Comments for A Science Initiative of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs Open discussion on the next 10 years of research in hydrology Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:47:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on The Science Plan of the IAHS Decade 2013 – 2022 by Manfred Ostrowski http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-348 Manfred Ostrowski Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:47:27 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-348 Comment on Science Plan I know I am late, nevertheless I want to make some comments on the science plan. First of all, the key words change and society seem to fit the needs. In the discussion I found two contributions, which I support strongly, these are the ones by Luigia Brandimarti and the one by David Garen. My obeservation from most others is the desire to continue on modelling and uncertainty from Pub some with connection to the two keywords, some even not. However, how can one define such a program without the active participation of the target group, ecologists, social scientists, economists, etc. The reason is probably that the discussion was mainly lead by the pub community. Accepting that Pub was a success I still ask myself what it produced for engineering practice and society. I am an engineering hydrologist and water manager and I know that society outside the close community represented here is interested in modelling uncertainty, not even in models at all. Society is interested in risk: The risk that climate change might reduce the availabilty of water for water supply and irrigation or increase floods The risk that a hydraulic structure is underdesigned (such as dam or dyke) and might fail or is overdesigned and money ist wasted The risk that overuse of natural resources might destroy natural habitats (Anthropogenic hydrologic alteration and coupled ecologic models) …. Modelling uncertainty and risk estimation are related of course. However, what I saw under Pub with few exceptions is the attempt to reproduce measure flow series more accurately, For risk assessment that does not mean much. The important question is, what is the risk in the extrapolation of the model to extremes. Models are and will be uncertain, whatever we develop. And they can be uncertain to the degree that avoids wrong decisions. Another important field not covered so far ist the development of potential future scenarios (scenario technology).Scenarios like climate change (I think we have sufficiently dealt with that for the moment), development of megacities, rural landuse change are some examples. To look at that in an integrative manner, you will need highly interdisciplinary approaches, which did not become visible. Future models must be basinwide models including water quality and urbanized areas and hydraulic infrastructure, not as all as lumped as now. Here we need approaches to transfer relevant hydrologic variables to understandable and assessible information for the decision maker including the public. In fact there is much more available in application than pure hydrologic might think. So my conclusion is, good choice of topics but a quite unclear and incomplete concept Regards Manfred Ostrowski Comment on Science Plan

I know I am late, nevertheless I want to make some comments on the science plan. First of all, the key words change and society seem to fit the needs. In the discussion I found two contributions, which I support strongly, these are the ones by Luigia Brandimarti and the one by David Garen.
My obeservation from most others is the desire to continue on modelling and uncertainty from Pub some with connection to the two keywords, some even not.
However, how can one define such a program without the active participation of the target group, ecologists, social scientists, economists, etc. The reason is probably that the discussion was mainly lead by the pub community.
Accepting that Pub was a success I still ask myself what it produced for engineering practice and society. I am an engineering hydrologist and water manager and I know that society outside the close community represented here is interested in modelling uncertainty, not even in models at all. Society is interested in risk:

The risk that climate change might reduce the availabilty of water for water supply and irrigation or increase floods
The risk that a hydraulic structure is underdesigned (such as dam or dyke) and might fail or is overdesigned and money ist wasted
The risk that overuse of natural resources might destroy natural habitats (Anthropogenic hydrologic alteration and coupled ecologic models)
….

Modelling uncertainty and risk estimation are related of course. However, what I saw under Pub with few exceptions is the attempt to reproduce measure flow series more accurately, For risk assessment that does not mean much. The important question is, what is the risk in the extrapolation of the model to extremes. Models are and will be uncertain, whatever we develop. And they can be uncertain to the degree that avoids wrong decisions.

Another important field not covered so far ist the development of potential future scenarios (scenario technology).Scenarios like climate change (I think we have sufficiently dealt with that for the moment), development of megacities, rural landuse change are some examples.

To look at that in an integrative manner, you will need highly interdisciplinary approaches, which did not become visible. Future models must be basinwide models including water quality and urbanized areas and hydraulic infrastructure, not as all as lumped as now.

Here we need approaches to transfer relevant hydrologic variables to understandable and assessible information for the decision maker including the public.

In fact there is much more available in application than pure hydrologic might think.

So my conclusion is, good choice of topics but a quite unclear and incomplete concept

Regards

Manfred Ostrowski

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The Science Plan of the IAHS Decade 2013 – 2022 by David Garen http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-191 David Garen Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:04:09 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-191 I have missed the deadline for submission of comments, but I am posting anyway, in the hopes that there is still opportunity for my comments to be considered. I am pleased to see that a very abbreviated version of my previous blog post made it into the document (page 25, under “More Science Questions ...”). This has to do with ethics and IWRM. I would just like to point out and re-emphasize what I mean by this as it relates to the draft science plan. The science plan is full of words, phrases, and sentences mentioning things like “connection with society” “economic, policy and legal frameworks that govern water availability” “connections with ... economics and social sciences” “human connections to the water cycle” “patterns of social behaviour” “interdisciplinary approach involving social scientists, economists, decision makers, and users” And so on. In other words, if this new initiative is to include the human element, fundamental processes influencing human behaviour must be considered. Human behaviour is driven by primary motivations such as ethics, psychology, economics, and government. For example, water resources development has heretofore been driven by an ethic of domination of nature and an economic system that has ignored environmental impacts and rewarded only those activities that make money for humans. As another example, in Figure 5, which shows the interrelationships among many hydrologic elements, the item “Understanding helps set management targets” immediately involves ethics and economics. That is, our ethics, assumptions, worldview, and economic incentives as humans are the framework in which management goals are conceived and selected. The point I want to make is that water resources management is not just a value-free, objective scientific endeavour. Rather, it strikes at the very heart of our values and how we view the role of humans in the world. To understand how humanity behaves and ought to proceed -- in the face of environmental issues (with water being one of the main ones) that continually increase in severity and complexity -- we must face square-on what ethic has driven us in the past and what ethic will drive us in the future. While increasing scientific knowledge is good, it needs to be focused on addressing current pressing problems, and in order to do so, we have to put it in the context of what we are going to do with this knowledge (or what we will do in the face of uncertainty and lack of knowledge). What we do is driven by our ethics and our economic system. These ideas connect most directly with Science Question 5 (“What are key actions to get connected with society?”). However, really, they underlie the motivations for all of the scientific endeavours mentioned in the other science questions. Anyway, I hope that somehow, these ideas can contribute to making the new science plan relevant for addressing urgent water issues in the coming decade. David Garen Portland, Oregon, USA I have missed the deadline for submission of comments, but I am posting anyway, in the hopes that there is still opportunity for my comments to be considered.

I am pleased to see that a very abbreviated version of my previous blog post made it into the document (page 25, under “More Science Questions …”). This has to do with ethics and IWRM. I would just like to point out and re-emphasize what I mean by this as it relates to the draft science plan.

The science plan is full of words, phrases, and sentences mentioning things like

“connection with society”
“economic, policy and legal frameworks that govern water availability”
“connections with … economics and social sciences”
“human connections to the water cycle”
“patterns of social behaviour”
“interdisciplinary approach involving social scientists, economists, decision makers, and users”

And so on. In other words, if this new initiative is to include the human element, fundamental processes influencing human behaviour must be considered.

Human behaviour is driven by primary motivations such as ethics, psychology, economics, and government. For example, water resources development has heretofore been driven by an ethic of domination of nature and an economic system that has ignored environmental impacts and rewarded only those activities that make money for humans.

As another example, in Figure 5, which shows the interrelationships among many hydrologic elements, the item “Understanding helps set management targets” immediately involves ethics and economics. That is, our ethics, assumptions, worldview, and economic incentives as humans are the framework in which management goals are conceived and selected.

The point I want to make is that water resources management is not just a value-free, objective scientific endeavour. Rather, it strikes at the very heart of our values and how we view the role of humans in the world.

To understand how humanity behaves and ought to proceed — in the face of environmental issues (with water being one of the main ones) that continually increase in severity and complexity — we must face square-on what ethic has driven us in the past and what ethic will drive us in the future. While increasing scientific knowledge is good, it needs to be focused on addressing current pressing problems, and in order to do so, we have to put it in the context of what we are going to do with this knowledge (or what we will do in the face of uncertainty and lack of knowledge). What we do is driven by our ethics and our economic system.

These ideas connect most directly with Science Question 5 (“What are key actions to get connected with society?”). However, really, they underlie the motivations for all of the scientific endeavours mentioned in the other science questions. Anyway, I hope that somehow, these ideas can contribute to making the new science plan relevant for addressing urgent water issues in the coming decade.

David Garen
Portland, Oregon, USA

Vote this comment    
3 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The Science Plan of the IAHS Decade 2013 – 2022 by Salvatore Grimaldi http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-178 Salvatore Grimaldi Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:01:17 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-178 The ICSH-International Commission on Statistical Hydrology is particularly satisfied of the Panta-Rhei Science Plan Draft. We are glad that in the next decade the community will be invited to focus on uncertainty and change (Scientific question 2) that are inherent topics of our Commission. We are also delighted that a scientific question (number 4) is devoted to new observations that, of course, are the premise for a suitable application of every statistical models. Happy New Year!!! Salvatore Grimaldi President ICSH-IAHS The ICSH-International Commission on Statistical Hydrology is particularly
satisfied of the Panta-Rhei Science Plan Draft. We are glad that in the next
decade the community will be invited to focus on uncertainty and change
(Scientific question 2) that are inherent topics of our Commission. We
are also delighted that a scientific question (number 4) is devoted to new
observations that, of course, are the premise for a suitable application of
every statistical models.

Happy New Year!!!
Salvatore Grimaldi
President ICSH-IAHS

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The Science Plan of the IAHS Decade 2013 – 2022 by Ciaran Harman and Sally Thompson http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-146 Ciaran Harman and Sally Thompson Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:13:15 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=328#comment-146 If the new IAHS initiative is to be a success, the science questions must be concrete and compelling. Here are some examples that we feel address broad issues but still address definite scientific concerns: 1. How do we identify the occurrence and drivers of change in historical hydrologic systems where processes at different scales interact? 2. What are the areas where current hydrologic modeling approaches don’t predict (or retrodict) changing hydrologic systems very well right now? How wrong are we? Why are we wrong? What are the key weaknesses? 3. How do we measure fluxes and changes in water storage and landscape properties (particularly in the subsurface) at scales relevant for understanding macroscopic systems, new model parameterization and real-world problems? 4. How important are different types of hydrologic changes to ecosystems and human society? How do we measure that importance? Where are the vulnerabilities and opportunities that have arisen when hydrologic systems change? 5. How do changes in hydrologic systems (either through changes in forcing or in landscapes) interact and feed back on natural and social systems driven by hydrology? These questions are not intended as a comprehensive summary of the questions posed and discussed in the draft science plan or discussions leading up to it, but we are contributing them here in the interests of continuing the discussion. Several of the science questions in the draft report represent laudable goals, but seem to belong in the implementation plan. SC3 and SC5 in particular, which ask how the community should go about ensuring model soundness and transparency, and how to do better outreach and engagement, are important challenges for the community to address, but to address them as science questions should perhaps be left to the social sciences. If the new IAHS initiative is to be a success, the science questions must be concrete and compelling. Here are some examples that we feel address broad issues but still address definite scientific concerns:

1. How do we identify the occurrence and drivers of change in historical hydrologic systems where processes at different scales interact?

2. What are the areas where current hydrologic modeling approaches don’t predict (or retrodict) changing hydrologic systems very well right now? How wrong are we? Why are we wrong? What are the key weaknesses?

3. How do we measure fluxes and changes in water storage and landscape properties (particularly in the subsurface) at scales relevant for understanding macroscopic systems, new model parameterization and real-world problems?

4. How important are different types of hydrologic changes to ecosystems and human society? How do we measure that importance? Where are the vulnerabilities and opportunities that have arisen when hydrologic systems change?

5. How do changes in hydrologic systems (either through changes in forcing or in landscapes) interact and feed back on natural and social systems driven by hydrology?

These questions are not intended as a comprehensive summary of the questions posed and discussed in the draft science plan or discussions leading up to it, but we are contributing them here in the interests of continuing the discussion. Several of the science questions in the draft report represent laudable goals, but seem to belong in the implementation plan. SC3 and SC5 in particular, which ask how the community should go about ensuring model soundness and transparency, and how to do better outreach and engagement, are important challenges for the community to address, but to address them as science questions should perhaps be left to the social sciences.

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Alberto Montanari http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-130 Alberto Montanari Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:25:43 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-130 Dear Bloggers, I am posting a comment on behalf of Greg Characklis who is currently travelling. **** Alberto, Thanks for all of your efforts on this. I hope that it turns out to be an influential exercise. One thought that occurs to me is that the Hydrology community speaks very openly about trying to use its research to address the water-related challenges that society faces, but it is often difficult to see exactly how many projects are connected to societal problems. One thing that might be nice is to have a group think about a list of some of the biggest challenges and explicitly describe them in ways that would be recognizable to those outside of the Hydrology community. These would likely include issues like: - Ensuring reliable water supplies - Protection against floods - Maintenance of healthy ecosystems - etc. Then the list of research themes described in the Science Plan could be described (at least partly) in terms of the specific societal problem to which they are relevant. My observation has been that, in the past, very few people outside of the Hydrology community understand how the community's research benefits society, and this might be a way of (1) helping those outside of Hydrology to understand the value of hydrologic research, and (2) ask the Hydrology community to take a moment to think about its research agenda within the context of the challenges that society faces. Greg Characklis Dear Bloggers, I am posting a comment on behalf of Greg Characklis who is currently travelling.

****
Alberto,
Thanks for all of your efforts on this. I hope that it turns out to be an influential exercise.
One thought that occurs to me is that the Hydrology community speaks very openly about trying to use its research to address the water-related challenges that society faces, but it is often difficult to see exactly how many projects are connected to societal problems.
One thing that might be nice is to have a group think about a list of some of the biggest challenges and explicitly describe them in ways that would be recognizable to those outside of the Hydrology community. These would likely include issues like:
- Ensuring reliable water supplies
- Protection against floods
- Maintenance of healthy ecosystems
- etc.
Then the list of research themes described in the Science Plan could be described (at least partly) in terms of the specific societal problem to which they are relevant.
My observation has been that, in the past, very few people outside of the Hydrology community understand how the community’s research benefits society, and this might be a way of (1) helping those outside of Hydrology to understand the value of hydrologic research, and (2) ask the Hydrology community to take a moment to think about its research agenda within the context of the challenges that society faces.

Greg Characklis

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Alberto Montanari http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-129 Alberto Montanari Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:51:31 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-129 Dear Bloggers, I am back home after the meeting in Delft and I wish to thank all of you for the productive exchange of ideas that we had last week, which is still continuing. In fact, we got today the blog contributions of Keith Beven and Uwe Ehret (thanks to both of you!) and I am still receiving many comments via email. Indeed, the discussions we had during the sessions in Delft were extremely high quality. For your interest, the slides of the talk I gave in Delft can be downloaded <a href="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/alberto/site/files/delft-scienceplan.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Unfortunately I have now to rush back to my academic commitments for some days, but I promised to prepare finalise the draft of the Science Plan of the new decade by the mid of November, by taking into account all the inputs I am receiving. I will prepare a new blog post to share the draft document with the whole community. Then, the blog will still be open for comments until Dec 31st. This latter date will mark the closure of the job of the task force, that will be then dissolved accordingly to the initial plan. The Science and Implementation Plan will be finalised by me, in cooperation with the IAHS officers, during the first two months of 2013, to be ready to be approved by the IAHS Bureau in July 2013, when the new decade will be launched. For now, I am pleased to report that the IAHS Bureau has approved the name of the new initiative, namely, PANTA RHEI. It means "everything flows" (please see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei.2C_.22everything_flows.22" rel="nofollow"> here</a>. Therefore, it is an excellent synthesis of the new decade's aims. As I anticipated above, I will upload a new post on the blog as soon as the next draft of the Science Plan is ready. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to comment! All the best, Alberto Dear Bloggers,

I am back home after the meeting in Delft and I wish to thank all of you for the productive exchange of ideas that we had last week, which is still continuing. In fact, we got today the blog contributions of Keith Beven and Uwe Ehret (thanks to both of you!) and I am still receiving many comments via email. Indeed, the discussions we had during the sessions in Delft were extremely high quality.

For your interest, the slides of the talk I gave in Delft can be downloaded here.

Unfortunately I have now to rush back to my academic commitments for some days, but I promised to prepare finalise the draft of the Science Plan of the new decade by the mid of November, by taking into account all the inputs I am receiving. I will prepare a new blog post to share the draft document with the whole community. Then, the blog will still be open for comments until Dec 31st. This latter date will mark the closure of the job of the task force, that will be then dissolved accordingly to the initial plan.

The Science and Implementation Plan will be finalised by me, in cooperation with the IAHS officers, during the first two months of 2013, to be ready to be approved by the IAHS Bureau in July 2013, when the new decade will be launched.

For now, I am pleased to report that the IAHS Bureau has approved the name of the new initiative, namely, PANTA RHEI. It means “everything flows” (please see here. Therefore, it is an excellent synthesis of the new decade’s aims.

As I anticipated above, I will upload a new post on the blog as soon as the next draft of the Science Plan is ready. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to comment!

All the best,
Alberto

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Keith Beven http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-128 Keith Beven Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:40:14 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-128 Alberto, John Selker expressed my concerns about the current draft of the science plan very nicely in Delft. The need for a real drive on new measurement techniques is not listed in your key points and your SQ4 "How can we make use of new observation and information technologies in a new generation of models" is passive ("make use of") not pro-active ("How can we initiate the development of new measurement techniques....."). As I expressed before, this needs action along the lines of the design of a new satellite (with a similar decadal time scale) i.e. the critical questions: What is the functional requirement? What is technically possible? Who will fund it? If there is to be a new IAHS Working Group on Observational Methods then it needs to be an integral part of the new Science Plan. It is not too difficult to suggest areas where we need drastically improved measurement methods..... including discharge in an arbitrary channel to an accuracy where increments of discharge downstream would be meaningful, and total changes in storage at some useful scale. k Alberto,

John Selker expressed my concerns about the current draft of the science plan very nicely in Delft. The need for a real drive on new measurement techniques is not listed in your key points and your SQ4 “How can we make use of new observation and information technologies in a new generation of models” is passive (“make use of”) not pro-active (“How can we initiate the development of new measurement techniques…..”). As I expressed before, this needs action along the lines of the design of a new satellite (with a similar decadal time scale) i.e. the critical questions: What is the functional requirement? What is technically possible? Who will fund it?

If there is to be a new IAHS Working Group on Observational Methods then it needs to be an integral part of the new Science Plan. It is not too difficult to suggest areas where we need drastically improved measurement methods….. including discharge in an arbitrary channel to an accuracy where increments of discharge downstream would be meaningful, and total changes in storage at some useful scale.

k

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Uwe Ehret http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-127 Uwe Ehret Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:13:02 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-127 Dear Alberto Montanari and the organizers of the new IAHS decade, Coming back from the great PUB meeting in Delft, I would like to add a comment I could not make in the pop-up presentations due to time constraints: When I look from a hydrologists perspective to the atmospheric sciences, I am a bit jealous due to several reasons: - first, with the WMO they have an organization which actually sets world-wide standards for the way data are collected, - second, they run world-wide coordinated measurements and have these data operationally available for forecasting, - third, they have a relatively small number of models which are used and further developed by many institutions. Why are the meteorologists in this repsect considerably further than we are? I think out of sheer necessity: Weather modeling & forecasting can only be achieved on global scale, while hydrology's blessing and curse is that catchments exist which allow to a certain degree isolated considerations. This got us pretty far with simple models, largely neglecting many crucial feedback mechanisms. However, for predictions under change and taking into account the many facets of water (ecological, human, etc.) this is no longer possible. What I suggest as central goals for hydrology in order to understand (and predict) hydrological change, we need - world-wide long-term observatories in which data relevant for all the disciplines related to hydrology are collected in a standardized way. This will help to overcome case-specificness and incomparability of individual studies - setting standards for the retrieval and central storage of data to facilitate data use - A joint hydrological model platform to which all hydrologists can contribute to step beyond the development of many similar models. All these tasks require long-term and international activities and the question is to which organization these could be attached to. I hope with this I can contribute to the formulation of the new IAHS science goals. Best regards, Uwe Ehret Dear Alberto Montanari and the organizers of the new IAHS decade,

Coming back from the great PUB meeting in Delft, I would like to add a comment I could not make in the pop-up presentations due to time constraints:

When I look from a hydrologists perspective to the atmospheric sciences, I am a bit jealous due to several reasons:
- first, with the WMO they have an organization which actually sets world-wide standards for the way data are collected,
- second, they run world-wide coordinated measurements and have these data operationally available for forecasting,
- third, they have a relatively small number of models which are used and further developed by many institutions.

Why are the meteorologists in this repsect considerably further than we are? I think out of sheer necessity: Weather modeling & forecasting can only be achieved on global scale, while hydrology’s blessing and curse is that catchments exist which allow to a certain degree isolated considerations. This got us pretty far with simple models, largely neglecting many crucial feedback mechanisms. However, for predictions under change and taking into account the many facets of water (ecological, human, etc.) this is no longer possible.

What I suggest as central goals for hydrology in order to understand (and predict) hydrological change, we need
- world-wide long-term observatories in which data relevant for all the disciplines related to hydrology are collected in a standardized way. This will help to overcome case-specificness and incomparability of individual studies
- setting standards for the retrieval and central storage of data to facilitate data use
- A joint hydrological model platform to which all hydrologists can contribute to step beyond the development of many similar models.

All these tasks require long-term and international activities and the question is to which organization these could be attached to.

I hope with this I can contribute to the formulation of the new IAHS science goals.

Best regards,
Uwe Ehret

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Semu Moges http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-126 Semu Moges Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:31:24 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-126 the Targets coined in the plan - understanding, estimation/prediction and addressing societal impacts requires one to think to see more elaboration but we are discussing on it. Few comments I have today are on data and past infrastructures and hydrology. As a hydrologist working with stations in developing world, I have had the chance to access data from different sources, vistsed many stations. We have witnessed the location of measurement are changed, different precision measuring equipments installed or used along the years, the rating curve data are not updates, the location of the channel morphology is unstable, etc. However, we don't see the change points on the metadat regarding location, morphology, equipment change, etc...we collect whatever data we get from agencies we put it on our model and take several days/weeks of our time in fitting and forcing the data to a model. There are instances where we have quite different set of data for the same stations accessed from different agencies. Consdequently it is likely broader or wider changes are obsecured and not visible in stations of similar geogrphical location. We have seen adjacent stations showing different signals during regional drought phenomenon. the challenges of ground data base remians a challenge for validation of remote sensed data, data assimilating and improving technologies. Therefore, focusing on spatial data reconstruction and modelling may be one areas we can focus, while reinforcing expermental monitoring stations and measurement capability. I would like to emphasis the point raised by Vladimir Smakhtin on the data issue shall be revisited in the coming decade. Secondly, we have several thousands of hydraulic structures all over the world designed and operated based on our classical knowledge of hydrology (assumed stationarity). Couldn't we focus as part of sociatal challenge to address how do we incorporate our understanding of the changing hydrology in sustaining our hydraulic infsrastructures. 'How do we improve the safety and sustianbility of existing hydraulic structures under future changed hydrology? the Targets coined in the plan – understanding, estimation/prediction and addressing societal impacts requires one to think to see more elaboration but we are discussing on it. Few comments I have today are on data and past infrastructures and hydrology. As a hydrologist working with stations in developing world, I have had the chance to access data from different sources, vistsed many stations. We have witnessed the location of measurement are changed, different precision measuring equipments installed or used along the years, the rating curve data are not updates, the location of the channel morphology is unstable, etc. However, we don’t see the change points on the metadat regarding location, morphology, equipment change, etc…we collect whatever data we get from agencies we put it on our model and take several days/weeks of our time in fitting and forcing the data to a model. There are instances where we have quite different set of data for the same stations accessed from different agencies. Consdequently it is likely broader or wider changes are obsecured and not visible in stations of similar geogrphical location. We have seen adjacent stations showing different signals during regional drought phenomenon. the challenges of ground data base remians a challenge for validation of remote sensed data, data assimilating and improving technologies. Therefore, focusing on spatial data reconstruction and modelling may be one areas we can focus, while reinforcing expermental monitoring stations and measurement capability. I would like to emphasis the point raised by Vladimir Smakhtin on the data issue shall be revisited in the coming decade. Secondly, we have several thousands of hydraulic structures all over the world designed and operated based on our classical knowledge of hydrology (assumed stationarity). Couldn’t we focus as part of sociatal challenge to address how do we incorporate our understanding of the changing hydrology in sustaining our hydraulic infsrastructures. ‘How do we improve the safety and sustianbility of existing hydraulic structures under future changed hydrology?

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Charles Perrin http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-125 Charles Perrin Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:29:32 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-125 One aspect that should not be omitted in the Science Plan is the development of improved methodologies to evaluate how well our models work to predict change. Current testing approaches are often not demanding enough to reveal the actual weakness of models and the evaluation of model performance is often indulgent. We need more objective procedures to benchmark models and get objective ways of qualifying model accuracy. This means also that we need improved criteria to better highlight models' quality needed to predict changes (see e.g. the recent works by H. Gupta's group, J. Ewen or U. Ehret and E. Zehe). The use of reference data sets may also be helpful. This should help improving models and make end-users more confident in their model selection. One aspect that should not be omitted in the Science Plan is the development of improved methodologies to evaluate how well our models work to predict change. Current testing approaches are often not demanding enough to reveal the actual weakness of models and the evaluation of model performance is often indulgent. We need more objective procedures to benchmark models and get objective ways of qualifying model accuracy. This means also that we need improved criteria to better highlight models’ quality needed to predict changes (see e.g. the recent works by H. Gupta’s group, J. Ewen or U. Ehret and E. Zehe). The use of reference data sets may also be helpful.
This should help improving models and make end-users more confident in their model selection.

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Wouter Berghuijs http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-122 Wouter Berghuijs Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:04:13 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-122 Dear reader, Although this post is not strictly related to the main subject of the current post, we got prof. Montanari’s approval to share a message on this blog: We would like to introduce you to an initiative to set up a network for young (aspiring) scientists in the field of hydrology. The latter is initiated by two M.Sc students that realized that there might be a lot of potential in increasing the involvement of young scientists by means of setting up a network. Examples of benefits could be: - Stimulate bottom-up research initiatives, initiated by Ph.D/M.Sc peers, - Improve research opportunities and collaboration by creating an easy accessible network, - Stimulate awareness among young scientists about current and future research topics. For this reason we have decided to explore the possibility to start up a network, the EGU-HS Young Hydrologist Society. The first meeting of the initiative is planned during the EGU General Assembly 2013 in Vienna. This meeting will be an interactive session where we want to discuss the possible contribution of this network, what its goals should be and how this should be organized in the most effective fashion. During the coming months we would like to gather a team of students and/or young scientists to further shape the initiative. We would like to ask for your help by spreading this message to your students. Any graduate or postgraduate student interested in joining thus initiative is cordially invited to contact us. More information on the initiative and the session at the EGU 2013 General Assembly can be found on www.younghs.com or requested by sending an email to younghydrologicsociety@mail.com. Any feedback by replying to this post or sending an email is highly appreciated. Wouter Berghuijs & Tim van Emmerik M.Sc. students Delft University of Technology Dear reader,

Although this post is not strictly related to the main subject of the current post, we got prof. Montanari’s approval to share a message on this blog:

We would like to introduce you to an initiative to set up a network for young (aspiring) scientists in the field of hydrology. The latter is initiated by two M.Sc students that realized that there might be a lot of potential in increasing the involvement of young scientists by means of setting up a network. Examples of benefits could be:

- Stimulate bottom-up research initiatives, initiated by Ph.D/M.Sc peers,
- Improve research opportunities and collaboration by creating an easy accessible network,
- Stimulate awareness among young scientists about current and future research topics.

For this reason we have decided to explore the possibility to start up a network, the EGU-HS Young Hydrologist Society. The first meeting of the initiative is planned during the EGU General Assembly 2013 in Vienna. This meeting will be an interactive session where we want to discuss the possible contribution of this network, what its goals should be and how this should be organized in the most effective fashion. During the coming months we would like to gather a team of students and/or young scientists to further shape the initiative.

We would like to ask for your help by spreading this message to your students. Any graduate or postgraduate student interested in joining thus initiative is cordially invited to contact us.

More information on the initiative and the session at the EGU 2013 General Assembly can be found on http://www.younghs.com or requested by sending an email to younghydrologicsociety@mail.com. Any feedback by replying to this post or sending an email is highly appreciated.

Wouter Berghuijs & Tim van Emmerik
M.Sc. students Delft University of Technology

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Alberto Montanari http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-108 Alberto Montanari Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:26:56 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-108 Dear Bloggers, I am posting a comment on behalf of Andreas Schumann (Ruhr University Bochum and IAHS-ICWRS Commission Officers. With my best regards, Alberto The hydrosphere affects human societies as human societies affect the hydrosphere. If the spatial and temporal distribution of water does not fit human requirements, we take corrective actions, mostly based on engineering works. Many of these interventions have no holistic view, are not multifunctional or sustainable. Often we adopt them only to certain temporal and spatial scales. As we intervene in hydrological cycles the outcomes of these changes will result in further needs to adapt the hydrosphere in larger scales and so on. A solution which seems to be useful in one scale could often cause new problems in other scales. That is why a deeper knowledge of feedback mechanisms and a more holistic view on human interventions into hydrological processes at all scales and their interlinks seems to be essential. I hope this idea would be useful for further discussions. Andreas Schumann (Ruhr University Bochum) Dear Bloggers, I am posting a comment on behalf of Andreas Schumann (Ruhr University Bochum and IAHS-ICWRS Commission Officers.
With my best regards,
Alberto

The hydrosphere affects human societies as human societies affect the hydrosphere. If the spatial and temporal distribution of water does not fit human requirements, we take corrective actions, mostly based on engineering works. Many of these interventions have no holistic view, are not multifunctional or sustainable. Often we adopt them only to certain temporal and spatial scales. As we intervene in hydrological cycles the outcomes of these changes will result in further needs to adapt the hydrosphere in larger scales and so on. A solution which seems to be useful in one scale could often cause new problems in other scales. That is why a deeper knowledge of feedback mechanisms and a more holistic view on human interventions into hydrological processes at all scales and their interlinks seems to be essential.
I hope this idea would be useful for further discussions.

Andreas Schumann (Ruhr University Bochum)

Vote this comment    
2 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Vladimir Smakhtin http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-101 Vladimir Smakhtin Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:21:53 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-101 I really enjoyed browsing through correspondence related to the Plan for the next decade, and thought of dropping my two pence worth. I would like to strongly support the point made by Salvatore Grimaldi, which also echoed in some other postings (but still I am not sure that it is getting the required attention). Let’s take a break from endlessly trying to improve models with the very limited observed data, and focus the next decade more on improved observed data availability. The problem of observations - at different scales, for various hydrological processes – if not resolved, will always be a limiting factor in our ability to understand hydrological systems. We all know this. Almost every paper published in hydrology water resources explicitly or implicitly blames the lack of data. The first Hydrological Decade from mid 1960s focused on Data (off my head, correct me if I am wrong), and good progress was achieved. But latter it got diffused, and it is not a surprise that situation globally only deteriorated, particularly in the last two decades. We are still guessing, not assessing water resources, as John Rodda once (in 1995) put it. There is no doubt in my mind that last PUB decade produced a lot of super tool for prediction in ungagged basins. But shouldn’t we be also trying to solve the problem of actually reducing the numbers of such basins? Some think it is not a scientific but rather political / funding problem. It is partially true, but research showing economic value of water data, improved design of monitoring networks to capture increasing variability etc. (i.e. changing world) can / should influence politics and funding. There is a great need to continue improving ground observational networks. But alternative research focus shall be on remote data acquisition techniques. There is plenty of room for improvement in those, no doubt, but there is good progress also. I hear the counter-argument that we will never be able to measure fluxes, storages and flows by remote techniques as reliably as by ground based methods. Well, future will show. But dismissing the potential of remote methods of becoming an alternative to ground-based ones, because remote ones have issues today, sound like a dead end. Funny enough, we are so much in our “box” sometimes that we forget that, for example, long-term discharge series at a flow gauge are not, strictly speaking, measured. They are calculated from a rating curve that comes from only a few concurrent stage and discharge measurements. So it is another model, and yet, we treat these data as “observed“. Hydrology and Change is a good focus, don’t take me wrong. All research questions that are formulated are pertinent and relevant. But it would be good to emphasize the observed data aspect, as much as possible and re-direct much more effort of global hydrological community, in this changing world, of course, to the solution of the acute data problem, rather than dissolving it. One more concern comes to mind – a different one: the issue of communicating PUB science. I think this is another major bottleneck in hydrology at present. How much of fine PUB tool and ideas have actually become known, let alone implemented, in developing world, where most of water problems are? I see a lot of individuals and groups modeling and remodeling the same basins again and again with, very often, just the same one or two common models, without paying much attention to recent scientific developments. And finally, it would be good to think of some measurable, scientifically and socially relevant targets for the next decade, something like MDGs in hydrology and water resources. Every really good plan needs some. I really enjoyed browsing through correspondence related to the Plan for the next decade, and thought of dropping my two pence worth. I would like to strongly support the point made by Salvatore Grimaldi, which also echoed in some other postings (but still I am not sure that it is getting the required attention). Let’s take a break from endlessly trying to improve models with the very limited observed data, and focus the next decade more on improved observed data availability. The problem of observations – at different scales, for various hydrological processes – if not resolved, will always be a limiting factor in our ability to understand hydrological systems. We all know this. Almost every paper published in hydrology water resources explicitly or implicitly blames the lack of data. The first Hydrological Decade from mid 1960s focused on Data (off my head, correct me if I am wrong), and good progress was achieved. But latter it got diffused, and it is not a surprise that situation globally only deteriorated, particularly in the last two decades. We are still guessing, not assessing water resources, as John Rodda once (in 1995) put it. There is no doubt in my mind that last PUB decade produced a lot of super tool for prediction in ungagged basins. But shouldn’t we be also trying to solve the problem of actually reducing the numbers of such basins?
Some think it is not a scientific but rather political / funding problem. It is partially true, but research showing economic value of water data, improved design of monitoring networks to capture increasing variability etc. (i.e. changing world) can / should influence politics and funding. There is a great need to continue improving ground observational networks. But alternative research focus shall be on remote data acquisition techniques. There is plenty of room for improvement in those, no doubt, but there is good progress also. I hear the counter-argument that we will never be able to measure fluxes, storages and flows by remote techniques as reliably as by ground based methods. Well, future will show. But dismissing the potential of remote methods of becoming an alternative to ground-based ones, because remote ones have issues today, sound like a dead end. Funny enough, we are so much in our “box” sometimes that we forget that, for example, long-term discharge series at a flow gauge are not, strictly speaking, measured. They are calculated from a rating curve that comes from only a few concurrent stage and discharge measurements. So it is another model, and yet, we treat these data as “observed“.
Hydrology and Change is a good focus, don’t take me wrong. All research questions that are formulated are pertinent and relevant. But it would be good to emphasize the observed data aspect, as much as possible and re-direct much more effort of global hydrological community, in this changing world, of course, to the solution of the acute data problem, rather than dissolving it.
One more concern comes to mind – a different one: the issue of communicating PUB science. I think this is another major bottleneck in hydrology at present. How much of fine PUB tool and ideas have actually become known, let alone implemented, in developing world, where most of water problems are? I see a lot of individuals and groups modeling and remodeling the same basins again and again with, very often, just the same one or two common models, without paying much attention to recent scientific developments.
And finally, it would be good to think of some measurable, scientifically and socially relevant targets for the next decade, something like MDGs in hydrology and water resources. Every really good plan needs some.

Vote this comment    
0 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Demetris http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-98 Demetris Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:55:16 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-98 If I wanted to be critical, the topic I would choose to criticize would be the No. 1 Target, i.e. “understanding”. But I refrain from negative comment, being satisfied by Alberto’s subsequent clarification, that is, “Improve[ment of] knowledge”, which IMHO makes much more sense than “understanding”. On the positive side, I wish to mention two things that positively impressed me. The first I saw in the President’s presentation and is related to the broad view of hydrology he promotes. It has been very common to see phrases like “hydrology as a geophysical/earth science” but Gordon reminds us that the IAHS objective is to “promote the study of Hydrology as an aspect of earth sciences <b>and of water resources</b>”. Also, I applaud his choice to “approach the subject from the perspective of human needs”. This is also evident in Alberto’s text—mostly in Target 3, “Science in practice”. The second thing that made me happy is Alberto’s choice to invoke Heraclitus for the science plan and to highlight two of his famous quotations. Siva also commented on Heraclitus, repeating one of the quotations. I felt it proper to add with this comment a third, so far missing yet very relevant, quotation from Heraclitus*, “Πάντα ῥεῖ” or “everything flows”. I cannot imagine an aphorism shorter than these two words, magically put together. As it identifies “flow” with “change”, I think it is most relevant for the science plan, as it shapes up, and could serve as a logo for the new decade. I believe even its original Greek form written in Latin alphabet, i.e. “Panta rhei”, is understandable even by the layperson (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei ). All the best, Demetris *In fact, Heraclitus’ writings have survived in fragments quoted or related by other authors; in particular, “Panta rhei” appears in Plato’s Cratylus, sections 339-340. If I wanted to be critical, the topic I would choose to criticize would be the No. 1 Target, i.e. “understanding”. But I refrain from negative comment, being satisfied by Alberto’s subsequent clarification, that is, “Improve[ment of] knowledge”, which IMHO makes much more sense than “understanding”.

On the positive side, I wish to mention two things that positively impressed me. The first I saw in the President’s presentation and is related to the broad view of hydrology he promotes. It has been very common to see phrases like “hydrology as a geophysical/earth science” but Gordon reminds us that the IAHS objective is to “promote the study of Hydrology as an aspect of earth sciences and of water resources”. Also, I applaud his choice to “approach the subject from the perspective of human needs”. This is also evident in Alberto’s text—mostly in Target 3, “Science in practice”.

The second thing that made me happy is Alberto’s choice to invoke Heraclitus for the science plan and to highlight two of his famous quotations. Siva also commented on Heraclitus, repeating one of the quotations.

I felt it proper to add with this comment a third, so far missing yet very relevant, quotation from Heraclitus*, “Πάντα ῥεῖ” or “everything flows”. I cannot imagine an aphorism shorter than these two words, magically put together. As it identifies “flow” with “change”, I think it is most relevant for the science plan, as it shapes up, and could serve as a logo for the new decade. I believe even its original Greek form written in Latin alphabet, i.e. “Panta rhei”, is understandable even by the layperson (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei ).

All the best,

Demetris

*In fact, Heraclitus’ writings have survived in fragments quoted or related by other authors; in particular, “Panta rhei” appears in Plato’s Cratylus, sections 339-340.

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by David Garen http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-97 David Garen Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:38:01 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-97 With a theme of “changing hydrology for a changing society and environment”, a key question is whether these needs are best met by more scientific knowledge and technological capabilities or whether they are instead primarily ethical at the core. I often feel that many of the most pressing needs of society and the environment now are related more to values and ethics than to technical information (or the lack thereof). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) already has some concepts that relate to this, and organizations such as UNESCO have programs and reports addressing many of these issues. I think it would be good if these ideas, and some extensions, were explicitly linked to and embraced by IAHS in its new science initiative. So, I would propose a Science Question 6, which could be considered to connect with Target 3 (“Science in practice”) or be a cross-cutting question. I would label this “water ethics” (which is an emerging sub-field of environmental ethics), and it would address questions such as: * Can we broaden our philosophical basis so that we recognize whether the needs of society and the environment are primarily scientific / technological issues (e.g., need more observations or better models) or values / ethical issues (i.e., already have sufficient technical information, just need to make appropriate choices based on ethical principles)? * How would this recognition direct hydrologists in setting goals and priorities for their work? * If predictions of hydrologic impacts are highly uncertain, and if there is “irreducible uncertainty” in predictions, is it even feasible to use benefit-cost analysis as a decision paradigm? What other decision paradigms can be used? For example, would the “precautionary principle” or “small water footprint” be useful (and non-economic) alternative paradigms / ethics for water resources development and management? * In the face of predictive uncertainty, what principle or ethic should guide us in allocating the risk to the different and competing interests for water? * Should major interventions into the hydrologic system with a “large footprint” be automatically excluded from consideration based on a new ethic? * Should water and the catchment be viewed purely as a resource to manage for meeting human needs, or should humans see themselves as an integral part of the environment and that the environment has its own intrinsic value independent of human needs? * Are the current principles of IWRM sufficient to achieve the dual goals of meeting human needs while also preserving the environment, or is IWRM still too anthropocentric in its outlook? I could go on and elaborate on these points further, but hopefully my main idea is clear. While these questions are not really “hard science”, I think they are pertinent to ensuring that hydrology and water resources management remain relevant to addressing real-world problems. With a theme of “changing hydrology for a changing society and environment”, a key question is whether these needs are best met by more scientific knowledge and technological capabilities or whether they are instead primarily ethical at the core. I often feel that many of the most pressing needs of society and the environment now are related more to values and ethics than to technical information (or the lack thereof).

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) already has some concepts that relate to this, and organizations such as UNESCO have programs and reports addressing many of these issues. I think it would be good if these ideas, and some extensions, were explicitly linked to and embraced by IAHS in its new science initiative.

So, I would propose a Science Question 6, which could be considered to connect with Target 3 (“Science in practice”) or be a cross-cutting question. I would label this “water ethics” (which is an emerging sub-field of environmental ethics), and it would address questions such as:

* Can we broaden our philosophical basis so that we recognize whether the needs of society and the environment are primarily scientific / technological issues (e.g., need more observations or better models) or values / ethical issues (i.e., already have sufficient technical information, just need to make appropriate choices based on ethical principles)?
* How would this recognition direct hydrologists in setting goals and priorities for their work?
* If predictions of hydrologic impacts are highly uncertain, and if there is “irreducible uncertainty” in predictions, is it even feasible to use benefit-cost analysis as a decision paradigm? What other decision paradigms can be used? For example, would the “precautionary principle” or “small water footprint” be useful (and non-economic) alternative paradigms / ethics for water resources development and management?
* In the face of predictive uncertainty, what principle or ethic should guide us in allocating the risk to the different and competing interests for water?
* Should major interventions into the hydrologic system with a “large footprint” be automatically excluded from consideration based on a new ethic?
* Should water and the catchment be viewed purely as a resource to manage for meeting human needs, or should humans see themselves as an integral part of the environment and that the environment has its own intrinsic value independent of human needs?
* Are the current principles of IWRM sufficient to achieve the dual goals of meeting human needs while also preserving the environment, or is IWRM still too anthropocentric in its outlook?

I could go on and elaborate on these points further, but hopefully my main idea is clear. While these questions are not really “hard science”, I think they are pertinent to ensuring that hydrology and water resources management remain relevant to addressing real-world problems.

Vote this comment    
2 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Ian Littlewood http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-92 Ian Littlewood Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:01:25 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-92 There is much to agree (and disagree) with in this very interesting series of blog postings. So, it is definitely doing the job intended. My comments have been triggered by a small selection of specific points raised by a few others, concentrating on items where I agree with previous commentators and might have something to add. I agree with Robin Clarke’s reasoning – the new IAHS Decade should be mainly about hydrological science. The new Decade should seek to serve the interests of, and continue to make progress in, scientific hydrology. It should therefore be designed and proceed appropriately with respect to its links with other disciplines. Alberto has wisely said that choice of the title for the new Decade should be left for a while. However, I would like to offer a personal view concerning what it should not include. Yes, uncertainty should be a keyword for the new Decade (one of Alberto’s bullets) but I think the word “uncertainty” (or similar) should not be in its title. My view is that to include it there, if anyone is still thinking along these lines, would be unwise – because of its negative connotations to the layperson. There should be nothing negative in the title. Yes, reducing uncertainty in outputs from our hydrological science, and conveying uncertainty aspects of our science to users, e.g. engineers, politicians, etc, should continue (following on from PUB) to be explicit overarching themes for the new Decade but in the interests of being upbeat for presentational purposes let’s not emphasise uncertainty in the title. Elena Toth’s comments that “a fundamental contribution must come from the full exploitation of the available data” through the application of “data-driven” models are sensible. One output from participants of PUB Working Group 1 (top-down modelling) during the Decade now drawing to a close has been research applications of grey box (not black) data-driven rainfall–streamflow (R-S) modelling, e.g. pointing towards how uncertainty in regionalised R-S model parameters might be reduced in practice. IHACRES and data-based mechanistic (DBM) data-driven modelling highlight the distinction, which can become important when temporally coarse data are used for calibrating a discrete-time model for a flashy catchment, between fitting a model to data (curve-fitting – or getting the right answer for the wrong reasons) and fitting a model to a catchment (getting closer to the right answer for the right reasons). For a flashy catchment, even if an IHACRES model parameter is calibrated with good precision using daily data it can be massively inaccurate (and therefore very uncertain). Much recent research has been undertaken without paying enough attention to the fact that, for discrete-time conceptual R-S models, only those calibrated using sufficiently high-frequency data for a given catchment stand a chance of yielding precise and accurate (don't forget - both are required for low uncertainty) model parameters. In the context of discrete-time conceptual R-S modelling this has implications (a) when regionalising the parameters of any such model using national datasets for gauged catchments and (b) whenever such models are used to assist with gaining a better understanding (especially quantitatively) of catchment-scale processes. Relevant textbooks and research literature (until very recently) largely ignore these fundamental points. I think this area of research should be further stimulated by the next Decade and, in this sense, would suggest it might be considered together with the points raised by Charles Perrin. Ian Littlewood There is much to agree (and disagree) with in this very interesting series of blog postings. So, it is definitely doing the job intended. My comments have been triggered by a small selection of specific points raised by a few others, concentrating on items where I agree with previous commentators and might have something to add.

I agree with Robin Clarke’s reasoning – the new IAHS Decade should be mainly about hydrological science. The new Decade should seek to serve the interests of, and continue to make progress in, scientific hydrology. It should therefore be designed and proceed appropriately with respect to its links with other disciplines.

Alberto has wisely said that choice of the title for the new Decade should be left for a while. However, I would like to offer a personal view concerning what it should not include. Yes, uncertainty should be a keyword for the new Decade (one of Alberto’s bullets) but I think the word “uncertainty” (or similar) should not be in its title. My view is that to include it there, if anyone is still thinking along these lines, would be unwise – because of its negative connotations to the layperson. There should be nothing negative in the title. Yes, reducing uncertainty in outputs from our hydrological science, and conveying uncertainty aspects of our science to users, e.g. engineers, politicians, etc, should continue (following on from PUB) to be explicit overarching themes for the new Decade but in the interests of being upbeat for presentational purposes let’s not emphasise uncertainty in the title.

Elena Toth’s comments that “a fundamental contribution must come from the full exploitation of the available data” through the application of “data-driven” models are sensible. One output from participants of PUB Working Group 1 (top-down modelling) during the Decade now drawing to a close has been research applications of grey box (not black) data-driven rainfall–streamflow (R-S) modelling, e.g. pointing towards how uncertainty in regionalised R-S model parameters might be reduced in practice. IHACRES and data-based mechanistic (DBM) data-driven modelling highlight the distinction, which can become important when temporally coarse data are used for calibrating a discrete-time model for a flashy catchment, between fitting a model to data (curve-fitting – or getting the right answer for the wrong reasons) and fitting a model to a catchment (getting closer to the right answer for the right reasons). For a flashy catchment, even if an IHACRES model parameter is calibrated with good precision using daily data it can be massively inaccurate (and therefore very uncertain). Much recent research has been undertaken without paying enough attention to the fact that, for discrete-time conceptual R-S models, only those calibrated using sufficiently high-frequency data for a given catchment stand a chance of yielding precise and accurate (don’t forget – both are required for low uncertainty) model parameters. In the context of discrete-time conceptual R-S modelling this has implications (a) when regionalising the parameters of any such model using national datasets for gauged catchments and (b) whenever such models are used to assist with gaining a better understanding (especially quantitatively) of catchment-scale processes. Relevant textbooks and research literature (until very recently) largely ignore these fundamental points. I think this area of research should be further stimulated by the next Decade and, in this sense, would suggest it might be considered together with the points raised by Charles Perrin.

Ian Littlewood

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Thian Yew Gan http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-91 Thian Yew Gan Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:48 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-91 Hydrologic extremes had been increasing in recent years. For example, the number of major floods has been increasing world wide in recent years. Between 1950 and 1959, the number of major floods that had occurred was 10, 8, and 48 in Europe, Americas, and Asia respectively. By 1990-1999, the number of major floods that had occurred in these three continents were 105, 195 and 325, respectively. However, the potential hydrologic and climatic effects of global warming will be quite diverse and location specific. The extreme climate may have serious impacts on society, e.g. an increased occurrence of flooding events in some places but severe droughts in others. To investigate impact of climate change in different regions of the world, there is an urgent need to analyse, quantify and predict the components of the current and future global water cycles and related water resources states through a combination of , GCMs, RCMs, land surface schemes, and water resources management models. There is also a need to evaluate uncertainties associated with projecting our climate and water resources to the distant future, and to assess the overall vulnerability of global water resources related to the main societal and economic sectors. In summary, there is an urgent need to develop a modelling and data framework to assess the future vulnerability of global water supply as a resource. Hydrologic extremes had been increasing in recent years. For example, the number of major floods has been increasing world wide in recent years. Between 1950 and 1959, the number of major floods that had occurred was 10, 8, and 48 in Europe, Americas, and Asia respectively. By 1990-1999, the number of major floods that had occurred in these three continents were 105, 195 and 325, respectively. However, the potential hydrologic and climatic effects of global warming will be quite diverse and location specific. The extreme climate may have serious impacts on society, e.g. an increased occurrence of flooding events in some places but severe droughts in others. To investigate impact of climate change in different regions of the world, there is an urgent need to analyse, quantify and predict the components of the current and future global water cycles and related water resources states through a combination of , GCMs, RCMs, land surface schemes, and water resources management models. There is also a need to evaluate uncertainties associated with projecting our climate and water resources to the distant future, and to assess the overall vulnerability of global water resources related to the main societal and economic sectors.

In summary, there is an urgent need to develop a modelling and data framework to assess the future vulnerability of global water supply as a resource.

Vote this comment    
2 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Rolf Hut http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-86 Rolf Hut Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:14:24 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-86 In his article "The Growth of Astrophysical Understanding" Martin Harwit argues that "Progress comes primarily from the introduction of new observational and theoretical tools" (http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1634532). He states that new insights are only obtained when new (sorts of) observations are introduced. In my opinion, this not only holds for Astro-physics, but for all branches of science, including hydrology. For example: the insights gained in the PUB initiative were partly made possible because remotely sensed data become "of age" and widely available. As the PUB decade comes to a close, we see that the hydrological sciences have focussed very strongly on modeling the last few years. We are, in my opinion, on the edge of what we can learn from (the current generation of) models: an even better way of estimating our parameters may reduce the uncertainty in our forecasts, but it will not lead to new insights in the fundamental functioning of the hydrological world / cycle / processes. Don't get me wrong: we need our models and our modellers. Hydrological models, whether conceptual or distributed, physical based or black box, are our hypotheses! Our models represent how we think (believe) the hydrological world works. The fact that we care about overparameterization is to me a signal that we have extracted every bit of information from our current observations that we can. The next big breakthrough in hydrological understanding will be due to new observations and theoretical tools. And those observations & tools are coming (whether we want it or not). New methods to measure existing variables are emerging: Distributed Temperature sensing using fibre optic cables has been successfully introduced in hydrology the last couple of years. More methods are sure to follow. New computing tools are becoming available: cloudcomputing services give desktop hydrologist the power of a super-computer. Hydrological models need no longer be constrained by the computation power availablee, but will be constrained by the richness of the data it can build on. Innovations outside the classical hydrological field will also be a source of observations to us. Among them are: - The Internet of Things. Slowly everything is connected to the web. And since a lot of devices have sensors in them, this means that more and more data-feeds will turn op online. Think about the temp, humidty and wind sensors in air-conditioning units, but also the complete sensor platform that is the modern mobile phone. Sites like pachube.com already offer services to host this kind of sensor-data. - Social Media. I personally have tweeted on multiple occasions about the deplorable state of Dutch weather. A simple query can retrieve that tweet from the twitter databases, including it's geolocation. I have become a walking "bad-weather-sensor". Social media is a potential gold mine of data for hydrologists. In 10 years time, my son will not be using Twitter (for sure...), but he will be uploading his thoughts on local weather to some database on some server. I hope that in 10 years time, that piece of information is used in the weather forecast for the next day. If we want to measure & understand changes, we will have to use new, richer datasets. If we want to understand the link between society and "the water-world", we must broaden our scope to also include societal data into our world. Socio-Economic data, data on human behaviour (in cases of emergencies / floods for example) will have to be included in the hydrologists "bag of tools". Understanding, for example, the hydrology of the Central-California-Valley is impossible without understanding the political and socio-economic forces that influence it. I strongly feel that in the next hydrological decade a focus should be on data. For me, one of the most important lessons of the PUB decade is the immense value of having data. I mean data in the broadest sense of the word: remotely sensed as well as measured on the ground. Data gathered with both ancient, existing as well as new to be developed devices. Data from unconventional sources such as twitter or the AC unit in an office building. Off course, as Hillary pointed out, the success of PUB is partly due to the inclusive nature of the initiative. The topic for the next hydrological decade should be as inclusive as PUB was, without losing it's focus. Focussing on data does not mean stopping modelling, far from it. Hydrological modellers should take up the challenge to use their models not only to make future predictions, but also to calculate what new measurements would have the biggest impact on reducing uncertainty in predictions. I therefore would like to suggest to add a "target zero": observe. This will make sure that the classic "scientific workflow" of : Observe -> Understand -> estimate & predict -> communicate with society is fully represented in the new hydrological decade. Rolf Hut PS off course, "target zero" can very well be combined with target 1 into "Observe & Understand" In his article “The Growth of Astrophysical Understanding” Martin Harwit argues that “Progress comes primarily from the introduction of new observational and theoretical tools” (http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1634532). He states that new insights are only obtained when new (sorts of) observations are introduced. In my opinion, this not only holds for Astro-physics, but for all branches of science, including hydrology. For example: the insights gained in the PUB initiative were partly made possible because remotely sensed data become “of age” and widely available.

As the PUB decade comes to a close, we see that the hydrological sciences have focussed very strongly on modeling the last few years. We are, in my opinion, on the edge of what we can learn from (the current generation of) models: an even better way of estimating our parameters may reduce the uncertainty in our forecasts, but it will not lead to new insights in the fundamental functioning of the hydrological world / cycle / processes. Don’t get me wrong: we need our models and our modellers. Hydrological models, whether conceptual or distributed, physical based or black box, are our hypotheses! Our models represent how we think (believe) the hydrological world works. The fact that we care about overparameterization is to me a signal that we have extracted every bit of information from our current observations that we can. The next big breakthrough in hydrological understanding will be due to new observations and theoretical tools.

And those observations & tools are coming (whether we want it or not). New methods to measure existing variables are emerging: Distributed Temperature sensing using fibre optic cables has been successfully introduced in hydrology the last couple of years. More methods are sure to follow. New computing tools are becoming available: cloudcomputing services give desktop hydrologist the power of a super-computer. Hydrological models need no longer be constrained by the computation power availablee, but will be constrained by the richness of the data it can build on. Innovations outside the classical hydrological field will also be a source of observations to us. Among them are:
- The Internet of Things. Slowly everything is connected to the web. And since a lot of devices have sensors in them, this means that more and more data-feeds will turn op online. Think about the temp, humidty and wind sensors in air-conditioning units, but also the complete sensor platform that is the modern mobile phone. Sites like pachube.com already offer services to host this kind of sensor-data.
- Social Media. I personally have tweeted on multiple occasions about the deplorable state of Dutch weather. A simple query can retrieve that tweet from the twitter databases, including it’s geolocation. I have become a walking “bad-weather-sensor”. Social media is a potential gold mine of data for hydrologists.
In 10 years time, my son will not be using Twitter (for sure…), but he will be uploading his thoughts on local weather to some database on some server. I hope that in 10 years time, that piece of information is used in the weather forecast for the next day.

If we want to measure & understand changes, we will have to use new, richer datasets. If we want to understand the link between society and “the water-world”, we must broaden our scope to also include societal data into our world. Socio-Economic data, data on human behaviour (in cases of emergencies / floods for example) will have to be included in the hydrologists “bag of tools”. Understanding, for example, the hydrology of the Central-California-Valley is impossible without understanding the political and socio-economic forces that influence it.

I strongly feel that in the next hydrological decade a focus should be on data. For me, one of the most important lessons of the PUB decade is the immense value of having data. I mean data in the broadest sense of the word: remotely sensed as well as measured on the ground. Data gathered with both ancient, existing as well as new to be developed devices. Data from unconventional sources such as twitter or the AC unit in an office building. Off course, as Hillary pointed out, the success of PUB is partly due to the inclusive nature of the initiative. The topic for the next hydrological decade should be as inclusive as PUB was, without losing it’s focus. Focussing on data does not mean stopping modelling, far from it. Hydrological modellers should take up the challenge to use their models not only to make future predictions, but also to calculate what new measurements would have the biggest impact on reducing uncertainty in predictions.

I therefore would like to suggest to add a “target zero”: observe. This will make sure
that the classic “scientific workflow” of : Observe -> Understand -> estimate & predict -> communicate with society
is fully represented in the new hydrological decade.

Rolf Hut

PS off course, “target zero” can very well be combined with target 1 into “Observe & Understand”

Vote this comment    
5 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Sylvain Coutu http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-82 Sylvain Coutu Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:54:46 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-82 Dear all, Even though I am only a new member of the hydrology community, please let allow myself some brief comments: 1) The main research focus is “research activity in relation to changing hydrology for a changing society and environment“. The first idea that comes to me when one evokes the word “change” is “climate change”. However, there is no mention to climate change neither in the proposal, nor in the comments and I find this surprising. I understand this topic has already benefited from significant research work but yet, many of the socio-economic and environmental change that you discussed may be related to climate change. 2) I would like to emphasize the need of development in urban hydrology. In urban hydrology I include rainfall/run-off modeling in urban streams and pipe network, as well as the water quality processes associated. Impervious areas are constantly and rapidly increasing as more people seek to leave in larger cities. However, I realize that contributions of the scientific community remain very limited in this domain respect to rural hydrology, and that these contributions are often underestimated. I think the word urbanization (or any similar proxy) should be included in the keywords. Also, some sub-questions mentioning explicitly urban systems should be included for all three target points. All the best, Sylvain. Dear all,
Even though I am only a new member of the hydrology community, please let allow myself some brief comments:

1) The main research focus is “research activity in relation to changing hydrology for a changing society and environment“. The first idea that comes to me when one evokes the word “change” is “climate change”. However, there is no mention to climate change neither in the proposal, nor in the comments and I find this surprising. I understand this topic has already benefited from significant research work but yet, many of the socio-economic and environmental change that you discussed may be related to climate change.

2) I would like to emphasize the need of development in urban hydrology. In urban hydrology I include rainfall/run-off modeling in urban streams and pipe network, as well as the water quality processes associated. Impervious areas are constantly and rapidly increasing as more people seek to leave in larger cities. However, I realize that contributions of the scientific community remain very limited in this domain respect to rural hydrology, and that these contributions are often underestimated. I think the word urbanization (or any similar proxy) should be included in the keywords. Also, some sub-questions mentioning explicitly urban systems should be included for all three target points.

All the best,
Sylvain.

Vote this comment    
3 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Sally Thompson http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-81 Sally Thompson Wed, 30 May 2012 22:52:21 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-81 The structure of the plan - with the 3 areas of emphasis as understanding; estimation and prediction; and "science in practice" resonates strongly with some ideas that came up during an earlier discussion around the future of hydrology. The focus at the time was on whether there are ways to bridge the gap between science-driven "hydrology" and the more engineering and economics-driven disciplines encompassed by "water resources engineering". I would like to share a conceptual figure that emerged from this discussion, which is almost like an "adaptive management" framework for water science broadly. <center> <img src="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/sally.jpg" width="70%" /> </center> The figure illustrates 3 areas of effort: discovery driven science (which maps to the understanding target); improving predictability (mapping to the estimation and prediction targets); and implementing management options (which maps to the science in practice target). The point of the figure, however, is to highlight that these 3 areas can and should provide a holistic platform for moving the discipline forward. For example, every time a management solution is implemented it creates an opportunity for discovery-based research -- there are many opportunities to learn about the fundamentals of hydrological systems by studying their response to imposed changes in management (whether that be restoration efforts, policy changes, economic incentives, legal change, etc). Predictions made about the system response to the management initiative can be tested, creating opportunities to refine prediction techniques. And improvements in both understanding and prediction, if brought to bear on water management problems, ultimately should lead to improved decision making and outcomes. With this background, I am a little concerned with the suggestion of replacing "science in practice" with "knowledge transfer". I think the boundary conditions on the community that this report wishes to speak to should be drawn a little more broadly. I would like to see the general public, agencies and decision-makers -- stakeholders in the water sector broadly -- being considered as cooperative partners in advancing water science. I am worried that "knowledge transfer" risks drawing a line between people who make knowledge and people who use knowledge -- and I think the users of knowledge have a lot to contribute back to researchers and engineers -- and it would be nice to think about making those contributions explicit in this vision. The structure of the plan – with the 3 areas of emphasis as understanding; estimation and prediction; and “science in practice” resonates strongly with some ideas that came up during an earlier discussion around the future of hydrology. The focus at the time was on whether there are ways to bridge the gap between science-driven “hydrology” and the more engineering and economics-driven disciplines encompassed by “water resources engineering”. I would like to share a conceptual figure that emerged from this discussion, which is almost like an “adaptive management” framework for water science broadly.



The figure illustrates 3 areas of effort: discovery driven science (which maps to the understanding target); improving predictability (mapping to the estimation and prediction targets); and implementing management options (which maps to the science in practice target).

The point of the figure, however, is to highlight that these 3 areas can and should provide a holistic platform for moving the discipline forward. For example, every time a management solution is implemented it creates an opportunity for discovery-based research — there are many opportunities to learn about the fundamentals of hydrological systems by studying their response to imposed changes in management (whether that be restoration efforts, policy changes, economic incentives, legal change, etc). Predictions made about the system response to the management initiative can be tested, creating opportunities to refine prediction techniques. And improvements in both understanding and prediction, if brought to bear on water management problems, ultimately should lead to improved decision making and outcomes.

With this background, I am a little concerned with the suggestion of replacing “science in practice” with “knowledge transfer”. I think the boundary conditions on the community that this report wishes to speak to should be drawn a little more broadly. I would like to see the general public, agencies and decision-makers — stakeholders in the water sector broadly — being considered as cooperative partners in advancing water science. I am worried that “knowledge transfer” risks drawing a line between people who make knowledge and people who use knowledge — and I think the users of knowledge have a lot to contribute back to researchers and engineers — and it would be nice to think about making those contributions explicit in this vision.

Vote this comment    
5 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Bettina Schaefli http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-80 Bettina Schaefli Fri, 25 May 2012 11:55:20 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-80 Dear All I would like to comment on the <b>targets</b> and the <b>keywords</b>. First of all the key words: The current draft does not contain the keyword "ecology" nor the keyword "biology", they are somewhat hidden in the word "co-evolution" (of what?). The "Bio"- component of the water cycle is what distinghuishes our field of research from e.g. meteorology, and it is the crucial link between water and society (the biota controls the quality and quantity of available water and vice versa). It thus needs to play a more prominent role in the science plan from my point of view. Second, the targets: they currently are <b>Understanding</b>, <b>Estimation and Prediction</b> and <b>Science in practice</b> (were Siva, in his own words, calls this last theme "management"). Could the theme "Science in practice" by re-named to "knowledge transfer", to make sure that it includes also communication to the wider public and not just policy makers / managers ? "Knowledge transfer" is from my point of view more explicit than "science in practice"; in any case, communication to non-specialists should not be omitted. Similarly, Science Question 3 (referring to this target) should perhaps be more general asking the question of how we can transfer knowledge to engineers, policy makers, managers, other stakeholders including non-specialists. Dear All

I would like to comment on the targets and the keywords. First of all the key words: The current draft does not contain the keyword “ecology” nor the keyword “biology”, they are somewhat hidden in the word “co-evolution” (of what?). The “Bio”- component of the water cycle is what distinghuishes our field of research from e.g. meteorology, and it is the crucial link between water and society (the biota controls the quality and quantity of available water and vice versa). It thus needs to play a more prominent role in the science plan from my point of view.

Second, the targets: they currently are Understanding, Estimation and Prediction and Science in practice (were Siva, in his own words, calls this last theme “management”). Could the theme “Science in practice” by re-named to “knowledge transfer”, to make sure that it includes also communication to the wider public and not just policy makers / managers ? “Knowledge transfer” is from my point of view more explicit than “science in practice”; in any case, communication to non-specialists should not be omitted. Similarly, Science Question 3 (referring to this target) should perhaps be more general asking the question of how we can transfer knowledge to engineers, policy makers, managers, other stakeholders including non-specialists.

Vote this comment    
3 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Murugesu Sivapalan http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-78 Murugesu Sivapalan Wed, 23 May 2012 21:32:33 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-78 Thank you, Alberto, for the report from the Hohai (Nanjing) meeting. I found several positive, exciting aspects in your report. Firstly, after several months and rounds of discussions in the blog and in meetings, which explored a lot of lot of issues and ideas, the new initiative is beginning to take shape. The invoking of the ideas of Heraclitus is a clear confirmation that the community has reached a consensus that the new initiative is going to be centered on “change”, but change in a positive way. In the words of Heraclitus, “nothing is permanent except change”. The decision to focus on change should help with the next stage of the discussion. Secondly, I was very happy to see three themes emerging from the discussions in Nanjing, although they were presented in Alberto’s blog as targets. These were: “understanding”, “prediction” and “management” (these are my words, summarizing Alberto’s words). Understanding refers to fundamental research, prediction refers to (improved) methods deriving from the understanding, and management refers to the application of the methods to manage water resources for the benefit of society. This is a very balanced approach, but I would only add that these three themes are inter-connected, and that the management system itself is worthy of observation and analysis to develop new understanding of human-water interactions in the sense of socio-hydrology. I was relieved that prediction again takes an important part in the new initiative, just as it did in the PUB initiative (along with understanding). The new features of the initiative are therefore (i) “change” (in terms of an explicit time arrow, via co-evolution), (ii) “human-nature interactions” (via human impacts on the environment, and their feedbacks, and the management of these interactions and feedbacks). Another advance is a new and renewed focus on uncertainty in a broader way. I really liked the focus on indeterminacy-predictability-uncertainty in the context of changing systems, in particular in the context of human-nature systems. This can and should play a central role in the new initiative, and opens the way for a wide variety of approaches based on nonlinear dynamics and stochastic processes to enrich the field. Application of such techniques also provides new and productive avenues to understand how the coupled hydrologic-ecologic-social systems work. Finally, by focusing on “water” (not surface hydrology, or groundwater hydrology, not even hydrology), you have made a major break from PUB in terms of inclusivity of the wider community of water scientists. This is fantastic from the IAHS (the various commissions) perspective, but also from a societal perspective, and is going to be good to gain support and acceptance. I am also excited that the major advance in the thinking happened in Nanjing, which is going to be great for inclusivity at the international level. You have captured the spirit of this by invoking Heraclitus and Confucius in the same breath in the same report. Invoking of such wisdom from the ages is a good omen for the success of the initiative. I hope you can borrow some ideas from other sages from the past, such as Chief Seattle in the United States (of the “Web of Life” fame), and others. I believe, now that the broad themes are decided, the community can get around to refining the tentative science questions discussed in Nanjing, and mapping them onto actionable tasks or research activities that are done in a collaborative way across the world. The definitions of the activities will enable to arrive at some realistic goals in 10 years. In this sense there is a still a lot of work to do, but at this stage in the PUB project I believe we still much further behind (in fact the PUB Science Plan was completed some 6 months after its launch in December 2002). My only critical comments are: 1. This new initiative is going to be highly interdisciplinary, including disciplines that are not even represented within the IAHS (for example, social sciences must be represented in an inclusive way from the beginning), along with ecologists. 2. I think the time arrow needs to even more prominent in the thinking than it appears in the Nanjing report. I think the key words are there in the various science questions, such as co-evolution, but they must remain strong key words in the further development of the science plan. In this sense, comparative hydrology (which is already prominent in PUB but in a spatial context), must include time or history explicitly. I had a good feeling reading your report – I am convinced that this is going to lead to an exciting and successful new initiative, and once again IAHS, in spite of limited resources, has managed to provide science leadership at the international level, coming on the heels of the PUB initiative which is coming to an end. I look forward to following the continued progress of the science plan, and contributing to it from time to time. Siva Sivapalan Thank you, Alberto, for the report from the Hohai (Nanjing) meeting. I found several positive, exciting aspects in your report.

Firstly, after several months and rounds of discussions in the blog and in meetings, which explored a lot of lot of issues and ideas, the new initiative is beginning to take shape. The invoking of the ideas of Heraclitus is a clear confirmation that the community has reached a consensus that the new initiative is going to be centered on “change”, but change in a positive way. In the words of Heraclitus, “nothing is permanent except change”. The decision to focus on change should help with the next stage of the discussion.

Secondly, I was very happy to see three themes emerging from the discussions in Nanjing, although they were presented in Alberto’s blog as targets. These were: “understanding”, “prediction” and “management” (these are my words, summarizing Alberto’s words). Understanding refers to fundamental research, prediction refers to (improved) methods deriving from the understanding, and management refers to the application of the methods to manage water resources for the benefit of society. This is a very balanced approach, but I would only add that these three themes are inter-connected, and that the management system itself is worthy of observation and analysis to develop new understanding of human-water interactions in the sense of socio-hydrology.

I was relieved that prediction again takes an important part in the new initiative, just as it did in the PUB initiative (along with understanding). The new features of the initiative are therefore (i) “change” (in terms of an explicit time arrow, via co-evolution), (ii) “human-nature interactions” (via human impacts on the environment, and their feedbacks, and the management of these interactions and feedbacks).

Another advance is a new and renewed focus on uncertainty in a broader way. I really liked the focus on indeterminacy-predictability-uncertainty in the context of changing systems, in particular in the context of human-nature systems. This can and should play a central role in the new initiative, and opens the way for a wide variety of approaches based on nonlinear dynamics and stochastic processes to enrich the field. Application of such techniques also provides new and productive avenues to understand how the coupled hydrologic-ecologic-social systems work.

Finally, by focusing on “water” (not surface hydrology, or groundwater hydrology, not even hydrology), you have made a major break from PUB in terms of inclusivity of the wider community of water scientists. This is fantastic from the IAHS (the various commissions) perspective, but also from a societal perspective, and is going to be good to gain support and acceptance.

I am also excited that the major advance in the thinking happened in Nanjing, which is going to be great for inclusivity at the international level. You have captured the spirit of this by invoking Heraclitus and Confucius in the same breath in the same report. Invoking of such wisdom from the ages is a good omen for the success of the initiative. I hope you can borrow some ideas from other sages from the past, such as Chief Seattle in the United States (of the “Web of Life” fame), and others.

I believe, now that the broad themes are decided, the community can get around to refining the tentative science questions discussed in Nanjing, and mapping them onto actionable tasks or research activities that are done in a collaborative way across the world. The definitions of the activities will enable to arrive at some realistic goals in 10 years. In this sense there is a still a lot of work to do, but at this stage in the PUB project I believe we still much further behind (in fact the PUB Science Plan was completed some 6 months after its launch in December 2002).

My only critical comments are:
1. This new initiative is going to be highly interdisciplinary, including disciplines that are not even represented within the IAHS (for example, social sciences must be represented in an inclusive way from the beginning), along with ecologists.
2. I think the time arrow needs to even more prominent in the thinking than it appears in the Nanjing report. I think the key words are there in the various science questions, such as co-evolution, but they must remain strong key words in the further development of the science plan. In this sense, comparative hydrology (which is already prominent in PUB but in a spatial context), must include time or history explicitly.

I had a good feeling reading your report – I am convinced that this is going to lead to an exciting and successful new initiative, and once again IAHS, in spite of limited resources, has managed to provide science leadership at the international level, coming on the heels of the PUB initiative which is coming to an end. I look forward to following the continued progress of the science plan, and contributing to it from time to time.

Siva Sivapalan

Vote this comment    
5 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Salvatore Grimaldi http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-76 Salvatore Grimaldi Mon, 21 May 2012 05:33:16 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-76 Let us take a break ...let us "come back" to observe hydrological processes! Following the very pleasant task force meeting kindly organized by the IAHS Vice President Liliang Ren at Hahoi University, Najing, China, I am always more in favor to support and stimulate the use of new observations, and observation in general, inside the new IAHS Decade Initiative. My feeling is that during the next decade the community should "come back" to observe hydrological processes taking the advantage of new technologies. I say "come back" since reading the literature and attending popular hydrological conferences my feeling is that, nowadays, most of researchers are devoting their time to model processes instead to observe it. Most of the times, the proposed models are really similar to each others, showing differences just for few details or parameters to better adapt it to local or specific conditions. I say "came back" since the fathers of hydrology proposed new theories or general models looking at the processes using very limited technologies and poor instrumentations. Recently, it is tangible the enormous progress in new technologies that helped and surely could help in the near future the community. I am not going to repeat my previous comment posted in the blog, but I feel that in ten years we should be prepared and prepare the professional community and Institutions to use the new generation of information that very fast, every days, are always more available. So, other to further emphasize this my point of view, my practical suggestion is to include also in the keywords the word “observations” and to identify a cross-target that would crystallize the importance of use of new observations, and observations in general, as a common basis of the three proposed targets. Let us take a break …let us “come back” to observe hydrological processes!

Following the very pleasant task force meeting kindly organized by the IAHS Vice President Liliang Ren at Hahoi University, Najing, China, I am always more in favor to support and stimulate the use of new observations, and observation in general, inside the new IAHS Decade Initiative.

My feeling is that during the next decade the community should “come back” to observe hydrological processes taking the advantage of new technologies.

I say “come back” since reading the literature and attending popular hydrological conferences my feeling is that, nowadays, most of researchers are devoting their time to model processes instead to observe it. Most of the times, the proposed models are really similar to each others, showing differences just for few details or parameters to better adapt it to local or specific conditions.

I say “came back” since the fathers of hydrology proposed new theories or general models looking at the processes using very limited technologies and poor instrumentations.
Recently, it is tangible the enormous progress in new technologies that helped and surely could help in the near future the community.

I am not going to repeat my previous comment posted in the blog, but I feel that in ten years we should be prepared and prepare the professional community and Institutions to use the new generation of information that very fast, every days, are always more available.

So, other to further emphasize this my point of view, my practical suggestion is to include also in the keywords the word “observations” and to identify a cross-target that would crystallize the importance of use of new observations, and observations in general, as a common basis of the three proposed targets.

Vote this comment    
11 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Veena Srinivasan http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-75 Veena Srinivasan Sun, 20 May 2012 17:19:56 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-75 Thank you. Including anthropogenic feedbacks in study of water resource systems is a much needed step in the right direction and I would like to congratulate IAHS for taking this bold step. I think the proposed focus is relevant, timely and interesting. If this is to feed into policy discussions eventually I think some more keywords could be used: coupled human-water systems, freshwater security, water sustainability, co-evolution Additionally, I have two suggestions: 1. Involve social scientists early on I understand IAHS' focus is on hydrology, but these goals cannot be achieved without some engagement with social scientists. Modeling hydrology across the human-natural interface is likely to be much harder than the groundwater-surface water interface. Working with plant physiologists in extending hydrology to eco-hydrology, who share a similar training in natural sciences with hydrologists, is much easier than working across multiple social science disciplines in extending hydrology to "socio-hydrology". Collaborations between hydrologists and social scientists who have fundamentally different training and epistemology is a non-trivial problem and won't happen organically without targeted funding to overcome the barriers. 2. Address the problem of diversity early on: Human systems are far more diverse than natural systems. Once socioeconomic and institutional diversity is coupled with hydrologic diversity, the problem quickly reduces to "every coupled system is unique" and finding patterns becomes intractable. Designing programs to specifically target this within the sub-categories - urban systems, mountainous regions, agro-pastoral systems etc. would be much appreciated Some ways to achieve this may be by funding multiple similar sites along a gradient, or funding consortia of scientists. Thank you. Including anthropogenic feedbacks in study of water resource systems is a much needed step in the right direction and I would like to congratulate IAHS for taking this bold step. I think the proposed focus is relevant, timely and interesting.

If this is to feed into policy discussions eventually I think some more keywords could be used: coupled human-water systems, freshwater security, water sustainability, co-evolution

Additionally, I have two suggestions:
1. Involve social scientists early on
I understand IAHS’ focus is on hydrology, but these goals cannot be achieved without some engagement with social scientists. Modeling hydrology across the human-natural interface is likely to be much harder than the groundwater-surface water interface. Working with plant physiologists in extending hydrology to eco-hydrology, who share a similar training in natural sciences with hydrologists, is much easier than working across multiple social science disciplines in extending hydrology to “socio-hydrology”.
Collaborations between hydrologists and social scientists who have fundamentally different training and epistemology is a non-trivial problem and won’t happen organically without targeted funding to overcome the barriers.

2. Address the problem of diversity early on:
Human systems are far more diverse than natural systems. Once socioeconomic and institutional diversity is coupled with hydrologic diversity, the problem quickly reduces to “every coupled system is unique” and finding patterns becomes intractable.
Designing programs to specifically target this within the sub-categories – urban systems, mountainous regions, agro-pastoral systems etc. would be much appreciated Some ways to achieve this may be by funding multiple similar sites along a gradient, or funding consortia of scientists.

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on Towards the preliminary Science Plan by Alberto Montanari http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-74 Alberto Montanari Sat, 19 May 2012 17:18:41 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=264#comment-74 Dear Bloggers, to complete the information related to the meeting in Nanjing, I am pleased to make available the presentation that was given by the IAHS President, Prof. Gordon Young, which can be downloaded <a href="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/nanjingyoung.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It is an interesting perspective on the current major challenges related to water resources management. Furthermore, please find <a href="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/IAHSNanjingCudennec.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> a pdf copy of the presentation given by the Secretary General of the IAHS, Prof. Christophe Cudennec. It's a vision on the structure of the next IAHS Decade, and therefore it is a valuable input for future discussions regarding the organisation of the research activity. Finally, please find <a href="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/ICCLAS-IAHS2012Nanjing-BLOG.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> a pdf copy of the presentation given by Prof. Fuqiang Tian to summarise the input from the ICCLAS Commission, and <a href="http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/ICCE-IAHS-BLOG.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> a pdf copy of the presentation given by Prof. Xinbao Zhang and Vladimir Belyaev to summarise the input from the ICCE Commission. Thank you for your attention. All the best, Alberto Dear Bloggers,
to complete the information related to the meeting in Nanjing, I am pleased to make available the presentation that was given by the IAHS President, Prof. Gordon Young, which can be downloaded here. It is an interesting perspective on the current major challenges related to water resources management.
Furthermore, please find here a pdf copy of the presentation given by the Secretary General of the IAHS, Prof. Christophe Cudennec. It’s a vision on the structure of the next IAHS Decade, and therefore it is a valuable input for future discussions regarding the organisation of the research activity.
Finally, please find here a pdf copy of the presentation given by Prof. Fuqiang Tian to summarise the input from the ICCLAS Commission, and here a pdf copy of the presentation given by Prof. Xinbao Zhang and Vladimir Belyaev to summarise the input from the ICCE Commission.
Thank you for your attention.
All the best,
Alberto

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on After the EGU week and towards Nanjing by Francesc Gallart http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=173#comment-73 Francesc Gallart Fri, 18 May 2012 10:44:37 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=173#comment-73 Thanks to Alberto and everybody for this exciting discussion. I would like to draw more attention to some aspects already commented but that are still poorly considered in the overall framework. A web facility made by a Water Agency for educating children in the good management of water includes a scheme of the water cycle. In it, the water cycle starts in the stream / reservoir. This is the real world of water management: we only manage ‘blue’ water (with some exceptions most of them from South Africa). But it is amazing to stress that the two ‘black swans’ cited above by Alberto are examples where changes in land cover induced the increase of ‘blue’ water at the expense of ‘green’ water irrespectively of precipitation forcing. Gil Mahé provided another example from the African Sahel. Yet, land cover changes are not only a result of direct man’s activity, but severe vegetation changes have been anticipated in many areas of the World for the next decades as a result of changing climatic water balances (1). This is very recently that foresters (2) and the ‘watershed management’ community (3) assimilated and decided to put in practice the findings (paradigm change) obtained after decades of research on forest hydrology. But we (hydrologists) can not help them so much because, as Peter Troch commented, most hydrological models ‘are not restricted when it comes to assigning soil and vegetation parameterizations’. This is not just a modelling issue; we must take into account that hydrology is also a Natural Science and rather ‘soft’ approaches such as classifications and comparisons between basins or in gradients (Siva, Peter Troch and Pierre Gentine comments) are necessary. I think therefore that land cover/use issues should therefore be more explicitly included in the schedule. All the best Francesc Links: 1: (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-4-3.html) 2: (http://www.efimed.efi.int/portal/events/mfw2011/portal/1642) 3: (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0644e/a0644e00.htm) Thanks to Alberto and everybody for this exciting discussion. I would like to draw more attention to some aspects already commented but that are still poorly considered in the overall framework.

A web facility made by a Water Agency for educating children in the good management of water includes a scheme of the water cycle. In it, the water cycle starts in the stream / reservoir.

This is the real world of water management: we only manage ‘blue’ water (with some exceptions most of them from South Africa). But it is amazing to stress that the two ‘black swans’ cited above by Alberto are examples where changes in land cover induced the increase of ‘blue’ water at the expense of ‘green’ water irrespectively of precipitation forcing. Gil Mahé provided another example from the African Sahel.

Yet, land cover changes are not only a result of direct man’s activity, but severe vegetation changes have been anticipated in many areas of the World for the next decades as a result of changing climatic water balances (1).

This is very recently that foresters (2) and the ‘watershed management’ community (3) assimilated and decided to put in practice the findings (paradigm change) obtained after decades of research on forest hydrology. But we (hydrologists) can not help them so much because, as Peter Troch commented, most hydrological models ‘are not restricted when it comes to assigning soil and vegetation parameterizations’.
This is not just a modelling issue; we must take into account that hydrology is also a Natural Science and rather ‘soft’ approaches such as classifications and comparisons between basins or in gradients (Siva, Peter Troch and Pierre Gentine comments) are necessary.

I think therefore that land cover/use issues should therefore be more explicitly included in the schedule.

All the best
Francesc

Links:
1: (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-4-3.html)
2: (http://www.efimed.efi.int/portal/events/mfw2011/portal/1642)
3: (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0644e/a0644e00.htm)

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on After the EGU week and towards Nanjing by Alberto http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=173#comment-72 Alberto Thu, 17 May 2012 06:46:20 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=173#comment-72 Black Swans in Hydrology: A summary of the discussion from the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Symposium, April 28, 2012 Quantifying, characterising, and eventually reducing uncertainty in hydrologic predictions has been recognised by many contributors to this blog as one of the key objectives for the next hydrologic decade. This objective is inherently difficult because of the so-called “unknown unknowns” – those events or processes for which we have not quantified or observed yet which have the potential to fundamentally change our parameterisation or conceptualization of a particular hydrologic phenomenon. One could argue that this very intriguing scientific issue, i.e., to somehow incorporate unknown unknowns in our theories and models is marginal in practice (there are of course many things not incorporated into models simply because we believe they have marginal impact on the predictions). But what if that is not the case? What if the unknown unknowns are indeed “Black Swans”, i.e., they also have a great impact? Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines in his book Black Swans as surprising events, which have a great impact and that can be explained easily after they manifest themselves but have not been predicted a priori [Taleb, 2007]. The idea of Black Swans in hydrology was explored during the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Science Symposium, held at the Vienna University of Technology on May 28, 2012. The discussion focused on two questions: (1) Are there Black Swans in hydrology? and (2) How can we deal with Black Swans in our theories/models? A summary of this discussion is presented below. To address the question of whether there are Black Swans in hydrology, the discussion focused on providing examples of previous Black Swan hydrologic events throughout history. Most of the examples from the discussion were flood events. One such example given was a 2002 flood in Arizona. A long-term policy of extinguishing small fires led to the build-up of massive amounts of fuel that, in turn, resulted in a massive wildfire. The large wildfire resulted in damaged soils that were no longer able to absorb water. A seemingly higher than normal precipitation event (although not an extreme precipitation event) came through the area and resulted in a 500-year flood due to the hydrophobicity of the soils. A non-flood example was given that related the problem of salinity in Western Australia. Since European settlement, perennial vegetation had been cleared for farmland. This triggered a complete change in the water balance in the area and the loss of evapotranspiration caused the groundwater table to rise to the surface and displace the salt contained in the soils from the bottom to the top layers. Once the salt came to the surface, the vegetation started dying, resulting in a complete and irreversible loss of the farmland. These were Black Swan events: surprising, with major impact, and, although easy to explain once they have happened, could not have been predicted prior to their occurrence. In discussing and contrasting various examples of Black Swans in hydrology several observations and questions were raised: • It was noted that a “black swan” is defined relative to a body of knowledge. What may be considered a Black Swan event for people in one part of the globe may not be considered a Black Swan elsewhere. In the Arizona wildfire example, the problem of hydrophobicity of soils from wildfires is a well-known phenomenon in other parts of the western United States. Is there a spatial or locational element to considering Black Swans in hydrology? • We recognized that many catastrophic events are Black Swans because the societies in which they occur are unprepared for them. An event that is catastrophic in one place may not be elsewhere, where society is better prepared, or more resilient. This highlights the fact that Black Swans arise because of our (lack of) knowledge and expectations. • Do Black Swans occur naturally in hydrology or are they a result of human interaction with the hydrologic cycle. For example, does an extreme flood only become a Black Swan when a dam fails or people and property are located in a flood plain? • Can we categorize hydrologic Black Swans into several classes? The discussion raised four possible categories of Black Swan events: (1) Black Swan – a discrete single sighting, (2) Flocks of black swans – a cascade of events in which one black swan produces another, (3) an ugly duckling – a black swan produced by two white swans (two seemingly innocuous events), and (4) Stupid swan – an event we know could be catastrophic but choose as a society to ignore. • Are there Black Swans events for which we have already recorded but have discarded as outliers or equipment error? For example, there was a delay in the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer because the observations were believed to be outliers due to equipment malfunction. The group's discussion of how can we deal with Black Swans in our theories/models mirrored many of the suggestions already made by others in this blog. These included: • Looking at other places (comparative hydrology): what is a Black Swan here could have happened already somewhere else. Retrieving information from the “ungauged” past: e.g., water issues caused the decline of ancient civilisations in India and America, do we know what happened? What can we learn from it? • Don't exclude outliers – embrace them. Apparently anomalous behavior that falls far from the mean may be representative of rare events that have a large impact. These events need to be studied. • Creative, out-of-the-box thinking is critical as a way to circumvent blinkered expectations about what knowledge is useful. We need to imagine things that might be important in the future, even if they have never been in the past. Structured brainstorming on events is necessary • In systems where a small number of events (in time) or points (in space) play a dominant role in the behavior of the system, it is necessary to collect many many observations. Oversampling a system relative to its mean behaviour is needed to characterize the tails of the distribution of behaviours. • Interdisciplinarity: human, ecological, geomorphic, seismic etc. processes may drive hydrologic Black Swans more than the rainfall-runoff itself. • A systematic, axiomatic approach to hydrologic modelling may help us identify blind-spots that hide Black Swans. This approach involves clearly listing the assumptions that go into a prediction, and critically assessing those assumptions. • Last but not least, have humility: Black Swans reveal our limited ability to predict and control nature. And if prediction is not feasible, we should focus on resilience, preparedness, robustness, which is indeed the conclusion in the book of Taleb. It was clear by the end of the discussion that one day was not enough to design a framework to deal with Black Swans in hydrology. As humans continue to interact with the hydrologic cycle and long term natural and anthropogenic change influences catchment evolution, we hope that the discussion of Black Swans in hydrology can considered in the next hydrologic decade. Stacey Archfield, Ciaran Harman, Alberto Viglione, Ross Woods and all participants to the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Symposium. ref: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas: The Black Swan – the Impact of the Highly Improbable, 366 pages, Random House, New York, 2007. Black Swans in Hydrology: A summary of the discussion from the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Symposium, April 28, 2012

Quantifying, characterising, and eventually reducing uncertainty in hydrologic predictions has been recognised by many contributors to this blog as one of the key objectives for the next hydrologic decade. This objective is inherently difficult because of the so-called “unknown unknowns” – those events or processes for which we have not quantified or observed yet which have the potential to fundamentally change our parameterisation or conceptualization of a particular hydrologic phenomenon. One could argue that this very intriguing scientific issue, i.e., to somehow incorporate unknown unknowns in our theories and models is marginal in practice (there are of course many things not incorporated into models simply because we believe they have marginal impact on the predictions). But what if that is not the case? What if the unknown unknowns are indeed “Black Swans”, i.e., they also have a great impact? Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines in his book Black Swans as surprising events, which have a great impact and that can be explained easily after they manifest themselves but have not been predicted a priori [Taleb, 2007]. The idea of Black Swans in hydrology was explored during the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Science Symposium, held at the Vienna University of Technology on May 28, 2012.
The discussion focused on two questions: (1) Are there Black Swans in hydrology? and (2) How can we deal with Black Swans in our theories/models? A summary of this discussion is presented below.

To address the question of whether there are Black Swans in hydrology, the discussion focused on providing examples of previous Black Swan hydrologic events throughout history.
Most of the examples from the discussion were flood events. One such example given was a 2002 flood in Arizona. A long-term policy of extinguishing small fires led to the build-up of massive amounts of fuel that, in turn, resulted in a massive wildfire. The large wildfire resulted in damaged soils that were no longer able to absorb water. A seemingly higher than normal precipitation event (although not an extreme precipitation event) came through the area and resulted in a 500-year flood due to the hydrophobicity of the soils.
A non-flood example was given that related the problem of salinity in Western Australia. Since European settlement, perennial vegetation had been cleared for farmland. This triggered a complete change in the water balance in the area and the loss of evapotranspiration caused the groundwater table to rise to the surface and displace the salt contained in the soils from the bottom to the top layers. Once the salt came to the surface, the vegetation started dying, resulting in a complete and irreversible loss of the farmland. These were Black Swan events: surprising, with major impact, and, although easy to explain once they have happened, could not have been predicted prior to their occurrence. In discussing and contrasting various examples of Black Swans in hydrology several observations and questions were raised:
• It was noted that a “black swan” is defined relative to a body of knowledge. What may be considered a Black Swan event for people in one part of the globe may not be considered a Black Swan elsewhere. In the Arizona wildfire example, the problem of hydrophobicity of soils from wildfires is a well-known phenomenon in other parts of the western United States. Is there a spatial or locational element to considering Black Swans in hydrology?
• We recognized that many catastrophic events are Black Swans because the societies in which they occur are unprepared for them. An event that is catastrophic in one place may not be elsewhere, where society is better prepared, or more resilient. This highlights the fact that Black Swans arise because of our (lack of) knowledge and expectations.
• Do Black Swans occur naturally in hydrology or are they a result of human interaction with the hydrologic cycle. For example, does an extreme flood only become a Black Swan when a dam fails or people and property are located in a flood plain?
• Can we categorize hydrologic Black Swans into several classes? The discussion raised four possible categories of Black Swan events: (1) Black Swan – a discrete single sighting, (2) Flocks of black swans – a cascade of events in which one black swan produces another, (3) an ugly duckling – a black swan produced by two white swans (two seemingly innocuous events), and (4) Stupid swan – an event we know could be catastrophic but choose as a society to ignore.
• Are there Black Swans events for which we have already recorded but have discarded as outliers or equipment error? For example, there was a delay in the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer because the observations were believed to be outliers due to equipment malfunction.

The group’s discussion of how can we deal with Black Swans in our theories/models mirrored many of the suggestions already made by others in this blog. These included:
• Looking at other places (comparative hydrology): what is a Black Swan here could have happened already somewhere else. Retrieving information from the “ungauged” past: e.g., water issues caused the decline of ancient civilisations in India and America, do we know what happened? What can we learn from it?
• Don’t exclude outliers – embrace them. Apparently anomalous behavior that falls far from the mean may be representative of rare events that have a large impact. These events need to be studied.
• Creative, out-of-the-box thinking is critical as a way to circumvent blinkered expectations about what knowledge is useful. We need to imagine things that might be important in the future, even if they have never been in the past. Structured brainstorming on events is necessary
• In systems where a small number of events (in time) or points (in space) play a dominant role in the behavior of the system, it is necessary to collect many many observations. Oversampling a system relative to its mean behaviour is needed to characterize the tails of the distribution of behaviours.
• Interdisciplinarity: human, ecological, geomorphic, seismic etc. processes may drive hydrologic Black Swans more than the rainfall-runoff itself.
• A systematic, axiomatic approach to hydrologic modelling may help us identify blind-spots that hide Black Swans. This approach involves clearly listing the assumptions that go into a prediction, and critically assessing those assumptions.
• Last but not least, have humility: Black Swans reveal our limited ability to predict and control nature. And if prediction is not feasible, we should focus on resilience, preparedness, robustness, which is indeed the conclusion in the book of Taleb.

It was clear by the end of the discussion that one day was not enough to design a framework to deal with Black Swans in hydrology. As humans continue to interact with the hydrologic cycle and long term natural and anthropogenic change influences catchment evolution, we hope that the discussion of Black Swans in hydrology can considered in the next hydrologic decade.

Stacey Archfield, Ciaran Harman, Alberto Viglione, Ross Woods and all participants to the 2012 Vienna Catchment Science Symposium.

ref: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas: The Black Swan – the Impact of the Highly Improbable, 366 pages, Random House, New York, 2007.

Vote this comment    
4 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The new Science Initiative – First summary of the discussion by Bettina Schaefli http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-67 Bettina Schaefli Wed, 09 May 2012 08:49:32 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-67 I would like to add something: I am of course aware that some comments (Siva, Alberto) suggested to wait for the name of the new initiative to fall out of the discussion (Siva, 29.1.) : "Once the nature of activities is decided, the naming of the initiative may naturally fall out of this"). I think we have reached a point where synthesis is required and I am convinced that discussing potential names and title keywords can be a way forward. Do we e.g. want to have the key word "prediction" or "understanding"? "Socio-xx" or not?", "change" or "co-evolution"? Bettina I would like to add something: I am of course aware that some comments (Siva, Alberto) suggested to wait for the name of the new initiative to fall out of the discussion (Siva, 29.1.) : “Once the nature of activities is decided, the naming of the initiative may naturally fall out of this”). I think we have reached a point where synthesis is required and I am convinced that discussing potential names and title keywords can be a way forward. Do we e.g. want to have the key word “prediction” or “understanding”? “Socio-xx” or not?”, “change” or “co-evolution”?

Bettina

Vote this comment    
2 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The new Science Initiative – First summary of the discussion by Bettina Schaefli http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-66 Bettina Schaefli Tue, 08 May 2012 16:08:38 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-66 Dear All At this stage, the discussion seems to be to strongly evolving around methods that should be developed in the new science initiative, list of tools to be used, questions and problems to be addressed. A lot of ingredients without any plans for who to invite to the diner ;-) The very interesting inputs to the discussion will be of great help to fill in all details of the science initiative but I think it is important to forget for a while the scientific inductive pathway and propose first an overarching theme from which we can deduce all the activities that should be implemented. A theme that sounds attractive to specialists and stakeholders, which seems to be specific but which leaves enough room for interpretation to become inclusive. Ok, this is difficult, but let's be creative and propose names / titles! My contribution to this effort is that this title should definitively include the word <b>"FOR"</b>, i.e. the title should tell everyone why and for whom we are doing research (thus: not Prediction of changing systems or Prediction under change but Prediction for an evolving society). I am convinced that finding an appealing title with which many people can identify will, at this stage, help to advance the discussion. Dear All

At this stage, the discussion seems to be to strongly evolving around methods that should be developed in the new science initiative, list of tools to be used, questions and problems to be addressed. A lot of ingredients without any plans for who to invite to the diner ;-)
The very interesting inputs to the discussion will be of great help to fill in all details of the science initiative but I think it is important to forget for a while the scientific inductive pathway and propose first an overarching theme from which we can deduce all the activities that should be implemented. A theme that sounds attractive to specialists and stakeholders, which seems to be specific but which leaves enough room for interpretation to become inclusive. Ok, this is difficult, but let’s be creative and propose names / titles!
My contribution to this effort is that this title should definitively include the word “FOR”, i.e. the title should tell everyone why and for whom we are doing research (thus: not Prediction of changing systems or Prediction under change but Prediction for an evolving society).
I am convinced that finding an appealing title with which many people can identify will, at this stage, help to advance the discussion.

Vote this comment    
1 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>
Comment on The new Science Initiative – First summary of the discussion by Luigia Brandimarte http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-65 Luigia Brandimarte Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:59:33 +0000 http://distart119.ing.unibo.it/iahs/?p=146#comment-65 Dear All, I would like to thank Alberto for initiating this blog and chairing this open discussion. I am just back from EGU and just finished reading the comments on this blog and I got the feeling that our discussion on future steps in hydrology has become a very exciting intellectual exercise, but (you should expect some BUTS at this point...) has got too much of a "philosophical drift". I am afraid we are moving more and more away from the actual needs of the engineering/hydrological applications. Something I feel is missing in all comments is what I consider the key question: what does the “real (engineering/technical) world” need from scientists? Are we doing Science for Science? Shouldn't we spur the participation of representatives of engineering agencies, stakeholders, civil protection agencies into this very useful exchange of opinions? In my limited experience, I have noticed that some of the future steps we are proposing for our research in hydrology is what many technicians actually do in their day-to-day practice (and I find it particularly true in data scarce areas and developing countries): they look at the past, they go on site to look at the landscape, local characteristic of the basin and compare across space. My point is that we should not loose contact with real world and how real world digests, interprets and makes use of the outcomes of our research. I believe that one of the gaps we should try to bridge between science and technics is uncertainty. How do we recognize, assess, quantify, transfer, accept uncertainty? How do we use our (uncertain) models for real world applications. I also believe that the civil population is well aware that we are living in a changing world. I read some comments mentioning that we should look at changing condition. At least since the industrial revolution changes have been fast, visible and trackable. We are not finding out today that our world is non-stationary. So, my suggestion is to look at assessing uncertainty in future changes and explore how to take that into account in water resources planning and management. As an example, many of the hydraulic structures in service are aging and they are approaching the end of their life-time and are nowadays either underdesigned for the current (and future?!) needs or are poorly maintained: how can we assess and reduce uncertainty in future water demand, water use, design variables to minimize the problems we are facing today? Luigia Dear All,

I would like to thank Alberto for initiating this blog and chairing this open discussion.

I am just back from EGU and just finished reading the comments on this blog and I got the feeling that our discussion on future steps in hydrology has become a very exciting intellectual exercise, but (you should expect some BUTS at this point…) has got too much of a “philosophical drift”.
I am afraid we are moving more and more away from the actual needs of the engineering/hydrological applications.
Something I feel is missing in all comments is what I consider the key question: what does the “real (engineering/technical) world” need from scientists? Are we doing Science for Science? Shouldn’t we spur the participation of representatives of engineering agencies, stakeholders, civil protection agencies into this very useful exchange of opinions?
In my limited experience, I have noticed that some of the future steps we are proposing for our research in hydrology is what many technicians actually do in their day-to-day practice (and I find it particularly true in data scarce areas and developing countries): they look at the past, they go on site to look at the landscape, local characteristic of the basin and compare across space.
My point is that we should not loose contact with real world and how real world digests, interprets and makes use of the outcomes of our research.

I believe that one of the gaps we should try to bridge between science and technics is uncertainty. How do we recognize, assess, quantify, transfer, accept uncertainty? How do we use our (uncertain) models for real world applications.
I also believe that the civil population is well aware that we are living in a changing world. I read some comments mentioning that we should look at changing condition. At least since the industrial revolution changes have been fast, visible and trackable. We are not finding out today that our world is non-stationary.
So, my suggestion is to look at assessing uncertainty in future changes and explore how to take that into account in water resources planning and management. As an example, many of the hydraulic structures in service are aging and they are approaching the end of their life-time and are nowadays either underdesigned for the current (and future?!) needs or are poorly maintained: how can we assess and reduce uncertainty in future water demand, water use, design variables to minimize the problems we are facing today?

Luigia

Vote this comment    
12 user(s) like(s) this comment

]]>