This   level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Climate Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MeganERenz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It would be nice to have an image of a mountain and then some data points for a presentation type.

Found several in commons, though an ideal photo would include some above and below the tree-line. — EncMstr 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this basically the same as Mountain climate? Pfly 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, looks like it. Alpine climate is the technically correct term, and is the pre-existing article. hike395 05:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

That would only be true for mountains tall enough to not have trees. The Great Smoky Mountains come to mind as an example of mountain climate where there is no alpine climate. — EncMstr 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Good and correct point. Now looking at the content of Mountain climate, I wonder if it should get merged with high altitude. hike395 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Specifically, Alpine climate is a rough equivalent to tierra fría. I think a merger in high altitude would be in order, combining the two "climate" articles into a nice climate section. Dysmorodrepanis 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not sure if both articles should merge because not any mountains have Alpine climate, only the highest ranges (or lower located in highest latitudes). The problem is that the Mountain climate is partially overlapping the Alpine in the Andes reference. In my opinion, the Mountain climate article should be extended but deprived of the Andes reference (at least the highest Andes) and both should have a See also section calling for the each other. Mountolive | Talk 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

there is also no parcipitaition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.14.166 ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I disagree with the comments about the dry adiabatic lapse rate. If I lift an unsaturated parcel of air, it will cool at roughly 9.8 degrees C per kilometer. However, in a typical vertical profile of temperature in the atmosphere, the temperature as height increases doesn't cool at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. A standard assumption is that temperature cools with altitude at a rate of 6.5 degrees C per kilometer. 76.84.25.108 ( talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The Wikipage about Köppen climate claffication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification puts Alpine Climate into GROUP H. I think this two page should be aligned, however I'm not a climatologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.186.198 ( talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Retreat of Glaciers Makes Some Climbs Tougher by KATE GALBRAITH published New York Times December 25, 2011

99.190.86.5 ( talk) 07:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alpine climate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603041448/http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_47.htm to http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_47.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mountwashington.org/weather/summit.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Pbrower2a: By off chance do you still have the source where you found record temps for Mauna Loa? The NOAA page only seems to list daily highs and lows. The Feb record is much higher than the other months and I'm wondering if it's a typo for 65°F. Daß  Wölf 00:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The 85°F high looks like a typo, barring something strange (a near-miss of a volcanic eruption which would warm the local area?)... it is the NOAA page, and I am averaging the daily high and low as an estimate.

I managed to track down and add the original source of the number. [1] I couldn't find anything about 18 Feb 2003 specifically but I found a news report about volcanic activity in late February, so I guess it could be a legitimate temperature. Daß  Wölf 22:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

That would be a possible explanation consistent with a 'legitimate' outlier (that is, not a misreading). If anything, people are likely to reject an outlier in exchange for another reading. Figure that any full eruption of a volcano would destroy the equipment reading climatic data much as a hurricane would knock out a wind vane. Pbrower2a ( talk) 01:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC) . reply