Summit forecasts

I suppose that most of you have figured this out long ago, but for those who have not ...

For years I have been wondering how to get forecasts for the "normal" summits; those way lower than the Presidentials for which the Higher Summits Forecast applies. I have finally figured it out, rather embarrassed that it took me so long

If you look at the normal forecast page for Lincoln you will see the small map that I used to ignore. Panning and zooming you can easily see the summit of Mt. Liberty. Clicking on it you will get a new forecast page.

This morning the Lincoln forecast was for "Wind chill values as low as -9. North wind at 7 mph becoming south." while the Mt. Liberty forecast was for "Wind chill values as low as -20. Windy, with a north wind between 23 and 28 mph.".

Panning further north to Mt. Lafayette you get an even chillier forecast: "Wind chill values as low as -31. Windy, with a north wind between 25 and 30 mph.".

I never thought of doing this. Thanks for the tip. I matched this up with what I've been using....the higher summits forecast from NOAA Gray Maine Page. It's quite close.

Thanks for posting this Mohamed ! We are all constantly discovering new things and new ways to use familiar tools. Although the particular discovery that you posted wasn't new to me, I did have a similar "eureka moment" regarding this same weather tool. It was only recently that I discovered the wealth of additional weather data that's available by clicking on the "Tabular Forecast" located toward the bottom right of the screen (under the heading entitled "Additional Forecasts & Information").

Yeah this is a good idea and I have been using it for awhile. For Mt Washington it goes up to 5648 feet. Trouble is, I know people who use this point and click and exclaim, "wow, I didn't know it was going to be -25 for a high today!" You gotta be careful where you click. haha

Someone pointed this out to me last fall and it's a great tool that I think not too many people are aware of. Like grouseking says, you've gotta be careful where you click, but this is probably the best available method for getting a more localized forecast that at least takes the proper elevation into account. Thanks for pointing in out again Mohamed.

Excellent tip. Many thanks, Mohamed!

I use that feature regularly, especially if I'm going to be on a particularly tall mountain.

If you want to increase the accuracy, check several surrounding spots, down hill, etc. I have found, on occasion, that it will give you some locally really wild forecasts. Average the numbers you get.

I also believe the weather.gov is the pessimistic forecast. The weather is often better than it suggests. I think we've discussed this elsewhere.

Tim

I never realized that! I've always tried to figure a rough average between the "High Peak" forecast and the valley forecast. Thank you for that information!

if you really really want to get accurate.. go up there.

I just figured the same thing out this past fall. It is a pretty cool feature!

leaf said:

if you really really want to get accurate.. go up there.

Click to expand...

I agree, I rarely put that much stock in forecast, unless a storm of consideration is coming. My thought process is, better to fail halfway up a mountain then to have stayed home and failed there.

For those of us with limited time to hike and who would prefer to have a reasonable chance of comfort and/or success, the weather forecasts are our best source of information.

If you have the time, by all means, go up and get chased off.

Tim

I've been using this, too. At first it looked like you could actually pinpoint the particular peak, so I was disapointed that it actually gave me the readings for some particular point within the pink quadrant. Happily the elevation reading is a fairly good clue and playing around with the map for nearby areas, its often possible to get a pretty clear picture of what's going on.

I assume it won't be too many more winters before we can get even more precise in pinpointing the location.

Mohamed's link to detailed forecasts looks interesting.

That said, forecasts are only educated guesses at what the conditions will be. I simply use them to get a general idea of what to expect, equip accordingly, and the deal with what I find rather than counting on the accuracy of the forecast.

In other words, additional precision does not necessarily imply additional accuracy.


You also have to ask, how detailed is the modeling behind these micro-forecasts. (The earth's atmosphere has to be broken into a fininte number of volumes for the models to fit into finite computers. Unless these volumes are much smaller than the topographical features, then the precision is an illusion. It is possible that the precision is simulated by, for instance, using altitude to interpolate between peak and valley forecasts...) I don't know the answer to these questions, but I'm not going to count on the accuracy of the data unless I'm assured that they are answered properly.

Doug

I think of the forecasts as representing a scenario with a range of uncertainty which I try to "guesstimate." Hopefully increased precision in the forecast in terms of location and elevation gives us a realistic way to reduce that range of uncertainty. Thus I might feel fine about 40 - 50 mph winds, but would choose not go to a ridge where 40-50 mph winds are forecast because there would be a substantial chance of winds which were substantially worse.

I usually try & figure wind direction & condition of where I'm going & then take a percentage. Lincoln & Lafayette about the same depending on wind direction, Kinsmans, Garfield, Carter's maybe 10% better, Willey Range maye 25% better.

What I have to remember is probable trail conditions, Last year knocked off North Twin & silly me was thinking a protected walk most of the way across ridge in the 6-8 foot scrub. Add 4-6 feet of snow & that scrub provided little protection from the wind. (knees were out of the wind )

bikehikeskifish said:

For those of us with limited time to hike and who would prefer to have a reasonable chance of comfort and/or success, the weather forecasts are our best source of information.

If you have the time, by all means, go up and get chased off.

Tim

Click to expand...

I hear you tim, nothing wrong with doing your homework. I do have more time then most as I dont work a normal job. I actually invented a hiking game years ago. Its called "Beat the storm", the rules are simple. When an impending storm hopefully a big one is coming, head to a peak. If you summit before the precip starts, you win, if you get caught in the storm, but still summit, you get honerable mention, if the storm keeps you from summitting, you lose. You would be surprised in the course of a winter how many times you can try it. p.s. maybe I do have alot of time on my hands.

sierra said:

I agree, I rarely put that much stock in forecast, unless a storm of consideration is coming. My thought process is, better to fail halfway up a mountain then to have stayed home and failed there.

Click to expand...

Same here. It's the trends and weather patterns and fronts that interest me and quite often the "forecasts" are off by matters of hours or intensity so I expect and prepare for the worse ... at least the worse that I'm willing and able to contend with.

I've never, however, considered it a "failure" to turn around. Maybe that demonization of good sense is what gets some people who ought to know better in trouble.

Stan said:

I've never, however, considered it a "failure" to turn around. Maybe that demonization of good sense is what gets some people who ought to know better in trouble.

Click to expand...

That's what keeps the Accidents Editor of Appalachia in business D or ?).