Talk:Surface-water hydrology

I intend to put something in this article on a very interesting aspect of hydrology. I am working on a basic layout:

• Definition (is already there)
• Description (is already there)
• Types of runoff calulations (event-continuous)
• Applied methods of computing event runoff
• Applied methods of computing continuous runoff
• Surface water modelling (rainfall-runoff modelling, types and characteristics)

Possible additions:

• a schematics for a simple conceptual model

--Spryom 11:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title and Scope

The name of this article should be Surface water hydrology, since the scientific community and common usage rarely use a gyphen. Cuvette 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The field of hydrology is large, water literally encompasses nearly three fourths of the earth, and the movement of water on the surface of the earth has far-reaching effects to humanity. The article will have to be expanded to reflect this.Sotuman (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Geology

User:Sotuman is using this source [1] which says "Students who plan to become hydrologists need a strong emphasis in mathematics, statistics, geology, physics, computer science, chemistry and biology. In addition, sufficient background in other subjects--economics, public finance, environmental law, government policy" to support his content which said "The field of hydrology is connected with mathematics, statistics, geology, physics, computer science, chemistry and biology." The source does NOT say that "The field of hydrology is connected to geology" Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, however a basic grasp of the English language will indicate that the field of hydrology is related, and indeed intertwined, with many other fields of study.Sotuman (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds a bit rude. In any case, that's what we call original research - your statement needs to be WP:VERIFIED and I'm pretty sure you can do that. Maybe there's something at Hydrogeology that's relevant. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit because it was copied and pasted from the source. [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, no intention to be rude, just pointing out the obvious. I will look into getting a more verified citation. Hydrogeology is not relevant because it deals only with groundwater, while I am interested to learn about how flooding on the surface affects geology.Sotuman (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please check the new source for verifiability.Sotuman (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the source for the list of maybe-related fields is a US government website, its content is in the public domain and could be used verbatim on Wikipedia. That said, the content in question isn't specifically about surface-water hydrology and thus doesn't belong in this article. I rather doubt a laundry list of subjects that prospective hydrologists should know (in one agency's opinion) provides meaningful enough information about hydrology to be added to the main hydrology article either. The new source may verify the statement it's cited for, but the relevance to this article is unclear at best. It's a vague statement about rivers that won't improve our readers' understanding of surface-water hydrology. In fact, the entire paper is about geology and land forms, not about hydrology, which is only mentioned in passing. Surface-water hydrology isn't mentioned at all. It's obvious at this point that the purpose of these changes is not to summarize what reliable sources may have to say about surface-water hydrology but to get the word "geology" mentioned in the article. I don't see a need to do that. Huon (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The content was titled "Geological Action of Rivers" which is exactly one of the main things that surface-water hydrology is about. With all due respect, stop obfuscating the discussion. I can read, and I know you can too.Sotuman (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Huon:If you want to revert my attempt to increase the amount of citations for this article, which sorely lacks them, because there is only one sentence added which is not yet properly woven into the context of the article, that's fine. But don't accuse me of having the ulterior motive of only wanting to force in the term "geology" as if that were even legitimately categorizable as such. That the article was missing the term was brought to my attention by another helpful user, and seeing as hydrology and geology are closely related, it seemed about time someone made the obvious, well, obvious, so that readers could understand more about rivers and sedimentation.Sotuman (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I can read. The source doesn't mention "surface-water hydrology" and doesn't say that the geological action of rivers is one of the main things that surface-water hydrology is about. Rather, as the title says, it's interested in the impact of rivers on geology. It mentions hydrology (surface-water or otherwise) exactly once, in the very last sentence, and that is unrelated to what it's cited for. If you want to increase the amount of citations, I suggest you either try and find sources that back up the article's current content, or you find sources that actually discuss surface-water hydrology in some detail and summarize what those say. Using a source that doesn't even mention the topic of the article to get some word mentioned that you earlier decided was missing is covered by Wikipedia's policy against original research (specifically WP:SYN). Huon (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Huon:That's fair and thank-you for the conciseness and clarity. Necessity is the mother of invention, so they say.Sotuman (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL, who reverts an edit but puts as explanation "content NOT supported by the sources floods aren't mentioned in them?" There is use of capitals for the negation of the source, which indicates strong emotion or confidence, but then there's a question mark, indicating uncertainty.

If you read the source, it is clearly written by a person much smarter than me because of all the big words which I had to look up: "Geomorphological records, particularly alluvial deposits, may also register short-lived climatic events of a few hours or days of duration, whereas vegetation and lake systems usually integrate seasons, years, or decades of paleoclimatic information."

Just search for the text in the mini "search inside" bar, it is there.

One could always do a paraphrase: "Alluvial, or flood deposits, are of particular importance to geology because they lay down so much sediment in such a short time that the resulting strata has a fine resoluton of days or hours, as opposed to tree rings which show much longer time periods such as summers and winters."Sotuman (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did go ahead and remove the one citation about the hydrology of the Pakistani watershed because you're right, it was not really talking about floods, but seemed to be mostly about the merits of a type of model for regular rainfall and its affects on the watershed. So thank-you for that. I am also sorry for laughing at you before with regards to the question mark, because I also have a lot of difficulty with accessing the relevant part of journalistic sources online. Most of them are locked up with only the abstract visible.

I added another citation that is more relevant for the same reasons as the first one: it talks about floods and how they move the earth around.Sotuman (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This content may be fine for the Flood article but looks completely out of place here, the sources make no mention of surface-water hydrology and "alluvial deposits" does not equate to flooding necessarily. It's just a very clumsy attempt to add your POV to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And the content is back with a new source (available for download here): It still doesn't say what it's cited for. Yes, it mentions hydrology, sediments and floods, but it doesn't draw these conclusions, doesn't comment on the significance of floods within surface-water hydrology, and doesn't say anything about forming or re-forming "the hydrologic and underlying geologic systems" (geology is mentioned only once, on page 7, and those systems don't get changed by any number of floods). I tire of reverting edits that don't say what the sources say. Huon (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well the 29 percent of the earth not covered by water is 73 percent covered by sedimentary rock, which is a strong indicator of widespread flooding, which would be covered by surface-water hydrology. You're right though, I may be reaching a little bit by saying that water can form geologic systems by its sheer force since that has more to do with tectonics. But look at the Grand Canyon, which "record[s] much of the early geologic history of the North American continent." The scientists cited don't know whether it's 5-6 million years old or 70 million years old. The best they can do is make interpretations by looking at the strata, which I can do too. All their papers which get cited are nothing more than suggestions of their original interpretations. Here's a suggestion: The best clue in the article is about how the youngest rocks in the canyon are the volcanic ones that together with ash blocked the Colorado river completely more than once. What happens when a river is dammed? Water piles up. What happens when dams break? Flooding! What happens when there's a big flood? Erosion! That's how it formed, and all those strata that are interpreted as millions of years are just as easily interpreted as hours or days. But, that's like just my opinion, man.Sotuman (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has no interest in your opinion or mine, we only report on what the reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So then why did you feel the need to share yours just now? Wikipedia does have considerable interest in opinions, that's what its talk pages are, a bunch of opinions, even moreso than the little guides you like to refer me to, or the articles themselves, together with all their citations. Every human communication is just a bunch of opinions. I'm not God, are you? If you were God, then everything you said wouldn't be just an opinion, it would be absolute truth. No, we are mortal and highly fallible beings who must walk together on this long road for but a short time, grasping for what scraps of truth we think we or other fellow travelers might offer. Is that what you meant by "reliable"? Sotuman (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's what its talk pages are, a bunch of opinions the least possible. All their papers which get cited are nothing more than suggestions of their original interpretations this is why the sources we select should ideally be secondary or tertiary rather than primary, and that self-published sources are discouraged (there can be exceptions when they are from a relevant expert, sometimes this is acceptable for source parity as well). —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks, Clippy.Sotuman (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Rewrite

I've found some textbooks giving introductions to surface-water hydrology. I'll rewrite the article based on those sources. The main points are:

• None of the sources I found mention oceans. Those don't seem to be within the scope of surface-water hydrology.
• The main concern of surface-water hydrology seems to be flow of water, with watersheds and runoff patterns prominent concerns.
• None of the introductory works I found mentions sedimentation as a significant concern; none noted the impact on geology as a topic of interest.

So those are the lines that an introduction to surface-water hydrology should follow. Then we can expand on those aspects. Huon (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, Huon! —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good job.Sotuman (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)