WaterUnderground

Academictruths

What is the difference between ‘water withdrawal’ and ‘water consumption’, and why do we need to know?

What is the difference between ‘water withdrawal’ and ‘water consumption’, and why do we need to know?

Post by Inge de Graaf, University of Freiburg, Environmental Hydrological Systems group

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Last week I had to teach my first class in global hydrology. When I showed the global trend on increasing demands and withdrawals (see Figure) I needed to explain the different terms as sometimes the term “water use” gets, well, misused.

The term “water use” often fails to adequately describe what happens to the water. So I told the students; if you see or hear to term ‘water use’ always ask yourself what’s actually being said. The term is often used for water withdrawals or water consumption, and it’s important to understand the difference.

Water withdrawal describes the total amount of water withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source. Measurements of this withdrawn water help evaluate demands from domestic, industrial and agricultural users.

Water consumption is the portion of the withdrawn water permanently lost from its source. This water is no longer available because it evaporated, got transpired or used by plants, or was consumed by people or livestock. Irrigation is by far the largest water consumer. Globally irrigated agriculture accounts for 70% of the total water used and almost 50% is lost either by evaporation or transpiration.

Understanding both water withdrawal and consumption is critical to properly evaluate water stress. Measurements of water withdrawal indicate the level of competition and dependence on water resources. Water consumption estimates help to quantify the impact of water withdrawals on downstream availabilities and are essential to evaluate water shortage and scarcity. For example, most water used by households is not consumed and flows back as return flow and can be reused further downstream. However, water is rarely returned to watershed after being used by households or industry without changing the water quality, increasing water stress levels.

Already more than 1.4 billion people live in areas where the withdrawal of water exceeds recharge rates. In the coming decades global population is expected to increase from 7.3 billion now, to 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN estimate). This growth, along with rising incomes in developing countries, is driving up global food demands. With food production estimated to increase by at least 60% (FAO estimate), predicting water withdrawal and consumption is critically important for identifying areas that are at risk of water scarcity and where water use is unsustainable and competition amongst users exist.

Global trend I showed in my class, published in Wada et al (2016).

Ref:

Wada, Y., I. E. M. de Graaf, and L. P. H. van Beek (2016), High-resolution modeling of human and climate impacts on global water resources, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8, 735–763, doi:10.1002/2015MS000618.

 

The new and exciting face of waterunderground.org

The new and exciting face of waterunderground.org

by Tom Gleeson

I started waterunderground.org a few years ago as my personal groundwater nerd blog with the odd guest post written by others. Since I love working with others, I thought it would be more fun, and more interesting for readers, to expand the number of voices regularly posting. So here is the new face of the blog…

http://www.fragilestates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/collective-action.jpg

a kind of weird image of collective action

What is the new blog all about?

Written by a global collective of hydrogeologic researchers for water resource professionals, academics and anyone interested in groundwater, research, teaching and supervision. We share the following aspirations:

  • approachable groundwater science at the interface of other earth and human systems
  • encourage sustainable use of groundwater that reduces poverty, social injustice and food security while maintaining the highest environmental standards
  • compassionate, effective supervision
  • innovative, effective teaching
  • transparency of scientific methods, assumptions and data

Check out more details and how to be part of the blog on about.

Frequent contributors include:

  • Andy Baker (University of New South Wales, Australia) – caves and karst (I actually visit the water underground!), climate and past climate
  • Kevin Befus (University of Wyoming, United States) – groundwater-surface interactions, coastal groundwater, groundwater age
  • Mark Cuthbert (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom) – groundwater recharge & discharge processes, paleo-hydrogeology, dryland hydro(geo)logy, climate-groundwater interactions
  • Matt Currell (RMIT University, Australia) – isotope hydrology; groundwater quality; transient responses in aquifer systems
  • Inge de Graaf (Colorado School of Mines, United States) – global groundwater withdrawal, flow and sustainability
  • Grant Ferguson (University of Saskatchewan, Canada) – groundwater & energy, regional groundwater flow, sustainability
  • Tom Gleeson (University of Victoria, Canada) – mega-scale groundwater systems and sustainability
  • Scott Jasechko (University of Calgary, Canada) – global isotope hydrology; groundwater, precipitation, evapotranspiration
  • Elco Luijendijk (University of Gottingen, Germany) – paleo-hydrogeology,deep groundwater flow,large scale groundwater systems
  • Sam Zipper (University of Wisconsin – Madison, United States) – ecohydrology, agriculture, urbanization, land use change

Making guidelines for graduate students

Making guidelines for graduate students

I strive for effective, compassionate supervision and I clarify my goals, approach and expectations in my guidelines for graduate students (available here, from McGill’s best practices in supervision). As I wrote, most students enter a relationship with a thesis advisor without a clear idea of what they can expect so I compiled this handout to give you some idea of what I expect of you as student and what you can expect of me as an advisor. So that this never happens, I hope:

supervision

My highest level priority is for both of us to communicate and set mutually-agreed-upon goals (LINK OTHER POST) and then both do our best to make those goals into reality. As one of my students, I plan to treat you as a junior colleague who is maturing into a professional engineer or scientist. This means that you can actively co-create opportunities to meet your goals, and also puts a large responsibility on your shoulders to live up to the expectations of performance that are required of a colleague.

I have found clarifying my goals, approach and expectations in my guidelines for graduate students have helped students and helped me be a more effective and compassionate supervisor.


Thank you to the awesome Cutting Edge Workshop for Early Career Geoscience Faculty where I learned about graduate student guidelines a few years ago. I emphatically encourage all young faculty to attend!

A social media dashboard for researchers – taming the digital anarchy for nerds

A social media dashboard for researchers – taming the digital anarchy for nerds

Is anyone else overwhelmed by updating their many webpages, blogs, streams etc?

Jason Priem described the shift from a paper-native academia to a web-native academia, in an excellent article last year in Nature, a shift well beyond the traditional peer-reviewed journal to more diverse outlets of information, interaction and discussion. I am part of the first generation of researchers who are excited to use social media but we need more and better tools to make social media work even better for ourselves and others. Something like HootSuite for Prof 2.0!

I love Hootsuite, a dashboard for managing various social media profiles  (twitter, facebook etc.) in one handy place, across multiple platforms (phone, computer, tablets etc.). It looks something like this…

hootesuiteWe need something similar to manage the various facets of academic life. Just to give you some idea, these are all the pages and sites I try to maintain: personal research webpage, this Water Underground blog, twitter, LinkedIn profile, Google scholar, ResearchGate, ResearcherID, Vimeo, Groundwater footprint. I am happy to do this but it can be overwhelming in the midst of the other pulls of academic life – and I don’t even use facebook!

Ideally, this new platform would be a simple, user-friendly, open-source dashboard that would integrate various social media outlets academics use, plus be a simple place to update citations. A great and relatively simple first step would be a single place to update reference lists, which are a crucial part of how academics are evaluated so it is useful to keep them updated. Currently, my references are listed on Google Scholar, ResearchGate, ResearcherID, as well as a couple university webpages. It would be great to be able to export citations (already in standard formats like EndNote or BibTeX) and have these citations populate and update all my reference lists. I know Google Scholar already does this automatically (and usually correctly) but it would be great for consistency across outlets.

It would be great to link all kinds of altmetrics with this simple, social professor dashboard. Altmetrics are alternative metrics to the widely-used journal impact factor and personal citation indices like the h-index. An aggregate metric is calculated from how much as article, person, event (or blog post – subtle hint!) is viewed, discussed, saved, cited or recommended. As Priem writes, altmetrics will “draw new maps of scholarly contribution, unprecedented in subtlety, texture and detail.” And I find this to be already true – I often follow meandering altmetrics paths from a scientific article to news articles or discussions about the scientific article, and then I use this to enrich blog posts or tweets.

I flit across the web throughout my day and week – this dashboard would help me stay grounded and organized on the web. When I publish a new article, I would automatically update it in the various the places listing my citations, then write a quick tweet about it, check for news articles about it etc. Or I may see a comment on LinkedIn about a scientific article that could be useful for a paper I am writing. The comment in one column of the dashboard would be linked to the article, and the PDF posted on ResearchGate may be in another column of the dashboard. I take the PDF, export the citation to my library and pop it into the paper I am working on, in a series of smooth, integrated steps.

This HootSuite for Prof 2.0 could be a simple tool to enable the shift from a paper-native academia to a web-native academia by leveraging and extending information, interaction and discussion.

Originally published in University Affairs Careers Cafe.

How I start good supervisory relationships with graduate students

How I start good supervisory relationships with graduate students

Many professors are confused about why a certain graduate student is happy or unhappy, under performing or performing well. I am far from a perfect supervisor, but I try to avoid this confusion by getting to know my graduate students on a relatively deep but professional level as quickly as possible, by doing the following in our first meeting:

  • sharing results of a personality test;
  • discussing our biggest goals, hopes and fears about their graduate work; and
  • planing a very short two-week research project.

Before the meeting, the student and I take a free online personality test and prepare to discuss goals, hopes, fears and a research project. Below I outline the how and why of each part of the first meeting… hopefully I will never be this professor:

phd012609s

1. Share results of a personality test

Sharing the results of a personality test is often the perfect ice breaker since it is talking about emotions, but not about a student’s personal life. I use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator because it is what i am most familiar and comfortable with but other personality tests such as colour code or FourSight could also work.  Myers-Briggs is a physiological test that highlights how people perceive the world and make decisions; a free online version can be completed very quickly.

I usually start by describing my personality type (INTJ) and that there are 16 different personality types, emphasizing that no type is better or worse than any other for science or any other part of life.  Then I ask them if they are comfortable sharing their personality type and we discuss how the two types fit together. I find this very effectively focuses on how we can work best together and acknowledges that everyone is different.  And for students who are uncomfortable, each Myers-Brigg’s type is linked to a Harry Potter character which can be fun:

Harry Potter Myers Briggs

http://inthefrontseat.blogspot.ca/2013/09/harry-potter-myers-briggs-chart.html

2. Discuss our biggest goals, hopes and fears about their graduate work

The Myers-Briggs sharing often naturally leads to this important discussion where both the student and I share our biggest goals, hopes and fears for their graduate work. I usually start by sharing, and I am usually brutally honest. I usually have a goal of how their project fits into my broader research program, and sometimes specific hopes of how the student and I may grow, learn or interact. In some cases I have been really honest about my fears that I don’t know enough about the topic, I don’t have as much time to devote to supervising them as I would like, or the project may fail, etc. Most students find the honesty refreshing.

Then I ask the student to share and we end up writing down shared goals, hopes and fears so that they can be reviewed at later meetings. This becomes the template of what we hope we will both get out of their graduate work, so we return to these goals, hopes and fears a couple of times per year to check in and re-evaluate.

goals

www.runnersgoal.com

3. Plan a very short two-week research project

Finally, we decide on a mini research project which should actually be doable in two weeks, and is not just be a literature review. The topic can be related to their overall graduate project or not, and can come from the student, professor or both. It could involve analysis, modeling, field work etc. In two weeks time  a 1000-2000 word research paper is due.

This mini-project often accomplishes a lot:

  • focuses on the student on research rather than their new classes, new apartment, new city etc.
  • helps both of us figure out how to best work together (i.e. lots of meetings and guidance or not)
  • Builds the student’s confidence in starting something new in this new environment
  • helps me evaluate their research and writing skills so that we can better tailor their graduate project.

It is a pretty intense first meeting that takes preparation, emotional intelligence and usually two hours but I find the dividends are always well worth the effort.


Thanks to DISCCRS for teaching me the value of the Myers-Briggs test and Mark Jellinek for the short research project idea.

1200 words to make sense of chaos: The Selker Scheme

1200 words to make sense of chaos: The Selker Scheme

This is an inspiring article by John Selker (Oregon State University) that was first published in the latest AGU Hydrology Section Newsletter (July 2014). John graciously offered to re-post it here… make sure you make it to his rules and a secret at the bottom.

Being elected a fellow of the AGU was an amazing honor, and I thank  those who so kindly nominated me, somehow crafting a silk purse from the assorted bits and pieces I have left behind over 25
years. I take this opportunity to address nontechnical aspects of my experience. After all, the science is easily found on-line, whereas the ins and outs of personal scientific strategy rarely see the light of day.

My research is the outcome of local optimization scheme with the objective of identifying the next approach when faced with calls for proposals which I saw I could address, thus seemed opportune, but did not deeply stimulate my curiosity. I was lured into that trap a few times. But in time, putting greater weight on “the likelihood that I will be excited by the work” than “the chances that the ideas will be successful” and putting “the chances that I would be funded” last,
my research program took a turn for the better (right around the time I got tenure – funny how that works). Behind this all lurks the fact that I am more fascinated by challenges than questions. I do
not see this as an advantage: great scientists seek answers to great questions, not just engaging puzzles. I tend to be hooked on a question, which sometimes take decades to unravel.

This “strategy” (more accurately a propensity) is best understood by an example of a question and its resolution. Here’s one which can be explained compactly, which we could call “the steam water
quality sampling conundrum:” design an ultra cheap sampler of 1-month time-averaged stream chemistry. What a neat problem! So we started with the fact that a sampler must have a vessel to
hold the material collected. Next, if it is to sample from a stream, it would be good if it sank. So at a minimum we must have a weighted brown glass bottle. At this point a little context is needed. David Rupp had just found significant pesticide in runoff and wondered how many stream might have this problem (Rupp et al., 2006), so we needed to sample at hundreds of points for the little money I
could gather: about $1,000 – the cost of the bottles. So we stared at a bottle: the answer must be here. “Fine, let’s just drill one tiny hole in the bottle cap and call it done.” When the stream water warms the
bottles air expands sending out 2% of the air from the hole (PV=nRT and T changes about 6 oK out of 300 oK). Cooling contracts the air, drawing in water. It fills half-way in a month. David and I had a great time making and testing these bottles. By the time we were confident in the design, the project was by over, but we got enough data to publish (Selker and Rupp, 2005). How important
was this work? The paper has been cited twice (and those only citing our work to justify that weird sampling strategies are publishable. A wonderful puzzle solved, but that interested fewer people than
would be invited to a dinner party.

So should we follow the branching Fibonaccian web of passion or a single path? Eternally seduced by the next “cool problem” means that I do not tend to follow otherwise discernible “lines of investigation” and is likely to lead to lost papers such as the sinking bubble bottle. I have been told that this is not the best route to “success,” and that staying focused on a single theme brings greater
recognition of your work. Yes, I agree, in the abstract. But this theory is trumped, in my opinion, by the absolute requirement that a researcher’s spirit be engaged in their work if they are to have a
hope of accomplishing anything truly original and important. If you don’t find yourself dreaming about it, you just aren’t fully engaged: you are just using a tiny fraction of your brain, missing out on
the chance to excel.

How do we balance these factors? Don Nielsen’s question needs to be added to the criteria for selecting a research project: is the problem important to humanity? And he means REALLY important!

Stumbling in the dark you are sometimes lucky enough to bump into a lump of gold. Marc Parlange is uniquely expert at helping people stumble productively. Preparing to come to Switzerland on sabbatical to work with Marc he suggested I work on glacier melting. The problem is that glaciers melt largely due to shortwave
radiation absorption, and if you stick anything in the glacier to measure the radiation or temperature, it gets hot in the sun, and melts the ice. “What if I had an entirely transparent thermometer?” I recalled hearing about fiber optic temperature measurements, so I started to check on that approach. We tried hard to measure the glaciers melt with fiber optic distributed temperature sensing (DTS), but the bottom line is that I never got any important publishable data. I tip my hat to all those studying snow! But the DTS method
allowed measurement of 10’s of thousands of temperatures across scales of 0.1 to 10,000 m. These are precisely the scales at which “point” measurements and remote sensing. This is an obvious gold mine for our science (opportune? Yes!). We have now used DTS to “see” air movement, quantify groundwater upwelling in streams, measure soil water content, observe lake stratification, surface temperatures of the ocean, and flow in deep boreholes. A wonderful aspect of the scientific endeavor is that we move as a community. We (my DTS buddies Scott Tyler and Nick van de Giesen) have now put on 15 hands-on workshops training folks how to use the method, and started an NSF-funded center (CTEMPs.org) where we make the gear and technical support available to others who have ideas that DTS might help address. It has been a delight.

The bottom line is that life is too short to:
1. Study problems that don’t matter;
2. Try to “go it alone” rather than feeling the joy of community;
3. Get stale studying the same old thing. If you feel it is fresh, great. If not, then open your eyes to new problems;
4. Worry about others stealing your ideas!The jokes on them – you are multiplying the number of people who are helping you answer the questions that you can’t wait to understand. Share your ideas, your data, your time.

Here’s a little secret: the coolest problem ever is just around the bend. Take the corner, and enjoy the ride. I can’t point the way, but following a few simple rules I promise you’ll have a great time
wandering.

Rupp, D.E., K. Warren, E. Peachy and J.S. Selker. Diuron in Surface Runoff and Tile Drainage from Two Grass-Seed Fields. J. Env. Qual. 35:303-311. 2006.
Selker, J.S. and D.E. Rupp. An environmentally driven time  integrating water sampler. Water Resour. Res. 41. W09201,DOI:10.1029/2005WR004040. 2005.

Two great science communication tools for conferences and teaching: smart screens and cell phones

Two great science communication tools for conferences and teaching: smart screens and cell phones

A few weeks ago at the European Geosciences Union in Vienna I learned about two dead-easy and great science communication tools for conferences.  These are great for any conference hall or meeting, but could be just as easily be used in the classroom to make a more exciting in class research presentations. For better or worse, most of us are carrying them (or looking at them!) right now: a smart screen or cell phone.

The EGU conference uses smart screens in their innovative PICO (Presenting Interactive COntent) sessions. Every PICO author first presents orally in a 2-minute science blitz and then has a smart screen pre-loaded with a dynamic presentation to discuss further with colleagues. Simple and effective.

pico

Jan Siebert (University of Zurich) showing off just how dynamic PICO sessions are.

While I was a traditional poster session, Hannes Müller Schmied of Frankfurt University pulled out his cell phone to show me some additional visualizations (in this case global hydrologic model results posted on their website – this was connected to his poster with a QR code!). It was great to for him to be able to walk me through the results right there rather than be limited by the static images on his poster. We immediately realized this should be called micro-PICO!

micro-pico

Hannes Müller Schmied showing off model results in this micro-PICO session with his poster in the background.

Thanks EGU for teaching me about two super simple and effective science communication tools, which I hope will cross the pond to AGU and other meetings.

What busy profs would like to read in a blog post about active learning

What busy profs would like to read in a blog post about active learning

During a great workshop today on active learning in engineering at McGill I asked two questions (using Socrative) , of the audience. Here is a summary of 24 answers I received:

1) I would like to read blog posts about:

  • activities for large classes (18% of people)
  • activities for small classes (30% of people)
  • technology in active learning (22% of people)
  • wacky or creative ideas for active learning(30% of people)

2) I might read a blog post about teaching and supervision if…

  • It takes into account the sheer lack of time and resources for preparation; ie quick and easy ideas to engage a bored class!
  • it was linked through twitter
  • It was regularly updated and interesting!
  • It does not take too long
  • it helps me achieve better my teaching objectives compared to my current teaching practice
  • It related to economics / social science a bit
  • Its short and introduce tips and examples
  • It gives concrete practical examples of activities for teaching and making students more active
  • I was interested
  • I knew where to find it
  • It dealt with distance education
  • they talked about encouraging creativity and critical thinking
  • it was about new and creative strategies that I can use in my class
  • it included the occasional evidence-based pieces that demonstrate real impact
  • Give ideas about how to get the students more active
  • It’s concrete, thoughtful and provides ideas
  • it was relevant and to the topic. I also would like to see it promoted within the departments to encourage conversation about teaching and learning
  • It is useful

My summary is that people want to hear about all types of different aspects of active learning and they would be motivated to read posts if it interesting and provided something useful.

Thanks Michael Prince of Bucknell for the great workshop and Milwaukee Mag for the image.

Surprises and lessons learned from co-teaching an inter-university graduate course

Surprises and lessons learned from co-teaching an inter-university graduate course

GrantFergusonContributed by Grant Ferguson, University of Saskatchewan
grant.ferguson@usask.ca

 

In an earlier blog post, Tom discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of co-teaching a blended graduate course to students at McGill University, the University of Wisconsin – Madison and the University of Saskatchewan. This course wrapped up last month… we definitely learned a few things during its delivery, some of which were surprises that we hope you can learn from.

Surprise #1: The course outline and structure came together rather quickly and there was minimal debate on the content that we would cover. We did not attempt to be comprehensive in our coverage and chose to teach to our research interests. At the same time, we did not feel that there were obvious gaping holes in the curriculum. We included a review of what we expected the students to understand coming into the course. Although we were teaching students from a variety of backgrounds including civil engineering, environmental science, geosciences and forestry our expectation was that everyone should have been exposed to similar content in their undergraduate hydrogeology course. A recent review on the content of undergraduate hydrogeology courses by Gleeson et al. (2012) indicated that the core content of these courses does not vary that much from university to university.

However, surprise #2: students had very different interests and strengths. Some universities had students that excelled at MatLab while others were far more proficient with GIS. The interests of students also tended to mirror those of their home institutions. Students from McGill tended to be interested in water resource sustainability and large-scale problems, students from Saskatchewan were focused on problems associated with resource-extraction and students from Wisconsin tended to be more interested on hydrological processes and ecosystems. Exposing these biases, strengths and weaknesses was valuable for both instructors and students.

Surprise #3: this may not be a more ‘efficient’ way to teach since we spent far more time preparing lectures for this course than we normally do for other courses. Teaching to students and other universities with other instructors present brought teaching to a different level.   This effectively negated the initial thought that this would be a more efficient way of teaching because we were only on the hook for a third of the lectures. Part of this preparation was related to knowing that we would be forced to rely on slides more heavily than in a conventional classroom. However, the greater motivation was knowing that this presentation was going outside the walls of the home institution and that colleagues from other universities would be following along.

Surprise #4: Communication during the course went more smoothly than expected. Aside from a few momentary hiccups, there were few problems hearing the lecturer. Talking between institutions during the lecture went well, although questions were generally repeated by the lecturer or someone nearer to the microphone at other schools. The biggest obstacle might have been for the lecturers. Despite some efforts to situate cameras and explore different views within Microsoft Lync, it was difficult for the lecture to see the remote classrooms. Without being able to see facial expressions or body lan20140325aguage, it was difficult to assess how the material was being received at the other locations. This problem can likely be resolved to some extent with additional monitors and better cameras.

The feedback from the students was largely positive. Most of them seemed happy to participate in this experiment and get some exposure to other institutions. Tom, Steve and I all agreed that we would do this again given the chance. However, it appears that the stars might not align for us in 2015 due to some other commitments. We will see if we still feel this way in 2016.

Re-posted on Inside Higher Ed blog.

Why read “Water Underground” blog? And for me, why write a blog?

Why read “Water Underground” blog? And for me, why write a blog?
Picture from https://blog.shareaholic.com/how-to-clear-your-head-to-come-up-with-new-blog-post-ideas/

Picture from https://blog.shareaholic.com/how-to-clear-your-head-to-come-up-with-new-blog-post-ideas/

My reason to blog is really quite simple: to share what doesn’t currently fit into peer-reviewed articles. I will write about groundwater as well as how I research, teach, supervise and collaborate. In short I hope to cover the whole kit and caboodle of academia, from the underground perspective of groundwater.

Why read this blog? Time is precious so only read on if you are interested and/or passionate about…
– groundwater science, engineering, management and policy
-active learning of science and engineering at universities and colleges
-supervising and mentoring students compassionately and effectively

So, who might want to read this blog?
-environmental and water policy makers and managers – I hope to explain interesting, new groundwater science in plain language
-groundwater enthusiasts and nerds
-fellow scientists and grad students
-fellow teachers (outreach of our teaching ideas and experience)

My overall goals as a prof are also simple:
-nudge the world towards more sustainable groundwater use and learn about groundwater
-teach hydrology interactively and critically
-supervise and mentor students compassionately and effectively
So I hope this blog might help with these goals. Help me make this an interesting place to read about groundwater and academia – I encourage contributions from collaborators, students, postdocs. Or I’d love to hear ideas for blog entries – may they be weird, interesting or useful.