Repository logo
HARVEST

Browsing by Author "Pomeroy, John W."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Analysis of Turbulence and Turbulence Kinetic Energy Dynamics in Complex Terrain
    (AGU Publications, 2025-02-28) Rohanizadegan, Mina; Petrone, Richard M.; Pomeroy, John W.; Kosovic, Branko
    Boundary layer processes and turbulence in a complex terrain are influenced by thermally driven flows, as well as dynamically forced flows when ambient wind interacts with orography. This paper investigates the variability in turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) with elevation and topography in a shallow high mountain valley in the Canadian Rockies. The Fortress Mountain Research Basin in the Kananaskis Valley, Alberta, was chosen for this study. Data from three high-frequency eddy-covariance systems at a northwest-facing slope, and at two ridgetops at the south and north valley sidewalls were used for the analysis, and combined with large-eddy simulations at 90 m horizontal grid spacing. The observed data and simulations focused on a sunny summer day when turbulence was well-developed, and cross-ridge flows interacted with thermally driven circulations. The observed TKE time series compared reasonably well with simulations at the northwest-facing slope and southern ridgetop. The model was then used to evaluate the vertical and horizontal TKE-budget equation. Analysis of the TKE budget showed that horizontal shear production and advection of TKE driven by horizontal wind-gradients in cross-ridge flows, and the interaction of these flows with the up-valley flow could be an important source of TKE production on the northwest-facing slope station in the Fortress Valley. The variability observed in TKE budget components across different locations within this high mountain basin indicates the significance of both horizontal and vertical exchange processes in the mechanisms governing TKE production.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Convergent and Transdisciplinary Integration: On the Future of Integrated Modeling of Human-Water Systems
    (Water Resources Research, 2025-02) Razavi, Saman; Duffy, Ashleigh; Eamen, Leila; Jakeman, Anthony; Jardine, Timothy D; Wheater, Howard; Hunt, Randall; Maier, Holger; Abdelhamed, Mohamed Safaaeldin Moustafa; Ghoreishi, Mohammad; Döll, Petra; Moallemi, Enayat A.; Yassin, Dr. Fuad; Strickert, Graham; Nabavi, Ehsan; Mai, Juliane; Li, Yanping; Thériault, Julie M.; Wu, Wenyan; Pomeroy, John W.; Clark, Martyn; Ferguson, Grant; Gober, Patricia; Cai, Ximing; Reed, Maureen G.; Saltelli, Andrea; Elshorbagy, Amin; Sedighkia, Mahdi; Terry, Julie; Lindenschmidt, Karl-Erich; Hannah, David; Li, Kailong; Asadzadeh, Masoud; Harvey, Natasha ; Moradkhani, Hamid; Grimm, Volker
    The notion of convergent and transdisciplinary integration, which is about braiding together different knowledge systems, is becoming the mantra of numerous initiatives aimed at tackling pressing water challenges. Yet, the transition from rhetoric to actual implementation is impeded by incongruence in semantics, methodologies, and discourse among disciplinary scientists and societal actors. Here, we embrace “integrated modeling”—both quantitatively and qualitatively—as a vital exploratory instrument to advance such integration, providing a means to navigate complexity and manage the uncertainty associated with understanding, diagnosing, predicting, and governing human-water systems. From this standpoint, we confront disciplinary barriers by offering seven focused reviews and syntheses of existing and missing links across the frontiers distinguishing surface and groundwater hydrology, engineering, social sciences, economics, Indigenous and place-based knowledge, and studies of other interconnected natural systems such as the atmosphere, cryosphere, and ecosphere. While there are, arguably, no bounds to the pursuit of inclusivity in representing the spectrum of natural and human processes around water resources, we advocate that integrated modeling can provide a focused approach to delineating the scope of integration, through the lens of three fundamental questions: (a) What is the modeling “purpose”? (b) What constitutes a sound “boundary judgment”? and (c) What are the “critical uncertainties” and their compounding effects? More broadly, we call for investigating what constitutes warranted “systems complexity,” as opposed to unjustified “computational complexity” when representing complex natural and human-natural systems, with careful attention to interdependencies and feedbacks, scaling issues, nonlinear dynamics and thresholds, hysteresis, time lags, and legacy effects.