Temperature at high elevations seem to be much higher than they actually are
OregonGuy last edited by
First let me introduce myself. I'm a new user and I'm very much interested in extreme precipitation especially when its in the form of snowfall. So I'm been using Windy lately to check remote areas in the Saint Elias range in SE Alaska/SW Yukon/NW BS(especially the southern end also known as the Faireweather Range), The Patagonia Icefields(especially the Southern one), the southern alps in New Zealand and various regions in Colombia(notably the Cauca and Chocó departments as well as the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range).
Well anyway I've noticed that the higher up the location, the more likely the temperature readings are not just off but way off. For example take Mount Rainier at the summit
Now compare what the actual temperature is according to Camp Muir at just over 10,000 feet
Note how much colder the actual temperature is even though its more than 4000 lower.
Here another example
That is the location for Pico Cristóbal Colón which is the highest point in Colombia at almost 19,000 feet.
Even though its somewhat close to the equator its high enough that it still has glaciers. The temperature
seems much too high,
Take a look at what temperature Windy has for mount mckinley
Most temperature are forcasted to be above 0 F. That is usually not even the case at the summit
even in summer but its November.
Take look at Temperature it has for the summit of k2
Again most of the forecasted temps are above 0 F. In November? No way
Compared to other forecasting sites www.mountain-forecast.com, http://www.viewweather.com, https://www.yr.no/ or /www.meteoblue.com/ all show considerable
colder temps for peaks although in www.viewweather.com seems to have the opposite problem that Windy has(calculates temps that are colder than they
Windy.com seems to be really good(maybe the best) at projecting precipiations amounts but it needs to fix the obvious temperature
problems at higher altitudes.
@OregonGuy Hi, thank you for your post and deep analysis. The problem is that we display modeled temperature, which is based on rough model terrain (9km grid). For bad performance in mountaineous terrain, which is what you mentioned, we are thinking about recalculation of the temperature field with the fine terrain, so it would be more precise for high altitudes.
Gkikas LGPZ last edited by
As also mentioned here
the problem has to do with the model's grid.
Also, the measurment network in such mountainous areas is very sparse
and the model runs with insufficient initial data.
It would be great (as TZ says) to recalculate temperature using the actual elevation.
Gkikas LGPZ last edited by
Also, if you compare meteograms you'll realize the temp. innacuracies between models
with different grid.