A global open-source database of flood-protection levees on river deltas (openDELvE)

Flood-protection levees have been built along rivers and coastlines globally. Current datasets, however, are generally confined to territorial boundaries (national datasets) and are not always easily accessible, posing limitations for hydrologic models and assessments of flood hazard. Here, we bridge this knowledge gap by collecting and standardizing global flood-protection levee data for river deltas into the open-source global river delta levee data environment, openDELvE. In openDELvE, we aggregate levee data from national databases, reports, maps, and satellite imagery. The database identifies the river delta land areas that the levees have been designed to protect. Where data are available, we record the extent and design specifications of the levees themselves (e.g., levee height, crest width, construction material) in a harmonized format. The 1657 polygons of openDELvE contain 19 248 km of levees and 44 733.505 km2 of leveed area. For the 153 deltas included in openDELvE, 17 % of the land area is confined by flood-protection levees. Around 26 % of delta population lives within the 17 % of delta area that is protected, making leveed areas densely populated. openDELvE data can help improve flood exposure assessments, many of which currently do not account for flood-protection levees. We find that current flood hazard assessments that do not include levees may exaggerate the delta flood exposure by 33 % on average, but up to 100 % for some deltas. The openDELvE is made public on an interactive platform (https://www.opendelve.eu/, 1 October 2022), which includes a community-driven revision tool to encourage inclusion of new levee data and continuous improvement and refinement of open-source levee data.</p

Dynamics of River Mouth Deposits

Bars and subaqueous levees often form at river mouths due to high sediment availability. Once these deposits emerge and develop into islands, they become important elements of the coastal landscape, hosting rich ecosystems. Sea level rise and sediment starvation are jeopardizing these landforms, motivating a thorough analysis of the mechanisms responsible for their formation and evolution. Here we present recent studies on the dynamics of mouth bars and subaqueous levees. The review encompasses both hydrodynamic and morphological results. We first analyze the hydrodynamics of the water jet exiting a river mouth. We then show how this dynamics coupled to sediment transport leads to the formation of mouth bars and levees. Specifically, we discuss the role of sediment eddy diffusivity and potential vorticity on sediment redistribution and related deposits. The effect of waves, tides, sediment characteristics, and vegetation on river mouth deposits is included in our analysis, thus accounting for the inherent complexity of the coastal environment where these landforms are common. Based on the results presented herein, we discuss in detail how river mouth deposits can be used to build new land or restore deltaic shorelines threatened by erosion

Structure and stability of Con(pyridine)m − clusters: Absence of metal inserted structures

A synergistic approach combining the experimental photoelectron spectroscopy and theoretical electronic structure studies is used to probe the geometrical structure and the spin magnetic moment of Con(pyridine)−m clusters. It is predicted that the ground state of Co(pyridine)− is a structure where the Co atom is inserted in a CH bond. However, the insertion is marked by a barrier of 0.33eV that is not overcome under the existing experimental conditions resulting in the formation of a structure where Co occupies a site above the pyridine plane. For Co2(pyridine)−, a ground-state structure is predicted in which the Co2 diametric moiety is inserted in one of the CH bonds, but again because of a barrier, the structure which matches the photoelectron spectrum is a higher-energy isomer in which the Co2 moiety is bonded directly to nitrogen on the pyridine ring. In all cases, the Co sites have finite magnetic moments suggesting that the complexes may provide ways of making cluster-based magnetic materials

Grain-size controls on the morphology and internal geometry of river-dominated deltas

Predictions of a delta's morphology, facies, and stratigraphy are typically derived from its relative wave, tide, and river energies, with sediment type playing a lesser role. Here we test the hypothesis that, all other factors being equal, the topset of a relatively noncohesive, sandy delta will have more active distributaries, a less rugose shoreline morphology, less topographic variation in its topset, and less variability in foreset dip directions than a highly cohesive, muddy delta. As a consequence its stratigraphy will have greater clinoform dip magnitudes and clinoform concavity, a greater percentage of channel facies, and less rugose sand bodies than a highly cohesive, muddy delta. Nine self-formed deltas having different sediment grain sizes and critical shear stresses required for re-entrainment of mud are simulated using Deflt3D, a 2D flow and sediment-transport model. Model results indicate that sand-dominated deltas are more fan-shaped while mud-dominated deltas are more birdsfoot in planform, because the sand-dominated deltas have more active distributaries and a smaller variance of topset elevations, and thereby experience a more equitable distribution of sediment to their perimeters. This results in a larger proportion of channel facies in sand-dominated deltas, and more uniformly distributed clinoform dip directions, steeper dips, and greater clinoform concavity. These conclusions are consistent with data collected from the Goose River Delta, a coarse-grained fan delta prograding into Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada. A reinterpretation of the Kf-1 parasequence set of the Cretaceous Last Chance Delta, a unit of the Ferron Sandstone near Emery, Utah, USA uses Ferron grain-size data, clinoform-dip data, clinoform concavity, and variance of dip directions to hindcast the delta's planform. The Kf-1 Last Chance Delta is predicted to have been more like a fan delta in planform than a birdsfoot delta

A global open-source database of flood-protection levees on river deltas (openDELvE)

Flood-protection levees have been built along rivers and coastlines globally. Current datasets, however, are generally confined to territorial boundaries (national datasets) and are not always easily accessible, posing limitations for hydrologic models and assessments of flood hazard. Here, we bridge this knowledge gap by collecting and standardizing global flood-protection levee data for river deltas into the open-source global river delta levee data environment, openDELvE. In openDELvE, we aggregate levee data from national databases, reports, maps, and satellite imagery. The database identifies the river delta land areas that the levees have been designed to protect. Where data are available, we record the extent and design specifications of the levees themselves (e.g., levee height, crest width, construction material) in a harmonized format. The 1657 polygons of openDELvE contain 19 248 km of levees and 44 733.505 km2 of leveed area. For the 153 deltas included in openDELvE, 17 % of the land area is confined by flood-protection levees. Around 26 % of delta population lives within the 17 % of delta area that is protected, making leveed areas densely populated. openDELvE data can help improve flood exposure assessments, many of which currently do not account for flood-protection levees. We find that current flood hazard assessments that do not include levees may exaggerate the delta flood exposure by 33 % on average, but up to 100 % for some deltas. The openDELvE is made public on an interactive platform (https://www.opendelve.eu/, 1 October 2022), which includes a community-driven revision tool to encourage inclusion of new levee data and continuous improvement and refinement of open-source levee data

UK meteotsunamis: a revision and update on events and their frequency

A tsunami is a series of waves caused by the displacement of water. The displacement may result from ‘bottom‐up’ seabed movement, such as caused by earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions or ‘top‐down’ movement, from pressure perturbations in the atmosphere. These ‘top‐down’ events are termed meteotsunamis. Meteotsunamis frequently occur in the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, the east coast and Great Lakes of North America, and Japan, so they are not exclusive to the United Kingdom. The most recent meteotsunami near the UK coast was in May 2017, when waves around 2m in elevation, generated by a storm passing over the UK, struck the coast of the Netherlands. Historical documents covering the past 150 years describe many meteotsunamis from United Kingdom (UK) coastal waters (Haslett et al ., 2009; Haslett and Bryant, 2009; Tappin et al ., 2013; Vilibić et al ., 2015; O'Brien et al ., 2018). Some of these events have resulted in fatalities, involving beach users who were struck by unexpected sea waves. Meteotsunamis commonly strike the coasts of the UK, damaging harbours, boats and very rarely, causing fatalities. In the UK, they were usually detected by analysis after the event, unless witnessed first‐hand. This post‐event analysis is particularly necessary in the UK because the data provided by the tide gauge system, operated by the Environment Agency, only records at 15‐min intervals, not in real time as in the rest of Europe. The periods of meteotsunamis are in the range of minutes to tens of minutes (Pattiaratchi and Wijeratne, 2015). A frequency of tens of minutes is similar to a typical frequency expected from a meteotsunami that would have an amplified response from harbour or bay resonance (Tappin et al ., 2013). Therefore, those occurring in UK waters are not often recorded with the present tide gauge settings and as a consequence, cannot be analysed effectively

Computational modelling for decision-making: where, why, what, who and how

In order to deal with an increasingly complex world, we need ever more sophisticated computational models that can help us make decisions wisely and understand the potential consequences of choices. But creating a model requires far more than just raw data and technical skills: it requires a close collaboration between model commissioners, developers, users and reviewers. Good modelling requires its users and commissioners to understand more about the whole process, including the different kinds of purpose a model can have and the different technical bases. This paper offers a guide to the process of commissioning, developing and deploying models across a wide range of domains from public policy to science and engineering. It provides two checklists to help potential modellers, commissioners and users ensure they have considered the most significant factors that will determine success. We conclude there is a need to reinforce modelling as a discipline, so that misconstruction is less likely; to increase understanding of modelling in all domains, so that the misuse of models is reduced; and to bring commissioners closer to modelling, so that the results are more useful

On the alleged simplicity of impure proof

Roughly, a proof of a theorem, is “pure” if it draws only on what is “close” or “intrinsic” to that theorem. Mathematicians employ a variety of terms to identify pure proofs, saying that a pure proof is one that avoids what is “extrinsic,” “extraneous,” “distant,” “remote,” “alien,” or “foreign” to the problem or theorem under investigation. In the background of these attributions is the view that there is a distance measure (or a variety of such measures) between mathematical statements and proofs. Mathematicians have paid little attention to specifying such distance measures precisely because in practice certain methods of proof have seemed self- evidently impure by design: think for instance of analytic geometry and analytic number theory. By contrast, mathematicians have paid considerable attention to whether such impurities are a good thing or to be avoided, and some have claimed that they are valuable because generally impure proofs are simpler than pure proofs. This article is an investigation of this claim, formulated more precisely by proof- theoretic means. After assembling evidence from proof theory that may be thought to support this claim, we will argue that on the contrary this evidence does not support the claim