Alpine Summer Surface Temperature Amplification Is Spatially Heterogeneous and Intensified by Wind and Sun
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent studies suggest that alpine microtopography may buffer against climate warming by creating more diverse climates over small spatial extents. Here, we examined with thermocouples how daytime summer surface temperatures differed from free‐air temperatures and how much summer diel temperatures varied across small areas (8 × 8 m) for eight paired (open and krummholz) alpine plots at Cardinal Divide, Alberta, Canada. We found summer daytime surface temperature amplifications with open plots averaging 26.7°C ± 0.2 SE on the ground relative to 21.1°C ± 0.1 SE at a 2‐m free‐air height (5.6°C ± 0.1 SE amplification). Krummholz plots decreased surface amplifications, compared to those observed in the open alpine, averaging 27.3°C ± 0.2 SE on the ground relative to 22.9°C ± 0.1 SE at 2 m (4.4°C ± 0.1 SE amplification). Wind and solar radiation altered temporal patterns in surface temperatures, resulting in increased amplification and decoupling from free‐air temperatures. At wind speeds of 3 m/s and solar radiation of 900 W/m 2 , surface temperatures in open alpine plots were up to 21°C higher than free‐air temperatures. Surface temperature variability over diel periods within 8 × 8 m plots differed by up to 9.9°C, illustrating high local variation in microclimates at a similar magnitude as the dry‐air adiabatic lapse rate for a 1‐km change in altitude. Individual locations with krummholz cover had diel ranges 11.3°C less than locations with no tree cover. Given the surface amplification and local spatial variability that we found, the use of standard 2‐m free‐air temperature data in climate models for alpine plants represents a mismatch in scales. More work is needed to develop climate surface models for alpine environments to assess risk from climate warming and determine opportunities for local refugia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".