Rate the Climate: Mt. Washington, New Hampshire (record, temperatures, days)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even the sub-arctic boreal forest ones in Labrador and Quebec I at least gave a D to, but the WINDS along with Washington's sub-arctic climate push it down from a D to an F!
F. The average wind speeds in January are crazy. Any idea what the percentage of calm conditions are?. I've seen some serious wind in the mountains over here, but calm conditions are still reasonably common.
At that altitude here, we would get a lot more snow than that during the summer months.
but the WINDS along with Washington's sub-arctic climate push it down from a D to an F!
Mt Washington's climate isn't really subarctic, as it cannot support trees, or really anything bigger than grasses. Arctic is probably the better term.
The winds give this a D- for me. If it wasn't so windy, it would be in B- territory because my only real complaints would be too much precipitation and that it's a little too cool during summer for comfort. I wouldn't mind too much about that last part, though.
04-30-2011, 04:33 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 9 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,920,579 times
Reputation: 4052
F-
I can't believe weather/climate this horrible exists in the Northeastern USA... Good thing this weather/climate occupies only a small piece of Mount Washington and nowhere else in the Northeast. If the entire Northeast had a weather/climate like this it would be entirely not habitable.
What a difference relatively high elevation makes.
But then again why does it seem like the other relatively high elevation places in the Northeast(Such as the Adirondack mountains, Green mountains, and Catskills) seem to all have much better weather/climate than Mount Washington? What makes it so unique in Mount Washington?
I assume places just nearby from Mount Washington in New Hampshire at the much lower elevations have a much better weather/climate than this.
Mt Washington's climate isn't really subarctic, as it cannot support trees, or really anything bigger than grasses. Arctic is probably the better term.
Treeline is at 4500-4800 ft (about 1400 m)
What is typically used as the criteria for distinguishing arctic from subarctic? Is it the treeline?
Koppen uses having no month above 10C/50F to draw the boundary for a polar climate.
I can't believe weather/climate this horrible exists in the Northeastern USA... Good thing this weather/climate occupies only a small piece of Mount Washington and nowhere else in the Northeast. If the entire Northeast had a weather/climate like this it would be entirely not habitable.
What a difference relatively high elevation makes.
But then again why does it seem like the other relatively high elevation places in the Northeast(Such as the Adirondack mountains, Green mountains, and Catskills) seem to all have much better weather/climate than Mount Washington? What makes it so unique in Mount Washington?
I assume places just nearby from Mount Washington in New Hampshire at the much lower elevations have a much better weather/climate than this.
Pardon for sidetracking the conversation but it is interesting, I've noticed, that many high altitude locations seem to still be quite warm relative to the same ground level climate while others are not.
I know there's supposed to be a certain rule of thumb of decreasing temperature with altitude (though with the decrease rate quicker in drier temperatures) something like six degrees celcius or so per kilometer, but I don't know if that applies to the temperatures of each month, both highs and lows, or average temperatures (seasonal trends are kept, so they should be right?).
For example, I mean the Mile-High City still manages to have a pretty hot average summer max temperature of 31.1C (88F) in July, which would seem to imply mean it still manages to keep some warm summers with altitude relative to it's winter temperature.
What is typically used as the criteria for distinguishing arctic from subarctic? Is it the treeline?
Koppen uses having no month above 10C/50F to draw the boundary for a polar climate.
Both are used. Usually the 10°C boundary (which is average daily temperature not average high) and the treeline are usually close to each other, though not always.
Mt. Washington's warmest month is slightly below 10°C (July is 9.3°C) and is well above treeline, so it's definitely arctic. I think the wind makes tree line a bit lower than one would expect from temperature, and I've noticed the treeline in the White Mountains (the range Mt. Washington is in) can vary up to 400 ft or so depending on wind exposure.
I know there's supposed to be a certain rule of thumb of decreasing temperature with altitude (though with the decrease rate quicker in drier temperatures) something like six degrees celcius or so per kilometer, but I don't know if that applies to the temperatures of each month, both highs and lows, or average temperatures (seasonal trends are kept, so they should be right?).
It's 5°F/1000 ft in dry air, generally 3° (or less) /1000 ft in moist air. Don't remember the metric version.
I've noticed that night temperature don't seem decline as much with altitude as day temperatures, at least in New England. At least in inland New England, the summer diurnal range is generally fairly high (at least 20°F). If you look at Mt. Washington's night temperatures, the diurnal range in July is only 9°F.
I suspect this is because the air is rather moist, so as it cools with altitude, it reaches the dewpoint (or 100% humidity) during the night and cools no further. In the daytime, the air at the bottom is much higher and nowhere near the dewpoint so it cools at a faster rate with altitude. The average July temp for Mt. Washington is 54/43°F. I'd imagine in the lowlands nearby it would be something like 80/56 in July, so the highs decrease much more than the lows. If the highs decreased less, I'd imagine trees could grow.
I remember in the mountains of California, the opposite seemed true; the diurnal range got bigger compared to the lowlands. But the air was very dry and the elevation difference was bigger (8000-13000 feet)
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F-
I can't believe weather/climate this horrible exists in the Northeastern USA... Good thing this weather/climate occupies only a small piece of Mount Washington and nowhere else in the Northeast. If the entire Northeast had a weather/climate like this it would be entirely not habitable.
What a difference relatively high elevation makes.
But then again why does it seem like the other relatively high elevation places in the Northeast(Such as the Adirondack mountains, Green mountains, and Catskills) seem to all have much better weather/climate than Mount Washington? What makes it so unique in Mount Washington?
I assume places just nearby from Mount Washington in New Hampshire at the much lower elevations have a much better weather/climate than this.
Are any of those stations anywhere near as high as Mt Washington? I'm willing to bet most of those stations aren't even half the height of Mt Washington.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
