Title: On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference
Abstract: Hydrological ProcessesVolume 25, Issue 10 p. 1676-1680 Invited Commentary On red herrings† and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference Keith Beven, Corresponding Author Keith Beven [email protected] Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster UK Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster UK.===Search for more papers by this authorIda Westerberg, Ida Westerberg Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, SwedenSearch for more papers by this author Keith Beven, Corresponding Author Keith Beven [email protected] Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster UK Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster UK.===Search for more papers by this authorIda Westerberg, Ida Westerberg Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, SwedenSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2011 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7963Citations: 158 † A red herring is a colloquial English expression referring to a diversion that distracts attention from the main issue. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Ambroise B, Freer J, Beven KJ. 1996. Application of a generalised TOPMODEL to the small Ringelbach catchment, Vosges, France. Water Resources Research 32(7): 2147–2159. Andréassian V, Lerat J, Loumagne C, Mathevet T, Michel C, Oudin L, Perrin C. 2007. What is really undermining hydrologic science today? Hydrological Processes 21: 2819–2822. Beven KJ. 2006a. On undermining the science? Hydrological Processes (HPToday) 20: 3141–3146. Beven KJ. 2006b. The holy grail of scientific hydrology: as closure. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science 10: 609–618. Beven KJ. 2006c. A manifesto for the equifinality these. Journal of Hydrology 320: 18–36. Beven KJ. 2009. Comment on "Equifinality of formal (DREAM) and informal (GLUE) Bayesian approaches in hydrologic modeling?" by Vrugt, et al. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 23: 1059–1060. DOI: 10.1007/s00477-008-0283-x. Beven KJ. 2010. Preferential flows and travel time distributions: defining adequate hypothesis tests for hydrological process models. Hydrological Processes 24: 1537–1547. Beven KJ, Smith PJ, Freer J. 2008. So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent? Journal of Hydrology 354: 15–32. Blazkova S, Beven K. 2009. A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic. Water Resources Research 45: W00B16. DOI: 10.1029/2007wr006726. Croke BFW. 2009. Representing uncertainty in objective functions: extension to include the influence of serial correlation. In 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, July 2009, RS Anderssen, RD Braddock, LTH Newham (eds). Cairns, Australia; 3372–3378. ISBN: 978-0-9758400-7-8. http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/I7/croke.pdf. Croke B, Wagener T, Post D, Freer J, Littlewood I. 2008. Evaluating the information content of data for uncertainty reduction in hydrological modelling, Position paper for Workshop 2, iEMSs2008. In Proceedings of the iEMSs Fourth Biennial Meeting: International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software (iEMSs 2008). International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Barcelona, Catalonia, July 2008, M Sànchez-Marrè, J Béjar, J Comas, AE Rizzoli, G Guariso (eds). Barcelona, Spain; ISBN: 978-84-7653-074-0, Vol 3, 1912–1926. Dean S, Freer J, Beven K, Wade AJ, Butterfield D. 2009. Uncertainty assessment of a process-based integrated catchment model of phosphorus. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 23(7): 991–1010. DOI: 10.1007/s00477-008-0273-z. Gupta HV, Wagener T, Liu YQ. 2008. Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrological Processes 22: 3802–3813. DOI: 10.1002/Hyp.6989. Helton JC, Oberkampf WL. 2004. Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 85: 1–10. Iorgulescu I, Beven KJ, Musy A. 2005. Data-based modelling of runoff and chemical tracer concentrations in the Haute-Menthue (Switzerland) research catchment. Hydrological Processes 19: 2557–2574. Kennedy MC, O'Hagan A. 2001. Bayesian calibration of mathematical models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society D63(3): 425–450. Kuczera G, Renard B, Thyer M, Kavetski D. 2010. There are no hydrological monsters, just models and observations with large uncertainties! Hydrological Sciences Journal 55: 980–991. Mantovan P, Todini E. 2006. Hydrological Forecasting Uncertainty Assessment: incoherence of the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology 330: 368–381. McMillan H, Freer J, Pappenberger F, Krueger T, Clark M. 2010. Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall-runoff model calibration and discharge predictions. Hydrological Processes 24: 1270–1284. DOI: 10.1002/Hyp.7587, 2010. O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T. 2006. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Expert's Probabilities. Wiley: Chichester. Refsgaard J-C, van der Sluijs JP, Brown J, van der Keur P. 2006. A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Advances in Water Resources 29: 1586–1597. Renard B, Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Thyer M, Franks SW. 2010. Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: the challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resources Research 46: W05521. DOI: 10.1029/2009wr008328. Thyer M, Renard B, Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Franks SW, Srikanthan S. 2009. Critical evaluation of parameter consistency and predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: a case study using Bayesian total error analysis. Water Resources Research 45: W00B14. 22. DOI: 10.1029/2008WR006825. Vrugt JA, ter Braak CJF, Clark MP, Hyman JM, Robinson BA. 2008. Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Water Resources Research 44: W00B09. DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006720. Vrugt JA, ter Braak CJF, Gupta HV, Robinson BA. 2009. Equifinality of formal (DREAM) and informal (GLUE) Bayesian approaches in hydrologic modeling? Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 23: 1011–1026. DOI: 10.1007/s00477-008-0274-y. Wasserman L. 2004. All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer Science: New York. Citing Literature Volume25, Issue1015 May 2011Pages 1676-1680 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2011
Publication Date: 2011-02-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 208
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot