I get holding your thumb on the scale a bit, but. . .

[deadheadskier]

The lack of thaws this season has every bit as much to do with Mansfield snow stake depth this year as the amount of snow received. Mother nature has been VERY kind so far this winter in that regard. Whatever heatwave/rain events we've had have been short lived and not all that severe.

A good friend lives at about 1500 feet elevation in Jackson NH. He saw bare ground in his yard on Sunday for the first time since October 23rd.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[slatham]

Ok, to be technical. It snows, it stops, you take a ruler and measure it. You have measured snow DEPTH. Very susceptible to compacting, especially light dry snow to wind. Very susceptible to the observer guessing how much snow depth given drifts etc.

Take a board, watch it snow 1", clear board, watch it snow 1", repeat. Add. You have measured SNOWFALL (ie. the way the NWS does, although I think current standard permits this process to be done with more than an inch of snowfall).

I highly doubt any ski area is measuring proper snowfall FWIW.

As far as 10" in MRV and 26" at Sugarbush, absolutely possible, and in this last storm, probable. Note the 26" was at the summit, and the amount even at the base was a decent amount less (can't recall actual numbers but I believe 18"?). And although I do not know the elevation of the 10" measurement, Waitsfield is under 800' in elevation.

 

[2Planker]

The lack of thaws this season has every bit as much to do with Mansfield snow stake depth this year as the amount of snow received. Mother nature has been VERY kind so far this winter in that regard. Whatever heatwave/rain events we've had have been short lived and not all that severe.

A good friend lives at about 1500 feet elevation in Jackson NH. He saw bare ground in his yard on Sunday for the first time since October 23rd.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Really ??
I'm at 850' in Conway and still have 31" on my deck. It was at 25" before the foot we got last weekend

 

[cdskier]

As far as 10" in MRV and 26" at Sugarbush, absolutely possible, and in this last storm, probable. Note the 26" was at the summit, and the amount even at the base was a decent amount less (can't recall actual numbers but I believe 18"?). And although I do not know the elevation of the 10" measurement, Waitsfield is under 800' in elevation.

18 was close...they reported 20" at the base.

20" Lincoln Peak base, 22" Mid (aka top of Super Bravo), 26" Summit

MRG a few miles up the road reported 20"-30" base to summit. But don't worry, I'm sure MRG was lying as well because they're well known for that! :roll:

 

[deadheadskier]

Really ??
I'm at 850' in Conway and still have 31" on my deck. It was at 25" before the foot we got last weekend

Small spot in the yard where the sun hits all day. Check your private messages. I sent you a note a week ago. This is a co-worker of yours on patrol.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[prsboogie]

Not my pic but from a friend of mine at Burke on Saturday. Shit looks pretty deep to me

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Smellytele]

Not my pic but from a friend of mine at Burke on Saturday. Shit looks pretty deep to meView attachment 24918

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app

What’s on the table doesn’t look like 31” though. More like 16-20


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[56fish]

agree w 98% of smelly posts, although .... 1500' higher than photo could easily have added 10" ... was def elevation dependent event. And, back to the threadstarter - I love it when folks "in-the-know" trash JP! :beer:

 

[Whitey]

What’s on the table doesn’t look like 31” though. More like 16-20
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

I was going to say the same thing. I would have added in that the Saturday morning timing of the pic means that was when 95-99% of the total snow that would fall from this past storm would be on the ground. Additionally, that's a picnic table on a deck, i.e. at the bottom of the downhill of the roof line and next to a wind block (wall/windows) that would cause the snow to accumulate more in that area than an open area. And with all of that added in - it's still not anywhere near the 31"s that they claimed.

 

[machski]

Whitey, just never go skiing on a powder day. That way you'll never be disappointed in the reported snowfall amounts to your perceived amounts.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Rogman]

I’m sure some snow reporters wives are disappointed with the totals too.

 

[Whitey]

agree w 98% of smelly posts, although .... 1500' higher than photo could easily have added 10" ... was def elevation dependent event. And, back to the threadstarter - I love it when folks "in-the-know" trash JP! :beer:

Not really sure how to interpret your last comment. I posted a glowing TR on our visit to Jay and refered to it as a "great mountain". But after having been there for the entirety of the storm and thereafter and then seeing what they were reporting for snowfall along with what other areas are reporting I commented that I felt these mountains were taking their "artistic license" with the reporting of snowfall totals a little too far. Not sure how that would constitute "trashing" Jay? It's not like they are the only ones who do it. They all do it. It's just a question of degree.

I will throw in that all of you who are saying "there totally was 10"s more because of the elevation" are delusional. Burke gains a little over a quarter mile in elevation, Sugarbush a half mile. You can jog a half mile in less than 5 minutes, that's not a lot of gain. We're not the rockies or the alps. 10"s more accumulation from that, no. It can sometimes happens if you have very heavy wet in the valley and significant tempurature changes with elevation. That wasn't the case with this storm.

 

[skiur]

Not really sure how to interpret your last comment. I posted a glowing TR on our visit to Jay and refered to it as a "great mountain". But after having been there for the entirety of the storm and thereafter and then seeing what they were reporting for snowfall along with what other areas are reporting I commented that I felt these mountains were taking their "artistic license" with the reporting of snowfall totals a little too far. Not sure how that would constitute "trashing" Jay? It's not like they are the only ones who do it. They all do it. It's just a question of degree.

I will throw in that all of you who are saying "there totally was 10"s more because of the elevation" are delusional. Burke gains a little over a quarter mile in elevation, Sugarbush a half mile. You can jog a half mile in less than 5 minutes, that's not a lot of gain. We're not the rockies or the alps. 10"s more accumulation from that, no. It can sometimes happens if you have very heavy wet in the valley and significant tempurature changes with elevation. That wasn't the case with this storm.

ummm, that was exactly the case with that storm, it was extremely elevation dependent. Killington got almost 2 feet, while driving up I did not encounter snow until I was past ludlow. My house at about 1800' got about a foot when the mountain got almost two.

 

[cdskier]

I will throw in that all of you who are saying "there totally was 10"s more because of the elevation" are delusional. Burke gains a little over a quarter mile in elevation, Sugarbush a half mile. You can jog a half mile in less than 5 minutes, that's not a lot of gain. We're not the rockies or the alps. 10"s more accumulation from that, no. It can sometimes happens if you have very heavy wet in the valley and significant tempurature changes with elevation. That wasn't the case with this storm.

I think you're the delusional one that has no grasp on how much of an impact elevation makes. What does how long it takes to jog a half mile have to do with a half mile elevation change? Do you actually ski in New England on a regular basis? A few hundred feet in elevation change can make a substantial difference in both temperature and snow amounts (especially in the spring with more marginal temps). This WAS a storm that had borderline temps at lower elevations where even a few degrees one way or the other would make a big difference. On Friday in the valley at an elevation of 900' the temperature was between 32 and 35 all day (aka never below freezing). At 2000' elevation (just above the base) the temperature was between 29 and 32 all day (aka never went above freezing). Meanwhile summit temps were in the low to mid 20s all day. But those differences don't impact snow amounts at all?

Right now there's a 12 degree difference in temperatures between base and summit at Sugarbush. That difference expands to 17 degrees if you compare summit to valley temps. A half mile elevation change does have a substantial impact on temperature. These differences are very typical. I fail to understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp. It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that skis in VT, NH, ME, or NY on a regular basis.

 

[kbroderick]

I will throw in that all of you who are saying "there totally was 10"s more because of the elevation" are delusional. Burke gains a little over a quarter mile in elevation, Sugarbush a half mile. You can jog a half mile in less than 5 minutes, that's not a lot of gain. We're not the rockies or the alps. 10"s more accumulation from that, no. It can sometimes happens if you have very heavy wet in the valley and significant tempurature changes with elevation. That wasn't the case with this storm.

It's not that simple. Temperature gradient and different snow consistency (or solid/liquid precip mix) is only part of the question. Geography can affect weather patterns (c.f. orographic lift, in particular), so even 1k of vertical difference can make a huge difference in precipitation when you're talking the top of a ridge vs. down in the valley.

Anecdotally, I lived at Bolton Valley for a couple of years. The number of days where BTV got less than 3" and we got 6" or more was substantial, and that's not a huge altitude or distance difference. The best part was that patrol did the measuring that year and did it the most efficient way possible—they'd step off the deck at the clinic a few paces and stick a ruler in the snow. Nevermind that there was a virtual wind tunnel there between the condo building housing patrol and the main base building.

Also anecdotally, accurately measuring snowfall across an elevation differential is hard, and it's even more challenging when you add in a bit of a breeze. I've got a photo around somewhere of a snowboarder slashing a knee-deep drift, throwing a wall of snow, while the other side of the trail has weeds poking through brown ice. I think we'd be better off with a simpler system ("trace", "buckles", "shin", "get the f*** up here", "don't bother, we're still digging out") because it would allow for more variability while still accurately describing the ski/ride experience, but I doubt you'd get buy in because it seems less scientific.

 

[Whitey]

If you have issues with how much Jay reported, take that up with them. I always enjoy when someone else tries to tell me what I did or didn't experience first hand though even though that other person wasn't there. If that makes you feel better though, go right ahead.

I had first tracks down a trail at SB that was groomed Friday night (after half the snow had already fallen). I was skiing in boot deep snow. If 14" fell before being groomed and I was still skiing boot deep snow on top of the groomed snow, that means a good foot fell after that initial amount. Add that together and it isn't hard to see how they came up with 26" for a total.

Also not sure how you could find a 10"+ difference between the valley and mountain unbelievable. Right from the start this was predicted to be a highly elevation sensitive event (particularly for the first half).

No, I didn't tell you what your experience was. I don't believe your description of your experience for the reasons noted below, big difference.

If SB got 26" of snow then instead of coming up with an illogical "the groomed stuff plus this stuff must have = 26" and WWF talking about measuring deck railings 4 hrs into a storm and using that as evidence that a 26" ttl being accurate. You would have simply been able to say that on Saturday morning you found untracked areas of SB that were knee deep or more. Or am I supposed to accept that the entirety of SB got skied out on Friday?

Your "experience" is tinged by your bias. You & WWF have committed to SB. You have places there, season passes, etc. You are emotionally, financially, and personally invested in SB being the best mtn in the northeast, with the best snowfall, the most accurate snow reporting, best food, prettiest women, Win's farts smelling like fresh baked cookies, etc, etc. You & WWF want the 26" to be accurate. I would probably be the same way if I was locked into a mtn. But I am not so I am not invested in any particular mtn's reported snowfall, trail counts, conditions, ugly women, etc. and call it like I see it. I was 50 miles away from you during the same storm, 50 miles north. I think SB's reporting was more accurate than Jay's "3 feet". But 26"s, no I don't believe you or Win that that's what SB got from this storm. A 10" acculmulation gain due to elevation, no - don't believe that either. I was 50 miles away and didn't see anything close to that. And the MRG reference? They are known for the honesty of their write ups when every one else is saying "great day on the mtn" they say "it's an icy mess". Good on them for that. But that they are 100% honest when reporting snow totals? They aren't as bad as others, but they're not without sin in that area either.

I will say "BUT". . . Slatham's point about "snow depth" vs "snow fall" is a good one and I now recognize that I am thinking about "depth" when I look at a mtns reported storm totals but they are likely reporting "snow fall" and there should be a difference between the two. His other points were a little off because NWS says that you shouldn't measure snowfall any more frequently than 4 times in 24 hrs specifically because it will cause you to overestate the total. And they acknowledge that if it's windy - good luck getting an accurate measurement. Yes, I did look it up.

I am actually shocked at this debate. Is it even debatable that ski areas fluff their snow reports? It's just a question of how much. But I guess "all hail king Win!", the only honest ski area reporting in the world.

 

[AdironRider]

Elevation plays a role in snowfall, but nowhere near any dramatic effect back East. Maybe a couple inches at most, and that is probably the minority of times.

Out here you can see 1+ foot differences, but even then, it is pretty rare outside of spring/fall.

 

[cdskier]

Your "experience" is tinged by your bias. You & WWF have committed to SB. You have places there, season passes, etc. You are emotionally, financially, and personally invested in SB being the best mtn in the northeast, with the best snowfall, the most accurate snow reporting, best food, prettiest women, Win's farts smelling like fresh baked cookies, etc, etc. You & WWF want the 26" to be accurate.

Actually I think it is quite the opposite with snow reporting accuracy. I'm "locked" into a mountain so I don't give a rat's ass whether they say they had 1" of snow or 50" of snow. I'm going to be there either way. I've certainly called them out in the past when it seemed like the only spots you could find the amounts they reported were drifts.

I was 50 miles away from you during the same storm, 50 miles north.

And? So what? You do realize snow bands can drop different amounts in different spots regardless of which direction you go, right? North doesn't "always" have more snow just because it is north.

 

[Zand]

Anyone want to start a GoFundMe for whitey to take a meteorology class? Lol

 

[kingslug]

One thing I can say for sure..when its raining in Stamford it can be snowing where I live..in North Stamford.
Stamford is about sea level...N Stamford is around 250 feet above.