima’ function was used to calculate the parameters. This software's primary goal is as correctly as possible to apply the ARIMA model to time series data. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) or Bayesian information criterion value is then used to determine which ARIMA model is the best. The ideal model is fit with the lowest AIC value (Awan & Aslam 2020).

Ljung–Box test for model validation

The Ljung–Box test is a statistical method to assess whether the autocorrelation of any time series is different from zero. The unpredictability is investigated along a number of delays rather than being examined along each lag. The test is connected to the Box–Pierce test and is frequently used in time series modelling. The estimated value of the Ljung–Box Q statistic:
(2)
where rj is the squared sample autocorrelation coefficient of the residual time series and individual assignment levels, T is the sample size, and p is the number of lagged autocorrelations. For high test statistic values, the randomness null hypothesis is disproved since Q is more likely than 0.05 (Table 1). If the likelihood of Q is less than 0.05, there is an indication that the residuals are time subordinate and the model is insufficient (Dabral & Murry 2017). The command employed for the Ljung–Box test is:
Table 1

AIC values, Ljung–Box statistic values, and best-fit models

StationsARIMA modelAIC valueLjung–Box (p-value)
Bharol ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Chachiyot ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Jogindernagar ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Karsog ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,812.969 0.7566 
Kataula ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Mandi ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Sarkaghat ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Sundernagar ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
StationsARIMA modelAIC valueLjung–Box (p-value)
Bharol ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Chachiyot ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Jogindernagar ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Karsog ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,812.969 0.7566 
Kataula ARIMA(0,0,0)(1,1,0)[12] 3,958.356 0.2365 
Mandi ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Sarkaghat ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 
Sundernagar ARIMA(0,0,2)(2,1,0)[12] 3,931.858 0.9378 

Measurement of model's performance

Based on several statistical variables, including absolute error and percentage error, that are taken into account when calculating error statistics, model performance was evaluated to determine the potential for regeneration (Dabral & Murry 2017).

ARIMA modelling of monthly rainfall

The ADF test was used to determine the stationary nature of the monthly rainfall time series data (1991–2020). The null hypothesis is rejected since the p-value is far lower than the 5% level of significance; as a result, all data series were determined to be stationary. Only a few ACF and PACF spikes exceeded the confidence level to demonstrate stationarity further. Table 1 displays the best-fit models for eight stations with minimum AIC values. The Ljung–Box (Q) statistics test was used to determine whether the ARIMA was sufficient; the results are presented in Table 1. The Ljung–Box statistics p-values were higher than the threshold (p = 0.05), which led to the rejection of the autocorrelation in the ARIMA model residuals null hypothesis. There was no need for further modelling because, according to the analysis, residuals were random. The residuals' ACF and PACF plots were also used to confirm this (Figures 2 and 3).
Figure 1

Location of the study area.

Figure 1

Location of the study area.

Close modal
Figure 2

Autocorrelation functions of residuals for eight stations.

Figure 2

Autocorrelation functions of residuals for eight stations.

Close modal
Figure 3

Partial autocorrelation functions of residuals for eight stations.

Figure 3

Partial autocorrelation functions of residuals for eight stations.

Close modal

Review of monthly rainfall time series using the developed ARIMA model

To evaluate developed ARIMA models for monthly rainfall time series, original (observed) and anticipated rainfall data from 2016 to 2020 were compared (Figure 4). The mean and standard deviation of the expected monthly rainfall data were determined to be 97.5 and 95.2 mm, respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the measured values were calculated to be 95.94 and 97.81 mm, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the correlation coefficient and Nash–Sutcliffe's coefficient are 0.93 and 0.85, respectively. This demonstrated how fit the model was. However, Table 2 shows the projected absolute and relative error values. Estimates for the mean absolute error and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were discovered to be 24.64 and 33.58, respectively (Table 2). In comparison to previous research in the literature, the results are being obtained at a comparable pace (Swain et al. 2018; Dimri et al. 2020; Kumar et al. 2023). The absolute errors for the full year are also included in Table 2, and they were found to be between 2.24 mm and 64.37 mm. It was discovered that the absolute inaccuracy was the least in February, April, and December. In February, March, April, July, and December, the relative error was determined to be minimal (Table 2).
Table 2

Mean of monthly original (observed) and predicted values with errors of all stations

MonthMean observed values (mm)Mean predicted values (mm)Absolute errorRelative errorRoot-mean-square errorMean absolute errorCorrelation coefficientNash–Sutcliffe's coefficient
January 72.54 47.9 24.64 51.44 33.58 24.64 0.93 0.85 
February 60.64 68.82 8.17 11.88     
March 86.88 99.05 12.17 12.29     
April 52.47 48.44 4.03 8.32     
May 58.54 16.39 42.14 257.06     
June 103.23 133.62 30.39 22.74     
July 257.34 302.97 45.63 15.06     
August 294 239.98 54.02 22.51     
September 107.97 172.34 64.37 37.35     
October 5.27 14.25 8.98 62.99     
November 31.11 3.54 27.57 779.65     
December 21.49 23.73 2.24 9.44     
MonthMean observed values (mm)Mean predicted values (mm)Absolute errorRelative errorRoot-mean-square errorMean absolute errorCorrelation coefficientNash–Sutcliffe's coefficient
January 72.54 47.9 24.64 51.44 33.58 24.64 0.93 0.85 
February 60.64 68.82 8.17 11.88     
March 86.88 99.05 12.17 12.29     
April 52.47 48.44 4.03 8.32     
May 58.54 16.39 42.14 257.06     
June 103.23 133.62 30.39 22.74     
July 257.34 302.97 45.63 15.06     
August 294 239.98 54.02 22.51     
September 107.97 172.34 64.37 37.35     
October 5.27 14.25 8.98 62.99     
November 31.11 3.54 27.57 779.65     
December 21.49 23.73 2.24 9.44     
Figure 4

Original (observed) and predicted rainfall values of eight stations.

Figure 4

Original (observed) and predicted rainfall values of eight stations.

Close modal

Forecasting

Monthly rainfall forecasting for all eight locations was carried out from January 2016 to December 2020 after creating the best-fitted time series model using monthly rainfall data from January 1991 to December 2015. While data from January 2021 to December 2030 were utilised as an out-of-sample forecast, these forecasted data were used for model validation and can be considered an in-sample forecast, assuming that the residuals of all chosen models are determined to be roughly stationary and white noise, which means that the dependent variable's variance was adequately described. Remainders make it easy to determine if a model is a good fit for the data. Figure 5 shows rainfall-predicting estimates using best-fit models with a 95% confidence limit from January 2021 to December 2030. Figure 5 shows that the rainfall pattern is roughly the same for all locations chosen for this study. Figure 5 also illustrates monthly rainfall forecasting, represented by a blue line within the 95% upper and lower confidence limits. All predicted values precisely approximate the observed values, acknowledging the accuracy of the selected models' predictions.
Figure 5

Monthly rainfall predicted values.

Figure 5

Monthly rainfall predicted values.

Close modal

Forecasting and modelling rainfall is a challenging task. This study used ARIMA to build a forecasting model for the monthly average rainfall in the Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh. Using the ADF test, it was discovered that the monthly rainfall time series was stationary. Thus, ARIMA models were developed for eight distinct Mandi district regions. The Ljung–Box test reported white noise and normally distributed residuals in the diagnostic testing of all selected models. Higher prediction accuracy was also proven by the various performance statistics gathered during this study's model-building and validation phases. Finally, rainfall predictions can be made using the chosen model. For the 10-year period (2021–2030), monthly rainfall was predicted using the developed ARIMA models. Researchers can apply the findings of this study to other hydrological and water resource management studies. Farmers rely on the weather because of inadequate irrigation infrastructure. Abrupt weather changes necessitate enhanced long-term planning and administration. Consider the effects of climate change before choosing a disaster preparedness strategy. Policymakers should prioritise water demand management.

Although the models were able to accurately reproduce the majority of rainfall patterns, precisely modelling of extreme rainfall patterns remains a difficult task. In addition, the models did not consider several minor seasonal variations in the rainfall data. Additional research is necessary to enhance the models, potentially investigating the following domains:

  • To incorporate models that were developed for the purpose of predicting extreme rainfall.

  • To investigate models capable of fitting time series with multiple seasonal patterns, such as Box-Cox transformation, ARMA errors, trend, and seasonal components (BATS), trigonometric exponential smoothing state space model with Box-Coxt transformation, ARMA errors, trend, and seasonal components (TBATS).

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare no conflict of Interest.

Abadir
K. M.
,
Caggiano
G.
&
Talmain
G.
2013
Nelson-Plosser revisited: The ACF approach
.
Journal of Econometrics
175
(
1
),
22
34
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.02.006
.
Agrawal
K.
2006
Modelling and prediction of rainfall using artificial neural network and ARIMA techniques
.
Journal of Indian Geophysical Union
10
(
2
),
141
151
.
Ahmed Osmani
S. A.
,
Mahmud
F. B.
&
Abu Zafor
M. C.
2021
Prediction of rainfall using machine learning algorithms for different districts of Meghalaya. International Conference on Engineering Research and Education School of Applied Sciences & Technology. SUST, Sylhet, pp. 549–563
.
Alexander
L. V.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Peterson
T. C.
,
Caesar
J.
,
Gleason
B.
,
Klein Tank
A. M. G.
&
Vazquez-Aguirre
J. L.
2006
Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation
.
Journal of Geophysical Research
111
,
D05109
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006290
.
Ali
S. M.
2013
Time series analysis of Baghdad rainfall using ARIMA method
.
Iraqi Journal of Science
54
(
4
),
1136
1142
.
Alsharif
M. H.
,
Younes
M. K.
&
Kim
J.
2019
Time series ARIMA model for prediction of daily and monthly average global solar radiation: The case study of Seoul, South Korea
.
Symmetry
11
(
2
),
1
17
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020240
.
Asklany
S. A.
,
Elhelow
K.
,
Youssef
I. K.
&
Abd El-wahab
M.
2011
Rainfall events prediction using rule-based fuzzy inference system
.
Atmospheric Research
101
(
1–2
),
228
236
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.02.015
.
Awan
T. M.
&
Aslam
F.
2020
Prediction of daily COVID-19 cases in European countries using automatic ARIMA model
.
Journal of Public Health Research
9
(
3
),
227
233
.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1765
.
Bustamante
J. F.
,
Gomes
J. L.
,
Chou
S. C.
&
Rozante
J. R.
1999
Evaluation of April 1999 Rainfall Forecasts Over South America using the Eta model
.
Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos Climáticos - CPTEC Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - INPE Cachoeira Paulista, SP, 12630-000, Brazil
.
Chaplin
M. F.
2001
Water: Its importance to life
.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
29
(
2
),
54
59
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-3429.2001.tb00070.x
.
Chou
S. C.
,
Bustamante
J. F.
&
Gomes
J. L.
2005
Evaluation of ETA model seasonal precipitation forecasts over South America
.
Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
12
(
4
),
537
555
.
https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-12-537-2005
.
Dabral
P. P.
&
Murry
M. Z.
2017
Modelling and forecasting of rainfall time series using SARIMA
.
Environmental Processes
4
(
2
),
399
419
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-017-0226-y
.
Dimri
T.
,
Ahmad
S.
&
Sharif
M.
2020
Time series analysis of climate variables using seasonal ARIMA approach
.
Journal of Earth System Science
129
(
1
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01408-x
.
Eltahir
E. A. B.
&
Bras
R. L.
1996
Precipitation recycling
.
Reviews of Geophysics
34
(
3
),
367
378
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/96RG01927
.
Figuères
C. M.
,
Tortajada
C.
&
Rockström
J.
2012
Rethinking water management: Innovative approaches to contemporary issues
.
Rethinking Water Management Innovative Approaches to Contemporary Issues
1
242
.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772402
.
Ganguly
A.
,
Ray Chaudhuri
R.
&
Sharma
P.
2015
Analysis of trend of the precipitation data: A case study of Kangra District, Himachal Pradesh
.
International Journal of Research –GRANTHAALAYAH
3
(
9
),
87
95
.
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v3.i9.2015.2948
.
Hassan Ali
H. M.
&
Mahgoub Mohamed
T.
2015
Rainfall Drought Simulating Using Stochastic SARIMA Models for Gadaref Region, Sudan
.
MPRA Paper No. 61153
, Vol.
2014
.
Sudan. University of Khartoum, Khartoum Technical College, Khartoum
, pp.
1
11
.
Hipel
K. W.
,
McLeod
A. I.
&
Lennox
W. C.
1977
Advances in Box-Jenkins modeling: 1. Model construction
.
Water Resources Research
13
(
3
),
567
575
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR013i003p00567
.
Jaswal
A. K.
,
Bhan
S. C.
,
Karandikar
A. S.
&
Gujar
M. K.
2015
Seasonal and annual rainfall trends in Himachal Pradesh during 1951–2005
.
Mausam
66
(
2
),
247
264
.
https://doi.org/10.54302/mausam.v66i2.534
.
Kaur
H.
&
Ahuja
S.
2017
Time series analysis and prediction of electricity consumption of health care institution using ARIMA model
.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
547
,
347
358
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3325-4_35
.
Keskin
M. E.
,
Taylan
D.
&
Terzi
Ö
.
2006
Adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach for modelling hydrological time series
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
51
(
4
),
588
598
.
https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.4.588
.
Kidd
C.
2001
Satellite rainfall climatology: A review
.
International Journal of Climatology
21
(
9
),
1041
1066
.
Kidd
C.
&
Huffman
G.
2011
Global precipitation measurement
.
Meteorological Applications
18
(
3
),
334
353
.
Kidd
C.
&
Levizzani
V.
2011
Status of satellite precipitation retrievals
.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
15
(
4
),
1109
1116
.
Kidd
C.
,
Becker
A.
,
Huffman
G. J.
,
Muller
C. L.
,
Joe
P.
,
Skofronick-Jackson
G.
&
Kirschbaum
D. B.
2017
So, how much of the Earth's surface is covered by rain gauges?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
98
,
69
78
.
https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-14-00283.1
.
Kumar
U.
,
Panday
S. C.
,
Bisht
J. K.
&
Kant
L.
2023
Development and evaluation of seasonal rainfall forecasting (SARIMA) model for Kumaon region of Uttarakhand Development and evaluation of seasonal rainfall forecasting (SARIMA) model for Kumaon region of Uttarakhand
.
Indian Journal of Soil Conservation
50
,
190
198
.
Kunkel
K. E.
,
Vose
R. S.
,
Stevens
L. E.
&
Knight
R. W.
2015
Is the monthly temperature climate of the United States becoming more extreme?
Geophysical Research Letters
42
,
629
636
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062035
.
Larson
L. W.
&
Peck
E. L.
1974
Accuracy of precipitation measurements for hydrologic modeling
.
Water Resources Research
10
(
4
),
857
863
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR010i004p00857
.
Meng
X.
,
Zhang
M.
,
Wen
J.
,
Du
S.
,
Xu
H.
,
Wang
L.
&
Yang
Y.
2019
A simple GIS-based model for urban rainstorm inundation simulation
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
11
(
10
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102830
.
Meshram
D. T.
,
Gorantiwar
S. D.
,
Mittal
H. K.
&
Jain
H. K
.
2015
Forecasting of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) evapotranspiration by using seasonal ARIMA model
.
Indian Journal of Soil Conservation
43
(
1
),
38
46
.
Modarres
R.
2007
Streamflow drought time series forecasting
.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
21
(
3
),
223
233
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0058-1
.
Mohd Wani
J.
,
Sarda
V. K.
&
Jain
S. K.
2017
Assessment of trends and variability of rainfall and temperature for the district of Mandi in Himachal Pradesh, India
.
Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering
25
(
3
),
15
22
.
https://doi.org/10.1515/sjce-2017-0014
Nirmala
M.
&
Sundaram
S. M.
2010
A seasonal ARIMA model for forecasting monthly rainfall in Tamilnadu
.
National Journal on Advances in Building Sciences and Mechanics
1
(
2
),
43
47
.
Sharma
S.
,
Khare
D.
&
Mukherjee
M.
2019
Impact of annual rainfall trends on water management in hill towns: A case study on Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh), India
.
International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction
8
(
3
).
https://doi.org/10.7492/ijaec.2019.017
.
Swain
S.
,
Nandi
S.
&
Patel
P.
2018
Development of an ARIMA model for monthly rainfall forecasting over Khordha District, Odisha, India
. In:
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
, Vol.
708
.
(Sa, P., Bakshi, S., Hatzilygeroudis, I. & Sahoo, M., eds.)
.
Springer
,
Singapore
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8636-6_34
.
Tam
P. S.
2013
Finite-sample distribution of the augmented dickey-Fuller test with lag optimization
.
Applied Economics
45
(
24
),
3495
3511
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.724159
.
Trenberth
K. E.
,
Dai
A.
,
Rasmussen
R. M.
&
Parsons
D. B.
2003
The changing character of precipitation
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
84
(
9
),
1205
1217
.
Wang
W.
,
Du
Y.
,
Chau
K.
,
Chen
H.
&
Liu
C.
2021
A comparison of BPNN, GMDH, and ARIMA for monthly rainfall forecasting based on wavelet packet decomposition
.
Water
13 (
20
),
2871
.
Xie
P. P.
,
Janowiak
J. E.
,
Arkin
P. A.
,
Adler
R.
,
Gruber
A.
,
Ferraro
R.
&
Curtis
S.
2003
GPCP pentad precipitation analyses: An experimental dataset based on gauge observations and satellite estimates
.
Journal of Climate
16
(
13
),
2197
2214
.
Yule
G. U.
1927
VII. On a method of investigating periodicities disturbed series, with special reference to Wolfer's sunspot numbers
.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character
226
(
636–646
),
267
298
.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1927.0007
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).