You can run it now on Linux, Mac, Windows, Amazon, Google, via this Docker image. There is description on how to use it, pretty simple. This is exciting, since it makes building the model on all platform now obsolete and you can get it out easily to more collaborators. In our opinion this is the best way to disseminate a model like this. Please spread the word and have people using it.
If you want to know what Docker is you can click on the Docker logo above.
Let's say that the number of specifications needed is larger here and, therefore, a lot of ancillary information has to be conveyed through Tables (and some interpretation). However, click on the figure above if you are curious to know more.
This post address the results of the scientific outcomes of the project CLIMAWARE. This was financed by our University with the main scope of gathering around a topic researchers from different Departments. We chose to work on impacts of climate on river Adige. Part of the results were posted on this blog as soon as they came out. Others will be posted eventually.
We did not obtain all the results we promised at the beginning (but we had a 20% financial cut) but, nevertheless, I think we achieve something.
We started to match views from various disciplines.
We get several journal papers accepted where we pushed sciences a little forward
In you want a more complete view of our work, please look at the scientific report here. Unfortunately it is in Italian, but a synthesis in English will follow soon. Papers below are not all specifically about river Adige but were considered as works preliminary to the application to to it. Other more applicative papers will follow (eighteen months is not a so long period!).
In Spring we will organise a meeting day where we will summarise our results and talk about spinoffs of the project.
A note: Talking with one of the colleagues who originated this type of call, he asked: how many papers did you publish together (with people from other disciplines)? The papers you published with your guys, you would have had in any case. You can see looking below and judge yourself (but the picture will be complete in a year from now). My answer was: first it is not really true that I (we) would have published the same amount of papers. Some of the papers were produced because money sustained those not already enrolled at University who took care, at least, of many details. Secondly, a) eighteen months is a too short period to produce something together (really new stuff, I mean) with people you did not interacted before; b) Spatial and temporal scale of different disciplines can be really different. It is not easy to fill the gaps. A project like our can make researches getting closer but not eliminate the differences magically. c) Often proper journals for these interdisciplinary efforts are missing. Sci. Total Environ. (a.k.a. Stoten) is one of them, but it has its own targets to be respected, too.
References (published so far: several others are ongoing)
Evapotranspiration and soil water retention curves (SWRC) are intimately related. This was already apparent in the recent works of Dani Or and coworkers. Recently, caused by studies to support the Master Thesis work by Niccolò Tubini on freezing soil, all these issues came back to my attention. As a result, I did a little of literary review (see below) which covered non traditional journals for a hydrologist, and which, however, is equally well illuminating of the aspects of the drying phenomenon.
Being as simple as possible, what I undeerstood in my readings is that the drying process (e.g. Metzger and Tsotsass, 2010) proceeds in a interplay between evaporation and capillary fluxes. Water evaporate from any meniscus, at different rates which are commanded locally by the Fick’s law of diffusion. The gradient moving water around is the difference between the saturation water vapor content (vapor tension) close to the meniscus and the vapor content already present in air gas. Since vapor tension in larger menisci (as described by Kelvin’s effect) is higher, larger pores evaporate faster than smaller pores. Because, water vapor above smaller menisci is less than over larger menisci, we must have an equilibrating vapor flow from larger pores to smaller pores locations (the same Fick’s law is acting). However, a second, and probably faster, water transport is happening through the liquid phase. Internal pressures among pores of different size are imbalanced and a laminar fluid flows happens between them. This flow is controlled by the liquid viscosity. If viscosity is low, larger pores replenish smaller pores until they are emptied very fast. If viscosity is high smaller pores are also emptied. At the extreme cases, low viscosity means (if large pores span the whole control volume) no mean gradient of water content, high viscosity the formation of an evaporation front.
During process, besides temperature (which control both vapor tension, according to Clausius-Clapeyron relation and water viscosity - wi) what determines the evolution of the drying phenomenon are the topology and the geometry of the pores space, and the amount of liquid water itself. The latter determines the continuity (or the discontinuity) of the water phase. When continuity of the water phase is broken (I imagine by the effect of heterogenous nucleation of air bubbles under high water tension values) smaller pores cannot be anymore supplied by water from larger pores, and macroscopic evaporation rate decays fast (I was tempted to say exponentially: but this has a quantitative interpretation that could not be true).
Overall, the outer water vapor content (which previously I called "the vapor content already present in air gas") is determined by the turbulent transport of vapor. Therefore, the picture is pretty dynamic, heterogeneous, and quite in disequilibrium. The three equation of mass, energy and momentum conservation must be used to account properly for the phenomenon.
The poor hydrologist problem (php) is how to reduce this complexity at the macro (representative elementary volume - REV) scale. It is clear that playing around with all the above factors very different dynamics can be obtained which could appear weird or unlikely to happen. Pores in soil, at the end, do not have all the variety of structures and connection a mathematically oriented (or perverted) mind can image, and therefore, I hope, a macroscopic synthesis is possible.
Some would argue that this synthesis is already present and, being the actual theory that constitutes the core of the modern treatment of the Richards equation (starting from Mualem, 1976). Others remind the series of papers by Whitaker in late seventies. A must read, indeed.
However, I am not sure that this cannot be improved. The point were the latter theories are weaker is the description of the geometry and topology of porous media, which in both cases is simplified.
This is a gift from twenty five years ago. These are lectures from a short course held in Padua at the Department of Applied Mathematics. We were younger then ! I remember the lectures by Diego Bricio Hernandez as exciting and interesting. Looking back at the nineties, one of the dominant topics, were random fields and the interplay of randomness with hydrological phenomena. The work of Gedeon Dagan was one of the growing paradigms. But random fields and techniques (see Bras and Rodriguez-Iturbe book) were ubiquitous in Hydrology. Here they come the Lectures by Diego Bricio Hernandez, a Mexican scholar in sabbatical at Padua University.
This is the presentation given by Marialaura Bancheri for her admission to the final exam to achieve a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering. It contains a synthesis of her studies about spatially integrated models of the water budget, and about travel time theory. A model structure is also presented preliminarily containing five reservoirs.