Report of Working Group on High Elevation Climate Monitoring
MTNCLIM 2005 Meeting Breakout Session
March 4, 2005 Chico Hot Springs, Montana
Prepared March 20, 2005
Kelly Redmond 775-674-7011, kelly.redmond@dri.edu
In attendance (* or added to the email list later)
Dan Cayan
Dave Clow
Chris Daly *
Chris Landry
Mark Losleben
Jessica Lundquist
Greg McCurdy*
Dave McGinnis
John Smiley
Pam Sousanes
Kelly Redmond
Dave Simeral *
Dave Whiteman
Marilyn Wegweiser
Randy Borys *
Melanie Wetzel*
Phil Pasteris *
Connie Millar*
Scripps
USGS
OSU
Mtn Studies Institute
Niwot
CDC
WRCC
MSU Billings
White Mtn Res Stn
NPS Denali
WRCC
WRCC
U of U
Buffalo Bill Museum Cody
DRI Storm Peak
DRI Storm Peak
NRCS – WCC Portland
USFS and Mountain Mama Maven
For those not in attendance, there is a very complete MTNCLIM 2005 web page
at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/mtnclim/.
An email alias has been set up at WRCC: mcnwg@dri.edu
Not all parties attended the meeting, and some at the meeting sat in on other
working groups. If anybody not in attendance is interested in being on the email
alias, send a message to kelly.redmond@dri.edu
We had about an hour. The group had a general discussion, and then we
proceeded through the starting points listed on the following pages. There was
general agreement that these subjects seemed to cover reasonably well the
bases of what needs to be dealt with.
There is unanimous agreement that everybody wants this capability, it’s a crosscutting matter of high priority.
What are the first steps, then?
We decided to refer to this as the Mountain Climate Network (MCN). This
might conveniently shorten to MOuntain NETwork, or MONET.
We wish to emphasize from the outset that this is not a weather network, but a
climate network. The key difference is concerted attention to stability and
integrity of the environment in the vicinity of the site and long-term consistency of
instrument exposure.
For the time being, Kelly Redmond and Mark Losleben will continue to act as
coordinators and points of contact.
As for what this group could do, it was generally agreed that the group could
provide a framework for coordination of presently scattered activities.
It was felt that the most useful activity to start with would be to establish a set of
protocols for the main items on our “starting points” list. These include sensors
and observational practices, as well as issues of maintenance, communications,
willingness to share data, and to set standards and specifications.
There is also a need to initiate a high elevation version of the Climate Reference
Network. For the time being we will call this the MCRN for Mountain Climate
Reference Network.
Because different groups are starting at different points, and have differing
capabilities and access to resources, we decided that the Mountain Climate
Network would start with three tiers, according to which standards could be
achieved. These will be drafted and passed around for comment and
adjustment. Most likely those sites that could meet strict criteria for long-term
consistency would be in Tier 1, those that could meet fewer and lower standards
in Tier 2, and those for “weather” purposes would be in Tier 3.
The term “mountain” will be taken to mean relatively high terrain with respect to
surrounding areas, and includes not just peaks but also high meadows and
approximately the upper 5-10 percent of land in the area. The lower limit can be
decided later, where the number of potential stations rapidly escalates.
The Western Regional Climate Center agreed to act as a collection point for
data. All data ingested as part of this effort would be freely available to all
parties. At present WRCC is ingesting data from Slide Mountain (9700’), three
sites atop the White Mountains (10200’, 12410’, and 14246’), the Central Sierra
Snow Lab (6883’), and Storm Peak at Steamboat Springs Ski Area (10500’).
One and maybe two sites are planned for Mount Warren (12300’) and hopefully
Mt Hoffman (10800’) in Yosemite.
These can be accessed at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/weather/index.html.
At present, there are few “spare” resources that the participants can devote to
this, so we will do as well as we can with existing resources, while we look for
sources of support.
The working group is not excluding eastern mountains, such as Mount
Washington Observatory in New Hampshire, nor to just the USA. However, in
practical terms, the main hydrologic / climatic / ecologic / social issues that
pertain to mountains are in the western states.
We would also like to include stations from existing operational networks such as
Snotel. A set of stations from that and other networks could be identified that
would be given suitable attention.
Also, we would like to work with agencies to keep high elevation stations in
operation. This was brought home just last week with the announcement that the
National Weather Service plans to close its long running high elevation station at
Stampede Pass, Washington, just the opposite direction that we should be going.
We will start with an interested subset who will act as guinea pigs and prototypes
and work outward from there. Kelly and Mark will produce a set of prototype
protocols, or “protoprotocalls,” for distribution and comment by mid April.
The group will look for “Meetings of Opportunity” to meet face to face on
occasion or in subsets, and probably get together as a group at AGU in
December 2005.
We will also be looking for opportunities for proposals to obtain funding to get this
off the ground, or onto higher ground.
And not least, as his last act Dennis Machida gave us some good advice about
mainstreaming, establishing legitimacy, institutionalizing the activity, and
ensuring a participatory framework. This should be integral to the process.
End of report
Working Group on
IMPLEMENTATION OF MOUNTAIN CLIMATE NETWORKS
Point of Departure for MTNCLIM 2005 Working Group Discussion
Kelly T. Redmond (Western Regional Climate Center; kelly.redmond@dri.edu)
Mark Losleben (Mountain Research Station; mark.losleben@colorado.edu)
This group will make the assumption that the need for mountain climate observations has
already been established. Most of the discussion will center on the following topics,
although it is not limited to them.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate needs versus weather needs – striving for consistency through time
Network organization
Candidate sites
Siting and exposure issues
Degree of standardization
Individual site design
Site selection – is it pertinent to the goal? Is it “permanent” ?
Sensor issues – quality, robustness, design maximum by element
Power issues
Icing survival
Site security, administrative and physical
Communications
One-way or two-way
Reliability
Additional procedures to prevent data loss
Maintenance
This is the key issue !
Who will do this?
Degree of commitment, and motivation for participation
Periodic, on-demand, or other approach
Equipment swap-outs and upgrades
Maintaining programmatic continuity and corporate knowledge
Data flow
Centralized ingest
Centralized access
Quality control of data
Archival
Products
The data themselves
Summaries
Funding
Prototype approaches as proof of concept
Linking and leveraging are essential
Bridging to practical and operational communities
Bridging to counterpart research efforts and initiatives
A strategy to attain the monitoring goals involves these elements:
1.All major mountain ranges should be sampled.
2.Along-axis and cross-axis sampling for major mountain chains.
3.Approximately 5-10 sites per state (1 per 28000 - 56000 km2)
4.Highest sites as high as possible within each state, but at both high relative and absolute
elevations.
5.Free air exposures at higher sites.
6.Utilize existing measurements and networks, and extend existing records, when
possible.
7.AC power to prevent ice/rime when practical.
8.Temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, solar radiation as main
elements, others as feasible.
9.Hourly readings, and real-time communication whenever possible
10.Absence of local artificial influences, site stable for next 5-10 decades.
11.Current and historical measurements accessible via World Wide Web when possible.
12.Hydro measurements (precipitation, snow water content, and depth) not practical at
highest points, so have lower sites in more protected settings to permit these.
13.Maintain stable site characteristics (e.g., vegetation height) needed for measurement
homogeneity.
14.High quality, rugged, durable instrumentation with proven track records greatly
desirable.
15.Site documentation history available and accessible.