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.



Chiefio (E.M. Smith) did an analysis of GISS thermometer choices years ago and discovered that they were rather consistently dropping out the high elevation stations and infilling the data with numbers extrapolated from lower (warmer) stations. Anyone who wishes can check his blog for details. For example, (if I remember correctly), California mountain stations were dropped and the state average was estimated based on two coastal stations near L.A. and one in San Francisco. Bolivia was excluded completely, with it’s values being set according to station near coastal Peru. Is it any wonder that a cursory look at the higher elevation areas of the world might show warming?
For anyone that wants a rather extensive review of the thermometer problems find some references below:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/assume-a-spherical-cow-therefore-all-steaks-are-round/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
Now we know where all the missing heat went.
Just think, 400,000 Hiroshima’s per day landing in the higher elevations.
Who would’ve thunk it?
Yirgach — good one — Eugene WR Gallun
The height of absurdity.
Max Photon — how about “Mountain High” — Eugene WR Gallun
Still here on the right side of the Atlantic, moved from Adelboden back to Fribourg for the next week. All the mountain guides are telling me that the glaciers and snowfields have been growing over the past few years, particularly above Zermatt.We will be going down to Geneva next week, then over to Chamonix, where I’ve heard that the large snowfield on the north side of Mt Blanc is as deep and wide as anyone can remember, When we arrived in Geneva last week, it sure looked like the snowline on Mt. Blanc was pretty low, maybe just above 2000m. I was here in the 80’s at about the same time of year, and I recall that snow was limited to elevations above 3000m. Unfortunately these Rat-B……s are forcing me to eat way too much cheese, chocolate, and drink some pretty brutal swill that they bring down from Bavaria, (you could add a cup of tomato paste and a 1/2 cup brown sugar and use it as BBQ Sauce, as is). I think I’ve gained 8 pounds in two weeks, but then I’ll need the extra layer of body fat to survive the next little ice age.
Clearly, CO2 makes people fat.
CO2 is also the reason that Bavarian swill tastes bad.
The Bavarian swill is very tasty, but it’s brutal to drink the stuff, it’s about 8% and is compounded by the fact that even the low elevations are 1400 meters.
Heroic of you to imbibe all that evil CO2 generated by the Bavarian brewers, sequestering it for the sake of humanity & the world.
http://www.courmayeur-montblanc.com/webcam
Not so white here. Mont blanc in the distance.
That’s from the south side, looking at it from Italy. It always looks like that, even in February
Off-topic but relevant; you guys should read how Michael Mann is defending himself here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/01/21/the-serengeti-strategy/
Sounds like a mash up of Saul Alinsky combined with circular logic: “They’re attacking me because I’m attacking them, so they must be bad people, and because they’re bad people they shouldn’t be able to counterattack because I’m a good person, and I only attacked them in the first place because they’re bad people.” Any Federal judge will treat this kind of argument for what it is, nothing.
And Rachel Carson, for the most part, was wrong…
“They’re attacking me because I’m attacking them, so they must be bad people, and because they’re bad people they shouldn’t be able to counterattack because I’m a good person, and I only attacked them in the first place because they’re bad people.”
I think that was a direct quote from the governor of Minnesota. They do use the same playbook, so no real surprise.
Mann’s Serengeti analogy is apt. We do tend to pick off the slow, the weak, the fat, the lazy, the lame. It’s only natural, and a good reason he takes so much of the heat.
“may ” – they’re not.
The record is sparse above 14000 feet? Isn’t that a little like saying we don’t have data on much on the sea floor?
I suspect we shall see a lot more alarmism and scare stories between now and the convening of the CoP in Paris.
Ahah! The missing heat is hiding in the oceans AND hiding on the mountain tops. Too bad we don’t have satellites that measure the temperature of the entire troposphere or we could possibly determine if the heat was indeed proportionally higher with elevation.
RW,
You forgot to add, “oh wait, yes we do have satellites that do that already”, but I suppose most of us realize that it was implied in your comment 🙂
“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”
Members? That’s plural. So they’re like a choir.
And they basically admit they know squat, right from the get-go. They basically sing, following the bouncing ball:
“We haven’t observed much of this, but it’s very important that we pay attention to it, to make sure that that we pay attention to it, to ensure that it exists.”
This is agenda-speak. The original hymn quoted above is full-on obfuscation. Nothing more…..
…..uttered by a “group” who are in dire need of doing more research on something that might be there.
Sparse data indeed. Do they think we are stupid, or what?
To answer your question, yes, they do indeed think that we are stupid.
Anthony, I live down the way from this station and run up to it periodically.
After looking at the coordinates, I think the data presented is for Banff CS station which is actually in town and lower in elevation. The station atop Sanson Peak is at 51.147458°N 115.578615°W
the lower elevation town station is 51.19 N 115.55 W which matches the chart presented.
Banff has several station locations over the years. One station was on the now closed airfield located at the Minnewanka/ highway 1 intersection. Another station was right in town for years then later moved to its current location at 51.193290°N 115.552648°W and can be seen clearly on google earth.
My workday is currently on the flats at the base of Yamnuska ( First Nations land ). The mountain face that never sees snow (hint; lotsa freakin’ snow on all other mountains surrounding. I know,.. cool, right? ).
Incredible beauty in this place.
http://www.albertawow.com/hikes/Yamnuska_Mountain/Yamnuska_Mountain.htm
Working outdoors was a dream this winter in the mountains. Not unbearably cold, when properly attired.
We enjoyed our winter while eastern Canada got hammered.
When I first read the title, I thought I saw the name Ray Bradbury. If we want think HOT, Fahrenheit 451 would certainly fit the bill. And that was in 1953! How hot would it be now?
Due to higher CO2, the ignition temperature of paper has now been lowered to an unprecedented 450 degrees! Our libraries are all at risk from climate change!
I’ve noticed that the preferred sites for areas “Warming Faster Than Expected” are almost always inaccessible to the general public, and thus cannot be easily looked in on. That’s so strange…
Warming is inversely proportional to the density of thermometers.
Somewhat off-topic, but has anyone noticed that from basically March 11th to April 22nd the rate of Arctic Sea Ice loss has been essentially ZERO???
I am now waiting for the “standard reply” from the CAGW crowd which will be:
“Yeah, but we started out with a REALLY LOW Maximum back in early March, and Arctic Sea Ice is still well below normal”
In anticipation of just such a reply, I guess I will have to point out that the rate of ice loss being essentially zero from March 11th through April 22nd (a six-week period) is UNPRECEDENTED! (Gotta use their terminology, right??!!??)
Or the other reply is that it’s “rotton” ice…that ice just just does not want to comply with models and politics!
Sounds like we need Tug Speedman again…
In an attempt to adjust to the elevation they chewed too many coca leaves to be able to read the thermometers accurately.
Don’t the radiative cooling effects of CO2 increase with altitude ?
According to the CAGW crowd, the words “radiative” and “cooling” can not be used together in a sentence.
Due to the headline content at first I thought you were speaking of Ray Bradbury.
Hmm. Now if they want to do an interesting study, they should look and see how the tree line has moved to a higher elevation thanks to higher CO2 levels, and how that affects temperature. More shade means cooler temperatures perhaps?
Has Ray Bradley discovered the missing hot spot in the upper troposphere? He should be more forthright if such is the case.
Faster than expected = models wrong again.
increased latent heat release at high altitudes
Does everybody agree that’s happening? It fits with the 2%-7% increase in rainfall reported in O’Gorman et al. Can it be happening without an increase in the rate of heat flux from the surface? Does it imply an increased rate of precipitation at those mountain tops?
wouldn’t that be self-correcting? I mean added precipitation at altitude would be snow which would really add to the reflection decreasing the amount of short wave absorbed thus lowering the temperature.
And we are to believe that the IPCC models are running too cold?
So, if you climb a mountain the anomaly should get even more positive?
[…]“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 […]”
Is not this the Climategate individual that, even back then, was having doubts about ‘other individuals’ that were promoting ‘the cause’ rather than Science?
How time changes one. From the bottom of the Ocean to the top of the Mountains …
Bradley (Climategate e-mails)
This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info
But we “antis” certainly have some ‘sophistication’ now Raymond. You recognise that we have ‘the scent’ and will run you down very soon. Agreement at Paris 2015 … Non.
Let me get this right.
Urban Heat Island does not exist
but Upper Himalyan Heat Island does exist
Wotcha do is find an area that has no historical data. Make up some historical data and compare that to your ‘modelled data of imaginary yesteryear’ and things are obviously ‘worse than we thought’.
Jeeze – you will never be a ‘scientist’