Response to comment on “Averaging theory for description of environmental problems: What have we learned?”

Abstract

abstract 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. We have identified three distinct elements in the comment byBaveye [2] on our manuscript [22]. These are editorializing, techni-cal critique of content of the paper, and attribution of personalcharacteristics and motivation. We will discuss each of theseaspects of the comment in this response.1. Editorial commentsFirst, the author of [2] editorializes on his perspectives abouttheoretical approaches to porous medium studies. He commentson literatureand aspects of research thatarewelloutside the scopeoftopicswediscussedinourmanuscript(e.g.,statisticalmechanics,Richards’ equation, molecular dynamics). He offers his view onwhat should be the contents of scientific papers. We support theideaofindividualsprovidingthoughtfulcontributionsondirectionsresearch might take or how some particular and specific interestsmight impact broader problems (e.g., [35]) and have made ourown contributions along these lines (e.g., [10,11,28–30]). However,we do not think that such contributions should be couched in whatis purportedly a comment on an article when the topics mentionedin the comment are outside the scope of the article, even totallyunrelated to the article. Those contributions are appropriately pre-pared as stand alone presentations, editorials, or refereed papers.We believewe have no responsibility to be responsive to assertionsin the comment that are unrelated to the scope and thrust of ourpaper. Note that we stated in the article: ‘‘The purpose of this contri-bution is to serve as a basis from which future understanding of aver-aging theory and its applications can develop.’’ This purpose mostcertainlydoesnotdenythefactthatotherapproaches—experimen-tal, theoretical, and computational—are essential to gaining under-standinginanyarea ofintellectualinquiry;ourarticle hasalimitedscope. Although the commenter may be looking for a contributionwith a different purpose or scope from ours, we think that a com-ment on our contribution should confine itself to what we haveactually contributed. We offer no reaction to the editorial proposi-tions comprising most of the comment that are unrelated to ourmanuscript.2. Technical commentsA second element of the comment is concerned with certaintechnical aspects of our contribution. We will identify thoseremarks and respond to them.The comment characterizes our article as ‘‘dealing specificallywith the so-called Thermodynamically Constrained Averaging Theory(TCAT), and ...what has been learned as a result of its develop-ment.’’ Our article actually takes a broader view. Although the TCATapproach is emphasized, as the most recent of averaging methods,the features of the method of volume averaging (MVA) and of aver-aging of conservation equations with rational thermodynamics(ACRT) are also reviewed in brief. A point of emphasis is that ACRTmakes use of symbols for intensive properties that are ill-defined,especially in terms of smaller scale properties. This shortcoming