From the University of Massachusetts at Amherst
High mountains warming faster than expected
UMass Amherst climate scientist and international team call for extra attention

AMHERST, Mass. – High elevation environments around the world may be warming much faster than previously thought, according to members of an international research team including Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. They call for more aggressive monitoring of temperature changes in mountain regions and more attention to the potential consequences of warming.
“Elevation-dependent warming is a poorly observed phenomenon that requires urgent attention to ensure that potentially important changes in high mountain environments are adequately monitored by the global observational network,” say members of the Mountain Research Initiative Working Group in the current issue of Nature Climate Change.
High mountains are the major water source for large numbers of people living at lower elevations, so the social and economic consequences of enhanced warming in mountain regions could be large, the researchers add. “This alone requires that close attention be paid to the issue. In addition, mountains provide habitat for many of the world’s rare and endangered species, and the presence of many different ecosystems in close proximity enhances the ecological sensitivity of mountains to environmental change.”
Lead author Nick Pepin of the University of Portsmouth, U.K., says, “There is growing evidence that high mountain regions are warming faster than lower elevations and such warming can accelerate many other environmental changes such as glacial melt and vegetation change, but scientists urgently need more and better data to confirm this. If we are right and mountains are warming more rapidly than other environments, the social and economic consequences could be serious, and we could see more dramatic changes much sooner than previously thought.”
UMass Amherst’s Bradley adds that without substantially better information, there is a risk of underestimating the severity of a number of problems, including water shortages and the possible extinction of some alpine flora and fauna.
He says, “We are calling for special efforts to be made to extend scientific observations upwards to the highest summits to capture what is happening across the world’s mountains. We also need a strong effort to find, collate and evaluate observational data that already exists wherever it is in the world. This requires international collaboration.”
Records of weather patterns at high altitudes are “extremely sparse,” the researchers found. There are very few weather stations above 14,700 feet (4,500 m), and long-term data, crucial for detecting patterns, doesn’t yet exist above 16,400 feet (5,000 m) anywhere in the world. The authors say the longest observations above this elevation are from the summit of Kilimanjaro, which have been maintained for more than a decade by Douglas Hardy of UMass Amherst.
For this study, Pepin, Bradley and colleagues reviewed elevation-dependent warming mechanisms such as loss of snow and ice, increased latent heat release at high altitudes, low-elevation aerosol pollutants that increase the difference in warming rates between low and high elevations, plus other factors that enhance warming with elevation in different regions, and in different seasons.
They discuss future needs to improve knowledge of mountain temperature trends and mechanisms via improved observations, satellite-based remote sensing and model simulations. Noting that “many factors make it extremely difficult to determine the rate of warming in mountainous regions,” the team reports the most striking evidence that mountain regions are warming more rapidly than surrounding regions comes from the Tibetan plateau, where temperatures have risen steadily over the past 50 years and the rate of change is accelerating.
This research team with members from the U.K., U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Ecuador, Pakistan, China, Italy, Austria and Kazakhstan, came together as part of the Mountain Research Initiative, a mountain global change research effort funded by the Swiss National Foundation.
###
Note: The name of the paper wasn’t included in the press release, so I took the liberty of looking it up.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2563.html
Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world
Nature Climate Change5,424–430(2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2563
Mountain Research Initiative EDW Working Group
Abstract
There is growing evidence that the rate of warming is amplified with elevation, such that high-mountain environments experience more rapid changes in temperature than environments at lower elevations. Elevation-dependent warming (EDW) can accelerate the rate of change in mountain ecosystems, cryospheric systems, hydrological regimes and biodiversity. Here we review important mechanisms that contribute towards EDW: snow albedo and surface-based feedbacks; water vapour changes and latent heat release; surface water vapour and radiative flux changes; surface heat loss and temperature change; and aerosols. All lead to enhanced warming with elevation (or at a critical elevation), and it is believed that combinations of these mechanisms may account for contrasting regional patterns of EDW. We discuss future needs to increase knowledge of mountain temperature trends and their controlling mechanisms through improved observations, satellite-based remote sensing and model simulations.
Since they seem to be focused on the Tibetan Plateau, one wonders if this isn’t just another hyped up claim like Himalya-gate. The langage in the PR seems similar, worrying about “…there is a risk of underestimating the severity of a number of problems, including water shortages and the possible extinction of some alpine flora and fauna.”.
From what I can tell, they are using GHCN data for high elevation stations, such as the one from the Sulphur Mountain Weather Observatory, in Banf, Alberta. In 1903, a meteorological observatory building was completed on Sanson Peak, named in 1948 in honour of Norman Bethune Sanson, the observer who tended the recording equipment for nearly 30 years. There is also a nearby cosmic ray monitoring station.
Elevation: 2283m (7490 ft)

The GISS plot of the GHCN data doesn’t seem to show much in the way of recent warming though. In fact, even though the record is incomplete, the most recent data segment looks to be a bit cooler.
Though given that such places tend to attract the curious, who want to climb the mountain to be close to the science…
…one wonders if similar weather observatories in Tibet aren’t simply seeing the effects of increased tourism, resulting in land use modification.
After all, Al Gore’s claim of warming on Mount Kilimanjaro:
Mount Kilimanjaro. Mr. Gore asserted that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming; “Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” That was in 2005 in his movie An Inconvenient Truth.
…turned out to be nothing more than land use change around the mountain, resulting in less evapotranspiration, less snow, and therefore a lower albedo, which tends to make the mountaintop warmer with all that exposed rock. Yep, it’s the trees.
And now, the snow is coming back to Kilimanjaro.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Best excuse for regular skiing holidays I’ve ever seen.
Yes it works, along with rising oceans and beach study.
Totally on the point… I was thinking about a skiing holiday myself… and what better reason? 😉
http://www.ayeshajamal.com
Translation: Please send big cheque asap for further study!
Don’t we already have satellites measuring temperatures at altitude globally? How come these are ignored and instead climate science relies on sparsely sited land-based thermometers, often contaminated by urban growth?
It doesn’t make any sense, scientifically. Why rely on the worst possible measurements to conduct your science, while ignoring the most exact measurements?
It seems to me that the “high mountains are warming faster than expected” says a lot more about the expectations of the researchers than it does about the high mountains.
It’s Colorado rocky mountain high
I’ve seen it raining fire in the sky
Friends around the campfire and everybody’s high
Rocky mountain high
[Climate science would use the satellite records – as soon as the satellite records show something climate science wants to show. .mod]
I would bet that there will be a lot more warming in hard to get to places.
Yes, every single ‘global warming is destroying us!’ studies have that feature: send us more money so we can study this!
Satellites do not measure anything. The output from the “instrument” is a calculation, agreed, more precice than a ground based thermometer over large areas, but still, no actual measure of anything. In my engineering days, measure twice, cut once. A basic principal missing from “climate [science]”.
[“Climate seance” perhaps? .mod]
This claim must be true since most claims are based on no data….sparce data has to be true
Maybe I can be *ahem*, accused of, spelling mistakes when I don’t wear my bins? (Glasses). Nope! I s(m)pell as bad with or without glasses…
Patrick:
Satellites measure the brightness of a number of oxygen spectral lines, from which the temperature of the oxygen is calculated.
Ground-based stations measure the volume of a glob of liquid mercury, alternatively the resistance of a piece of wire from which the temperature of the glob of mercury/piece of wire is calculated.
I fail to see why one of these methods is more or less a measurement than the others.
Globs of mercury and pieces of wire work with or without overhead clouds.
..
Not so with satellites.
Well I think they have gotten the story all wrong.
Now I’m not saying the facts are incorrect; just the story is incorrect.
What they should have announced is :
Our earlier opinions on how fast higher mountains might warm, appear to be totally wrong.
We should not have made those earlier claims, without making observations and getting our facts straight, before shooting off our tongues.
@ur momisugly olliebourque@ur momisuglyme.com The satellites such as the RSS and the AMSU work well in the presence or absence of liquid water clouds. The lines of the oxygen complex from 50=>70 Ghz are well chosen and there are “window” channels ~34 Ghz to calculate the albedo of the surface to account for reflected radiation. There were some early remote sounding instruments that tried to use the infra-red for the purpose of temperature profile calculation. Those did suffer from the problem that clouds made the profile under the could under the cloud was unobservable and the temperature of the cloud top not well determined. As somebody that did his PhD thesis at MIT in the topic, I assure you, the microwave sounders work and work well, clouds or not.
[to mod]: please edit out my stutter “under the cloud” out of my post. My son interrupted me while I was typing. The fingers kept going even though the the mind was someplace else. Thanks.
@ShrNfr
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1958-7
“””””…..
ShrNfr
April 23, 2015 at 10:50 am
@ur momisugly olliebourque@ur momisuglyme.com The satellites such as the RSS and the AMSU work well in the presence or absence of liquid water clouds. …..”””””
Well we can always use a few more experts here and there at WUWT, to ‘splain some of this to us.
Dr Roy has occasionally said something about how the oxygen thing works, but I have just never been able to get clear in my head; just what is it that is changing with temperature. I gather from the frequency that this perhaps involves some molecular rotational mode (does it), but just where is the linkage to the actual thermodynamic Temperature of the portion of the atmosphere that is being interrogated.
Also I am with you on the “a thermometer is a thermometer” thing. Most of what we know about anything comes from researching how it varies with the way the wind is blowing or some other “proxy”, and using that to get information about what we really wanted to know, which might be otherwise unobtainable.
A good example comes from “Strength of materials” where we talk about the stresses in PSI or other units, in a piece of steel, when that is darn near impossible to observe.
But strains are relatively duck soup to observe, so Hooke’s Law, and other theory gives us a means of quantifying that which we can’t observe directly.
The whole donnybrook about the PRTs flying around in satellites not being ground referenced, is a similar non issue. Thermometry is one of the oldest skills in all of physics, with a rich history.
But I still don’t grasp what about the oxygen is linked to the gas Temperature, as a thermometer. What is the signal that the satellite gets from “down there” and is it passive or active ??
G
Actually Fred, I would say a big reason they pick on the high mountains is that, just like the polar regions, there are so few actual weather stations up there. The lack of real data allows the “warmmunists”, to attempt to feather their own nests by demanding more taxpayers money be spent on research into the “problem”. A real scientist would ask for more weather stations, but this mob ask for research grants instead.
Stupidity in the extreme. Mean temperature drops with altitude (hint, atmospheric pressure not GHG’s is responsible for raised surface temperature) I would be surprised if any mountain above 5000m has mean temperatures above freezing or ever will. Let’s face it, even if you believe in back radiation you would have to be wondering just how many extra CO2 molecules are accumulating above that elevation to be having an impact.
Not necessarily. Depending on the albedo, bare rock above the tree line tends to absorb a good bit of heat. The big question for them to show is that there has been a decrease in glacial coverage, and the latest analysis I saw indicated glacial growth and shrinkage was pretty much a wash globally with some glaciers growing while others were shrinking. So they are still probably wrong, but local temperature at ground level is not necessarily directly related to lapse rate like open atmosphere is. (Still related, but sometimes swamped out by the solar absorption and heat conversion of the rock.)
I thought we expected glaciers to recede during an interglacial period. I would expect that glaciers have been receding for almost all of the Holocene.
(note: next the crazies will be telling me that CO2 caused the Holocene itself)
Owen in GA
As I recall, half the glaciers are retreating slowly, 1/3 are expanding, and 1/6 are “steady” (not enough change to matter). Thus you’d need individual mountain-by-mountain temperature, cloud cover, water/ice/snow rate changes, and albedo measurements over time to tell. Might be “information” there, might not. For example, a glacier “south-sloped” at 10 – 15 degrees on the same mountain as a north-faced glacier largely hidden by shadows all year will behave differently if albedo on both changes.
Perhaps the mountains are getting lower!
No, I think the world is getting bigger because all the old stuff seems to be buried underground
Gotta run – check out Mauna Kea, at 4200m Their mean temp may be about 30F.
while you’re checking Hawaii, the Antarctic polar research stations, being at high elevation, are worth another look too.
It’s just under 3C.
Sorry for this, it’s kinda my fault.
I have to pay taxes to ukgov, who allocate some of this extortion to so-called science.. As we have so little real science here a lot of it goes to the NERC. They in turn dish my money out to any monkey-brained project, providing they promise to investigate and find more examples of the imminent disaster from AGW, no matter how buttock clenchingly poor this ‘research’ is.
So blame me.
I’ve been thinking it was you all along.
You cast aspersions on us monkeys. We don’t fund the EDW (Elevation Dependent Warming) working group, for we saw that it seemed to be assuming results of a certain sort before actually collecting any data. Instead we decided to fund the ADC (Alarm-Dependent Careers) working group and their colleagues in the PER (Politically Expedient Results) working group, and look forward to appropriate acknowledgments for our contributions in their imminent papers in Nature Climate Change.
Up here in the trees we see all. Apart from Evil, obviously. Other than that nothing escapes our collective gaze.
I am a UK Tax victim too. I like the Carbon Tax they brought in
1. UK Gov brings in Carbon tax to tax large energy users
2. Large Energy users such as Tata Steel, say this will make them uncompetitive and they will move the jobs out of the UK
3. UK Government offer to pay the carbon tax for them to save the jobs.
Did you ever come across anything so stupid and pointless???
It is a funny old world eh Paul? Actually, in a funny old way it may be a more efficient way to tax the citizen.
If Tata steel did pay the tax, they would have to raise their prices to consumers to survive. So the government, in paying the tax to themselves directly, bypasses this step. Best of all in this Orwellian economics world of Keynesian’s gone wild, the QE governments just print the money. Do not expect an apology from the elites when the system crashes.
Since the NCEP CFSR SHOWS NO WARMING
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
Someone must be cooling equally fast.
Does the guy even stop to think about that. Its like Dr. Mann with his lack of medieval warming. If there was no warming, and you are claiming the warming observed was “local” then why cant you tell us where the cooling was. The bigger question is why doesnt anyone in the scientific community actually ask these guys that question.
So mr Bradley, given the NCEP CFSR is one of the premier grids to measure temps out there, and showed the warming after the flip in the PDO to warm in the 80s and 90s, if what you are saying is right and the last 10-20 years there is no statistical warming, WHERE IS YOUR COMPENSATING COOLING to give credence to your worse than ever High ground disaster scenario.
Timed amazingly to capitalize on the warm ring and resulting western warmth. Will likely go the same way as post 2005 hurricane hysteria, or post 2011 tornado hysteria. But grabs headlines now, that no one bothers calling them on with intuitive questions, or later when the PDO goes back and its frigid in the west.. Then the warming faster than we thought will shift to where its warm
Its Despicable, Deceptive, Delusional, and a sheep like scientific community that wont ask basic questions is complicit
Wow! Well said Joe. I bet you would like to get them in a wrestling ring. They won’t debate you, so do it the old fashioned way. Like your stuff mate. We might make you an honorable Aussie.
why doesnt anyone in the scientific community actually ask these guys that question.
==================
he who controls the funding controls the narrative. the science community lives and dies on grant money and those at the top control who get the funds. No funds, no science. Next stop, flipping burgers at Burger King.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
If I had control of the funding I would fund research into the fraudulent research. Rewards similar to the one offered to those who oust tax cheats.
It’s cheating to remind cagwidiots that a mean is raised by numbers greater than itself and lowered by numbers less .
I most commonly point this out in the opposite case where cold is claimed to be evidence of warming . If that’s the case , show us where it heated even more than it colded .
Joe Bastardi – The link you provided to a Weatherbell page won’t open (well not for me). You make a very good point though. It’s main weaknesses are that it is rational and non-threatening.
I thought the Tropospheric atmospheric lapse rates are established and well understood (by evidence and not by consensus)? Therefore is there a new type of lapse rate where mountains can warm quicker than expected? Also, wouldn’t the adiabatic lapse rate be more prevalent around mountains as opposed to the environmental lapse rate as the surrounding air will be going up and over these obstructions. For a warmer than expected high elevations this would indicate a very wet adiabatic lapse rates which would be evidenced with increased rainfall/snow in the mountains? If on the other hand there is a simplistic assumption that higher temps mean desert then the dry air going up will cool even more than expected due to the higher dry adiabatic lapse rate and should be colder than expected.
The lapse rate is actually increasing going by the fact that the lower troposphere is warming at a lower rate than the surface temperatures are. The weighting of the lower troposphere satellites put the height at about 4 kms or 4000 metres.
So while there is sparse mountain temperature station data, there is nearly worldwide coverage from UAH and RSS and they show less warming than the surface..
That means that the local air must be dryer?
Lapse rate in open atmosphere is well understood. On a mountain it is complicated by ground absorption and reradiation. Unlike in open atmosphere, on the mountain between the tree line and the snow line, there is all this dark stuff called rock that converts an awful lot of sunlight into heat. So the mountain near the surface (at say 2m AGL) is somewhat warmer than the lapse rate calculations would indicate.
I still think they are incorrect in their analysis as they would have to show that the albedo of the rock had significantly changed (ie the snow line retreated to higher elevations) or that the sun was somehow much brighter on those mountains.
Owen in GA
“So the mountain near the surface (at say 2m AGL) is somewhat warmer than the lapse rate calculations would indicate.”
Wouldn’t the prevailing and surrounding air temp limit the amount of warming. Having still air up mountains is rare so the air as thin as it is will be constantly removing heat as the mountains are mostly ‘air-cooled’. However, as you say there must be something significant and obvious for a change here. After all it would be unusual for the snow line to retreat from the top, unless this some science fiction?
I would imagine that that ‘dark stuff called rock” has about the same effect as asphalt on weather station siting. Between the white stuff called snow and the dark stuff called rock a ground level station on a mountain top would be about as useful as t!ts on a boar hog. This whole paper appears to be just another call for more funding (and FAM trips for skiers).
Stephen,
Yes the surrounding air temperature does have an effect, but if you were to launch a balloon on the plains ten miles upwind from that place on the mountain, the two thermometers at the same altitude would measure much different temperatures (compared to global warming claims – I am talking about maybe 1 or 2 degrees F).
There are some extenuating circumstances though – without going to a mountain and doing the experiment I don’t know which of the myriad of effects would win. One of the problems with mountains is that the wind is either dominated by up-slope or down-slope effects and either way the air picks up heat from the sun-warmed surface. When coming up-slope, the air has lapse rate cooling offset by picking up heat from the surface. When going down-slope the air has lapse rate warming combined with picking up any heat the surface is releasing. Then there are turbulence effects that can bring air pressure changes that change the lapse rate calculations on a second by second basis. The effects would be very dependent on the slope geological features and shape, and high resolution temperature and wind data would be needed to see it all. I bet it would be fun to try to disentangle all the various effects on that data.
In short though we are talking about adding a radiator in the middle of the lapse rate calculations and heating the air. Of course this is all natural and does not depend on the “AGW” theories or “back-radiation” etc. This is just because nature stuck a heat source in the middle of the air. It is still cold compared to sea level, just not as cold as taking a balloon up to the same altitude above the sea surface at the same latitude.
Owen,
with regards to mountains heating air, I have seen the opposite. A moist airstream passing a cold-soaked mountain (the Matterhorn) causing the water to condense as it passed the mountain. The cloud persisted downstream of the mountain (not orographic).
Mountain microclimes are extremely complex. I am sure about tourist counter argument, however.
Balloon soundings over time are far more reliable and convincing. The graph appears to show an approximate 2 degrees centigrade over 100 years. Though a more detailed inspection of the data could reveal something else.
Looks like Mount Kilimanjaro has snow forecast for the next 6 days
http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Kilimanjaro/forecasts/5963
😊
Seems to me that the lapse rate would tell us that there is no warming at all on top of those mountains; especially given no warming at the surface for 18 years or so. Idiots. This is just more hysteria by people who should never have been granted a degree. “Science” like this we do not need.
I hate it when I mess up a closing blockquote tag. 🙁
{There? .mod]
+1. Why should mountaintops warm faster? Is it because grant money is needed to field studies at southern countries with nice beaches?
I’m not sure what the answer is because I haven’t read up on it, but that’s probably not it.
It could be similar to the business concept that a business needs to grow it,s bottom line every year, or it is doomed to eventual failure. In regards to that the warmists now find it necessary to expand their gaze to new heights in an attempt to ward off their impending demise as they run out of fresh ground that would replenish their funding.
Next line of study “Are temperatures rising in space between the Earth and the Moon?”, followed by “How does co2 cause that, and how much time do we have before it is too late to reverse this serious issue?”.
Oh dear lord! More models. For every 1000ft increase in altitude/elevation, there is a ~1C DROP in [temperature]! If anything they are COOL and will always be so.
Yeah, but it is a warmer cool.
/huh?
Probably because of albedo; it’s becoming a lighter shade of pale.
Yes Patrick, & that is why these studies rarely have figures showing the actual temperatures, just ones showing the anomalies. The authors are afraid that no-one would would take any notice if they said the average temperature at 4000m had risen from -x.yzC to -x.yaC. And personally, I don’t blame them for being afraid, because the differences are irrelevant in the real world. A below freezing climate is still very cold, no matter how much it has warmed relative to its prior average temperature.
People who like vacations in mountains state: High elevation environments around the world may be warming much faster than previously thought … call for more aggressive monitoring of temperature changes in mountain regions
Vacations in the mountains in the summer.
Vacations on tropical beachfronts in the winter.
VacationsField work in the mountains in the summer.VacationsField work on tropical beachfronts in the winter.Vacations are separate.
The signs of a conspiracy (and it takes one to know one), these people are looking for funded fun in the mountains.
And do NOT forget your skis , and (very expensive) ski outfits.
According to the authors:
“Elevation-dependent warming is a poorly observed phenomenon that requires urgent attention…
There is growing evidence that the rate of warming is amplified with elevation”
I thought satellite data had the lower troposphere covered and showed slower warming than surface temps near sea-level. What am I missing?
Oh, I see, they are talking about regional warming/cooling, not climate….
“these mechanisms may account for contrasting regional patterns of EDW”
Never mind. Climate science has long ago declared that regional variations do not constitute climate. Or are they changing their minds again… since it mind be convenient to do so…. for today?
Given they long stop saying ‘weather is not climate ‘ so they can jump on ever extreme weather event has ‘proof’ of climate doom , you could well be right.
“might be”, not “mind be”
claims of climate doom , check
GIGO at work , check
lack of data , check
calls for more funding , check
claims there is no time to waste, check
So having go through the normal check list we can say that yes this is indeed climate ‘science research’ in action.
The worst part is of course they get paid to do it and the green happy press will jump all it without even asking a question.
“…we could see more dramatic changes much sooner than previously thought.” None of these guys ever says that, as it happens, things are warming much slower than previously thought.
Commenting on yesterday’s thread I believe I happened upon an axiom regarding such predictions by such types.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/#comment-1914507
“…All these failures are the same. They don’t take into consideration technology and the genius of the few percent who are problem solvers in this world…..The few percent, who have the vast panorama including human ingenuity in their purview, know how foolish it is to try to predict such things…..It is AXIOMATIC THAT PREDICTIONS FROM DOOMSTERS HAVE NOT AND, I WOULD SAY CANNOT COME TRUE because of the missing overpowering dynamic ingenuity factor in their thinking. Unconstrained by this first order principal component, their thoughts (and heartfelt concerns) soar through the roof of reality.
It’s amazing that its always ‘worse than we thought’ when they made it ‘the worst’ to begin with.
Worster than we thought?
I think this calls for productive inflection:
Bad, worse, worst, worserst, worsererst, worsererstest, worsererstester, worsererstesterst, worsererstesterstest, .. worserst^n .. worserst^aleph_0
[Lettuce assume you need a county in England to store all of the predictions. The mods suggest Worsterchstershire. .mod]
Wasn’t there a British comedy series Worster and Jeez?
This Paper has it all:
1) Claim of possible future danger
2) Heightened sense of urgency
3) Plea for more money to study scenario
It’s missing mountain acidification.
the maybe imperiled depleted downstream water resources will be further contaminated by elevated CO2 acidification – there fixed
I’m lucky I had no cup of coffee at hand or lips. 🙂
Tom j
haha good one!
Eugene WR Gallun
LoL !
The lichen aren’t liken it ?
Please send money so I can finance any method I deem necessary to verify my hunch.
On Energy Matters: Summary of 174 S Hemisphere records show warming of +0.2˚C / century and throwing down a challenge to BEST.
The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary
Averaging Temperature Averages
The Snipe Hunt For Global Warming.
Since we are talking about weather, it is currently snowing on my short, non-EDW, Burke Mountain even without remote sensing (i.e. look out the window) here in northeastern Vermont – a lovely H2O phase change – although I was hoping for Spring.
It’s amazing in Vermont generally its colder on the top of the mountains than down in the valleys. It also snows more there. I don’t know if this strange phenomenon happens on other mountains. I’ll do some research and let you know.
It is snowing here in New York, too. The air is very cold, not at all normal for this time of year. Bet more cold records are being set…it is almost May! And the long range forecast for Berlin, NY, is below freezing every night this week and into May 2nd.
Looking out of the window IS remote sensing, isn’t it? You could get a grant for that. Every morning and evening, sat on the terrace, glass of medicin in hand remote sensing whatever. I do it most days but it costs me.
“We need more monitoring”?
Where have I heard that before?
Only everywhere, all the time from everyone in every earth science field.
Monitoring provides the money for well paid hobby time.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/deadzones/glider.jsp
Oh noes! This means that all the flora and fauna in their mad dash to higher elevations to escape the frying temperatures at lower elevations are going to have to run twice as fast uphill.
It’s a travesty.
+ 5
“UMass Amherst’s Bradley adds that without substantially better information, there is a risk of underestimating the severity of a number of problems, including water shortages and the possible extinction of some alpine flora and fauna.”
How come there is never a risk of overestimating the severity of a number of problems?
One would think that Bradley would have noticed that it was freaking cold at UMass this year.
Unless, of course, the authors were off researching their alleged paper on that mountain in Hawaii…
It was cold in Hawaii’s mountains, too.
Why would one make an assessment of any sort without information?
Science demands data before it can say anything. Otherwise it is activism.
It really must be interesting to sit in on a warmist brainstorming session. I can hear it now –
,”Well, we’ve pretty much exhausted tidal basins and coral reefs. Can anyone think of someplace that we haven’t gone yet with our ‘it’s worse than we thought meme’?”
“Oh yeah! We haven’t asked for research funds for checking out whether or not moss growing on the north side of Hemlock trees are being affected yet.”
“But didn’t we do a study 2 years ago on moss on the north side of pines?”
“Yes, but pines aren’t hemlocks! It’s a totally different tree!”
“Cool! There must be dozens of different trees, right? W can do a research paper on each one of them!”
“Don’t you think tax payers would catch on if we just kept changing trees?”
“Naw, they’re too busy watching football and soccer on the TV, or texting to the person sitting next to them or streaming their favorite rap artist on their smart phones to even notice.”
“Hey! How about doing research on different levels of mountains too? I mean, we can look at changes at every 1000 feet of elevation to see if it is ‘worse than we though’ there too!”
“Do we have to use 1000 foot intervals? We could make it 100 foot intervals and ask for larger grants.”
“Now that’s a cool idea!”
Ka-ching! got to love the sound of the cash register tallying up the funding. I’m sure there will be a paper out soon on temperature changes and their effects on earthworms, and you know, it really has got to be worse than we thought.