 |
|
|
Gupta Research Group > WEB Project >
Comments and Feedback
Last updated October 27, 1999
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523, Phone/Fax: 970-491-8293 Email: pielke@hercules.atmos.colostate.edu VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT: http://hercules.atmos.colostate.edu/~project :
The WEB concept is an effective framework to couple atmospheric and land surface process in order to better understand the Earth as a system. Indeed, climate is appropriately an integration of the atmosphere, land surface, sea ice, and the oceans, rather than just the atmosphere as an external force impacting the Earth's surface. The Earth system involves nonlinear interactions, so that the concept of self-regulation and instabilites can be explored. Both idealized nonlinear coupled and complex Earth system models should be components of WEB.
Doug James, Director of Hydrology Program, EAR Division/GEO Directorate, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C
Sept. 14, 1999
Vijay, Dara & George,
After reviewing the presentation of WEB that Vijay recently posted, the report from Dara's panel (HP) that will be released shortly, and the discussions in the first round of George's effort (GCP), I offer the following reflections. I greatly appreciate the hard work by each group. All are making an important contribution toward stimulating much-needed discussions that are long overdue in a world where there are no "right" answers.
At the HP presentation, Bob Hirsh laid an excellent framework in grouping the issues into What? Why? and How? The material from WEB and HP is largely directed to reaching consensus in defining What? - the leading science issues. It is revealing that the two independent efforts are in general agreement as to substance even through WEB expresses topics in more mathematic terminology and with concepts that seem a bit closer to working hypotheses and HP uses more qualitative terms. Some will say that the mathematical expression conveys greater confidence that the presenters have a plan for getting there, and others will say that jargon does not make a plan. However, I believe that all efforts are now much better advised to build common strengths than to argue these kinds of differences.
In building strengths, we need to recognize that tools are important. I have the feeling that the authors of WEB were thinking more about numerical tools and long-term goals for the science and that the authors of HP were thinking more about laboratory and field work that the science can do quickly, a distinction that seems quite appropriate given that WEB is talking to NSF and HP is talking to multiple federal agencies.
We do need to integrate information from all types of tools. The limits to the power of the tools available constrain what can be done to advance the science. Serious thought needs to be given to what those limits are in the areas defined by the "what" and to how they can be overcome, a topic that has not yet been addressed and may well fall best in the domain of GCP.
Nevertheless, both WEB and HP are weak on "why" as seen from the reactions of the readers. What sort of better "why" is needed? If one accepts the premise that the driver for water research is an increasing world water shortage (supply minus demand) and that climate change could create local calamities by causing this shor-tage to come quite quickly, the "why" needs to focus on compelling presentation of how the "what" would alleviate the problem. The present documents allude that work on described topics would do so but do not adequately explain the problem solving. Once the "why" is thought through more carefully, WEB, HP, and GCP can refine the "what" to focus more precisely on the needs of their respective audiences. This is a major benefit in carefully constructing the "why."
The issue then turns to "how." It is clear that the "what" will not just happen. WEB suggests a "facility." HP is less clear but seems headed toward suggesting a continuing panel presence to give guiding advice. As of yet, the case for a "facility" is not convincing, and few really expect the second to be sufficient. However, these doubts may be overcome by defining each approach more carefully. We need to give the community a clearer notion as to how a "facility" or "guiding advice" would really function. The main point to be made here is that without a good "how" that whole effort will flounder.
WEB could well work on the former and HP on the latter. GCP is asked for advice on what can be done in a very short time frame, a quite different perspective on the "how."
The criterion demarking a good "how" is effectiveness in accomplishing the "what," (actually a dynamic "what" that evolves over time with the advancing science of hydrology). As of now, both "facility" and "wise council" are words lacking substance. Clearly, we cannot define the best way to go without a pilot effort that tries things and evaluates results. This is the need that WEB must face in moving toward a proposal for a facility, HP must face in defining what to do as the Panel continues, and GCP must address explicitly to fulfill their mandate to meet the needs of the USGCRP.
Thank you each one. I look forward to seeing what you can dream.
Doug
*******************************
Sept. 23, 1999
Dara,
Thank you for your comments. We fully agree that the two reports are headed toward the same or at least very similar "whats." It is the "how" issues that is very sticky, and this issue has a critical science component (once the science is thought through we can move on to issues of institutional factors and the ways they impact what to do).
The science component that I see is to evaluate whether existing data gathering efforts and exchange capabilities through the internet and other means and existing studies that usually involve scientists working individually or in very small groups are sufficient to make real progress on the "what." How can we go about accelerating progress? I do not see that the existing effort is procuring the information needed to gain adequate understanding of "scaling" and "transport" issues broadly defined.
My interpretation is that Vijay is advocating a "facility" as pilot experiment to try to add some things to see what they can contribute. It would be an exploratory effort to get new funds into hydrology under a "facility" label without depleting existing support for research projects and would certainly start quite small and only grow as it earned additional support. What are the other options to try? I read into what you were saying that one would be for the Hydrology Panel to give the matter more consideration, and your thoughts could make an additional contribution. This sort of "advising" could like the "facility" continue or fail as it proved its worth, and I am not ready to make a judgment on this for now. I think that you are being a bit over cautious in reacting negatively to this approach even though I fully appreciate your concerns that even suggesting this could be considered a conflict of interest. What other options are there than these two? So far none have come out of the wood work. Please give this some thought to see what you can put together. George and Vijay should be thinking about this too.
One thing that I do know is that the $3m to $4m per year that I have to give out in maximum increments of $100k per year will get to the declared "whats" very slowly if at all. The programs in other agencies add something, and the evaluation needs to assess the total effort more than I can do in writing this note. There is where we need some really creative thinking.
It is really good to have this dialog going.
Comment by Theodore A. Endreny at SUNY-ESF (te@esf.edu)
The Hydro-Geo-2000 report discusses the Clean Water Act (CWA) in terms of setting guidelines for managing water resources. The CWA has dealt well with point-sources of pollution, principally through the NPDES (National Pollution Dischearge Ellimination System) Permitting process. Non-point sources of pollution, however, have not experienced equal success under CWA efforts - possibly due to the fact that the approach tried to focus on spatially and temporarlly distributed discharges.
The Hyro-Geo-2000 report might include a reference to the relatively new approach to NPS pollution control. This approach is captured in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) strategy. TMDLs are an estimate of the maximum amount of pollutant, in several categories (e.g. Phosphorous, Nitrogen), that a water resource can receive and still comply with CWA standards. TMDLs initially consider basin capacity, and then polluter capacity. If a waterbody is not in compliance (such as with North Carolina's Neuse River), then the TMDL strategy aims to reduce loading of the offending pollutant by targeting the sources most efficiently controlled (possibly encouraging multiple watershed landowners to assist in funding cleanup of pollution from one or two landowners). The role of TMDL management stragetgies for guiding water resources toward CWA compliance is uncertain, but it has received support in the President's 1999 State of the Union Address and in other policy initiatives (see EPA coverage). I believe that the Hydro-Geo-2000 report should anticipate increased activity in the area of TMDL monitoring and management, as well as modelling issues.
216 UCB