Alta Delays Opening

[Admin]

How's he changing the frame of reference?

Because it was these statements that I took issue with:

Final proof that not that much of the October snow is still around.

There may be enough snow for low density backcountry, but obviously not enough to stand up to lift served traffic.

Utah is definitely below average at the moment.

He chose to respond with the following, none of which addresses anything contained in the above three statements:

The above forecast could turn things around in a hurry. But the bottom line is that if Alta's current snowpack were average or better, they would be opening on Friday. How often does Alta delay its opening? Less than 20% I think. I think that translates to below average.

Another point is that if "utter and total nukage" is on the way starting this weekend, there will be a delay once the storm is over of several days for snow stabilization and control work before lifts/terrain get open. No big deal to the Utah locals but possibly too late for Thanksgiving visitors.

Whistler is only 10% open now for the above reason. But it will be set for the season once they can do control work. 74 inch base, 131 inches season snow, storms are continuing the rest of this week.

By not addressing the three points that he originally raised and on which I called , and instead bringing up different points entirely, he's changing the frame of reference.

The statement was "Utah is definitely below average at the moment.," and he's referencing.... the historical average.

He is? Where did he indicate what the long-term average is for Nov. 17 at the mid-Collins snow plot? I must've missed it. :roll:

Tony's claims are all reasonable conclusions to draw from the fact that Alta is delaying their opening.

No, they're not. His statements are not at all reasonable conclusions by that one fact.

1. He claimed that the October snow is all gone. It isn't. Hardly.

2. He claimed that there's not enough natural snow to stand up to lift-served traffic. In the right locations, I disagree...and I've seen it since last March. So have others. I skied a natural snowpack half as deep on Sunday lift-served and it skied like a good February day at Mad River Glen.

3. He says that Utah is definitely below average at the moment, but has yet to substantiate that statement. I have a hard time believing that based on the (admittedly short) five-year average I've observed personally. If true in the long term, it's certainly not by much.

To call bullshit, you need some strong evidence that Alta's delay has nothing to do with the snowpack.

Where, oh where did I say that? You're practicing that same shifting frame of reference ploy, but it's ineffective. I'll point you to the article that I wrote that's referenced in the first post of this thread:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... s-Opening/

Do I say that it has anything but lack of snow as a cause? And why in the world would I need to prove that Alta's delaying opening for any reason other than snow in order to call on statements that no October snow remains, natural snow couldn't withstand lift-served traffic, or that Utah is "definitely" below average? There's no logical correlation to that one data point because:

1. Alta could still open even if there's zero October snow left. (snowmaking)
2. Alta could still open even if the natural snowpack couldn't withstand lift-served traffic. (snowmaking)
and
3. Alta could still open even if Utah is definitely below average (there might still be enough natural snow to ski, even if below average, or...everybody now...snowmaking).

Nice try. =D>

Hey, Marc_C...need a refill on that popcorn?

 

[Skiace]

*snip*

On the statements in question:

-Little october snow is left
This is a logical extension from the delayed opening. The (obvious) assertion is that if most of that snow was still there, then there would be no need to delay opening. This can be refuted by claiming that the October snow would not be enough to prevent the delay in opening. (That could very well be the case, I don't know)

-Enough snow for backcountry but not lift served density
There is obviously enough snow for self-powered action (as we've all seen) but if there was enough snow for lift served traffic (yes even after snowmaking) then again, there would be no need to delay opening. If you contend that there is currently enough snow for lift-served traffic, then what is the explanation for the delayed opening?

-Utah is definitely below average at the moment.
If Alta is delaying opening beyond the average date, then that would imply the snowpack at Alta is below average. He referenced the historical average via opening date (specifically how often it is delayed) instead of the numbers. But I'm sure he'll dig up the numbers too if they're available, as you well know.

To call bullshit, you need some strong evidence that Alta's delay has nothing to do with the snowpack.

Where, oh where did I say that? You're practicing that same shifting frame of reference ploy, but it's ineffective. I'll point you to the article that I wrote that's referenced in the first post of this thread:

You are misunderstanding me. I never said you said that, on the contrary in fact I implied you didn't say that. I said that Tony's claims are logical conclusions to draw from the delayed opening, and explained why. The thrust of the argument is that delayed opening implies a below average snowpack.

 

[Admin]

Little october snow is left
This is a logical extension from the delayed opening.

No, it's not because...

This can be refuted by claiming that the October snow would not be enough to prevent the delay in opening. (That could very well be the case, I don't know)

However, you're still missing the point. The October snow was enough when it fell (of course we've lost some, but not nearly all as Tony's statement implied), but it wasn't enough everywhere. Read on:

Enough snow for backcountry but not lift served density
If you contend that there is currently enough snow for lift-served traffic, then what is the explanation for the delayed opening?

Not enough at the base. From what I've observed there's enough snow across much of the mountain to support lift-served, but there are low-elevation key traffic areas that don't have enough.

If Alta is delaying opening beyond the average date, then that would imply the snowpack at Alta is below average.

No, it wouldn't, actually. Because no matter how much snow is on the ground Alta never opens early. Additionally it doesn't account for the number of times that Alta has much more snow than is required to open. So, to draw a correlation between snowpack and opening date would create a skewed data set because of those two factors.

He referenced the historical average via opening date (specifically how often it is delayed) instead of the numbers. But I'm sure he'll dig up the numbers too if they're available, as you well know.

That's what I'm trying to draw out of him. I'd be curious to see the numbers, actually.

The thrust of the argument is that delayed opening implies a below average snowpack.

No, it's not the thrust of the argument, actually. What you just wrote above may very well be the case. I took issue with two very specific blatantly erroneous statements and one unsubstantiated one. Please, I don't want to quote them again!

 

[Skiace]

Little october snow is left
This is a logical extension from the delayed opening.

No, it's not because...

This can be refuted by claiming that the October snow would not be enough to prevent the delay in opening. (That could very well be the case, I don't know)

However, you're still missing the point. The October snow was enough when it fell (of course we've lost some, but not nearly all as Tony's statement implied), but it wasn't enough everywhere. Read on:

Enough snow for backcountry but not lift served density
If you contend that there is currently enough snow for lift-served traffic, then what is the explanation for the delayed opening?

Not enough at the base. From what I've observed there's enough snow across much of the mountain to support lift-served, but there are low-elevation key traffic areas that don't have enough.

So instead of saying "there's enough snow for back country but not lift-served skiing" he should have said "there's enough snow for back country but not enought at the base for list-served"? And instead of saying "there's not much October snow left" he should have said "there's not much October snow left near the base"? These are small changes to the original statements (yes there is a key difference) so to claim the originals are "hogwash" or otherwise nonsense is a little overzealous.

If Alta is delaying opening beyond the average date, then that would imply the snowpack at Alta is below average.

No, it wouldn't, actually. Because no matter how much snow is on the ground Alta never opens early. Additionally it doesn't account for the number of times that Alta has much more snow than is required to open. So, to draw a correlation between snowpack and opening date would create a skewed data set because of those two factors.

You just showed that you can not draw a conclusion about above average snowpack from Alta's opening date. However, if there isn't enough snow, does Alta typically delay opening? (Default assumption would be yes, they'd be forced to) If so, then it would be valid to draw a conclusion about below-average snow pack based on a delayed opening, while not being able to do so for above-average and early openings.

The thrust of the argument is that delayed opening implies a below average snowpack.

No, it's not the thrust of the argument, actually. What you just wrote above may very well be the case. I took issue with two very specific blatantly erroneous statements and one unsubstantiated one. Please, I don't want to quote them again!

All three of the original statements were extrapolated from the obvious assertion that a delayed opening implies a below average snowpack, as Tony clarified later.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Statement number one: "not that much of the October snow is still around" is not "the October snow is all gone." I may have overstated the case, but Alta is obviously not comfortable opening on what's left of it.

Statement number two: "There may be enough snow for low density backcountry, but obviously not enough to stand up to lift served traffic."

Not enough at the base. From what I've observed there's enough snow across much of the mountain to support lift-served, but there are low-elevation key traffic areas that don't have enough.

This is the only point that might make some sense. Mammoth is in this situation as it was to some degree last year after October storms that were partly rain on the lower mountain. BUT I question whether this is as much the case at Alta in view of the snowfall stats below.

Statement number three:

Utah is definitely below average at the moment.

Obviously true. http://www.alta.com/pages/snowhistory.php Average through November 17 would be 73 inches. They have had 53. http://www.alta.com/pages/report.php Since 40 of the 53 came in October snowpack probably lags average more than snowfall.

1. Alta could still open even if there's zero October snow left. (snowmaking)
2. Alta could still open even if the natural snowpack couldn't withstand lift-served traffic. (snowmaking)
and
3. Alta could still open even if Utah is definitely below average (there might still be enough natural snow to ski, even if below average, or...everybody now...snowmaking).

Has Alta tightened its standards for opening? Admin repeatedly mentions that Alta has some snowmaking now. Historically when they had NONE they would open 80+% of the time the weekend before Thanksgiving. Now they have some snowmaking and they are still not opening.

If Alta is delaying opening beyond the average date, then that would imply the snowpack at Alta is below average.

Skiace may have been unaware that Alta never opens early, but the snowpack implication is surely reasonable if it opens later than its fixed scheduled date in less than 20% of seasons. I do not have the documentation admin wants. I just recall a few years ago when they delayed opening that there was an announcement that it was something like the 5th time in their history. Thus I'm being conservative with 20%; the real number is probably 10-15%.

Over to you.

 

[Admin]

http://www.alta.com/pages/snowhistory.php Average through November 17 would be 73 inches. They have had 53. http://www.alta.com/pages/report.php Since 40 of the 53 came in October snowpack probably lags average more than snowfall.

Far more interesting to me for the sake of this discussion would be what is the average snow depth on Nov. 17, not snowfall to date because we all know how volatile fall conditions can erase even an enormous pre-season snowfall.

 

[jtran10]

Marc, you'll just have to take those slivrettas out for a spin with skidog and I.

FTW. Good talk

 

[Tony Crocker]

I would contend that if average snowfall is 28.5 in October and 44.5 the first 17 days of November, it would take some very unusual circumstances for the snowpack to be close to average after 40 in October and only 13 the first 17 days of November.

we all know how volatile fall conditions can erase even an enormous pre-season snowfall.

Precisely my point. A lower percentage of October snowfall tends to stick around than November's.

Far more interesting to me for the sake of this discussion would be what is the average snow depth on Nov. 17

From the historical page I suppose one could say 32-34 inches. Current reported snow depth is 20 inches, which is consistent with Alta not being open. I do think Alta has fairly high standards on opening, probably won't do it on one or two WRODs. It's hard for me to recall them being open and reporting depth less than 30 inches or so.

In early season LCC base depths average 40-45% of season-to-date snowfall. The 20 vs. 53 is a little less than that, makes sense with most of that snowfall being in October.

 

[snowave]

OK, I think it needs to snow. :snowball fight:

 

[icelanticskier]

maybe alta wants to open when they can offer a product that alta is best known for, which to me would be a non white ribbon of death only product. that said, i'm heading out now to ski on morning coral reef that hopefully will soften to a much quieter product once the day heats up. i'm looking forward to catching up with joegm, he should be easy to find.

off to the rivah!

rog

 

[Marc_C]

OK, I think it needs to snow. :snowball fight:

Or some folks need to go to their time-out corners.
There's arguing fine nuances then there's arguing minutia, giving us a thread that has attained an interest level suitable for pets and lobotomy patients.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Or some folks need to go to their time-out corners.
There's arguing fine nuances then there's arguing minutia, giving us a thread that has attained an interest level suitable for pets and lobotomy patients.

I made an educated guess based on the unusual event of Alta delaying its opening plus a vague knowledge of the incidence of Utah's snow so far. I have no idea why that :stir: so much with admin. During the course of the debate Alta published its actual data this year, which appears to support my view. Maybe admin is jealous of the 141 inches and counting at Whistler. :lol:

 

[salida]

Good. Another weekend to skin alta.

 

[Admin]

I made an educated guess based on the unusual event of Alta delaying its opening plus a vague knowledge of the incidence of Utah's snow so far. I have no idea why that :stir: so much with admin

Because you didn't predicate your comments as an educated guess, you posted them as fact. I called BS on that as they weren't fact at all. I don't see a nine-inch deficit in base depth as significant.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

[ste43nou]

I'm mostly a lurker here and hesitate to get involved with the debate, but I heard on Channel 5 weather that so far Wasatch is only at 5% of normal precip for November. Common sense would tell me that even with snow in October, given warm temps and melting, the snowpack has to be somewhat low. Hence Alta's rescheduling. As for 3 feet of snow nukage forecast this weekend that someone mentioned, I have seen no indications from any source that we're looking at those kind of numbers. Would like to be wrong, but doubt it.

 

[socal]

On a related note, I booked a trip out to SLC for Christmas. Here's hoping the snowpack is as deep but more stable than last year. Back on topic, I'm 100% confident Alta will be open by then.

Side note: I booked our hotel downtown this year vs. my normal stay down in Sandy, thinking being that if the snow's good up in the Snowbasin/Pow Mow area that it would be a good escape from the LCC/BCC crowds. Plus, I'll be with my girlfriend (boarder so prob won't be at Alta) and think we'll have more options for nightlife there (plus an easier ride to Park City if we wanna go out for dinner/drinks).

I'll be sure to look the locals up on my trip out, if all goes well maybe I can get a decent tour of the Ogden resorts :-D

 

[Marc_C]

...and think we'll have more options for nightlife there (plus an easier ride to Park City if we wanna go out for dinner/drinks).

Absolutely no need to go to Park City for dinner/drinks unless you want to go to a specific restaurant. There's an embarrassment of excellent choices in SLC and valley environs. And you'll spend less than at any of the PC Main Street restaurants.

[Quick example: the duck entree at Washo in PC that costs $28 in August magically costs $46 during ski season. Same dish, same portion size.]

If I can find some time, maybe I'll put together a current list of essential SLC fine dining. There have been some changes and welcome new additions since the last time I did that exercise.

 

[Skiace]

I made an educated guess based on the unusual event of Alta delaying its opening plus a vague knowledge of the incidence of Utah's snow so far. I have no idea why that :stir: so much with admin

Because you didn't predicate your comments as an educated guess, you posted them as fact. I called BS on that as they weren't fact at all. I don't see a nine-inch deficit in base depth as significant.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Of course a 9" deficit in base depth isn't significant when you're talking about a base of 6 feet, but when the base is on the order of 18-27", surely 9" is significant then isn't it? That's 33-50% less snow.

 

[socal]

...and think we'll have more options for nightlife there (plus an easier ride to Park City if we wanna go out for dinner/drinks).

Absolutely no need to go to Park City for dinner/drinks unless you want to go to a specific restaurant. There's an embarrassment of excellent choices in SLC and valley environs. And you'll spend less than at any of the PC Main Street restaurants.

[Quick example: the duck entree at Washo in PC that costs $28 in August magically costs $46 during ski season. Same dish, same portion size.]

If I can find some time, maybe I'll put together a current list of essential SLC fine dining. There have been some changes and welcome new additions since the last time I did that exercise.

I know there's some nice food in SLC and the surrounding, but I think we might be looking for some nightlife to go along with dinner (really not looking for a debate on nightlife in SLC, honest). Normally I wouldn't consider PC, but it'll be good to show the others (another couple coming) and make for a fun night out. I go on ski trips, the rest are used to going on ski vacations (aka resort towns).

 

[Tony Crocker]

I don't see a nine-inch deficit in base depth as significant.

If it's the difference between being open and not open, most people would call that significant. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

This debate really is a tempest in a teapot. I usually translate early season snow deficits in terms of time. Meaning how far is the snow behind schedule. In LCC at the moment I'd say 1 week in terms of snowfall, maybe 2 weeks in terms of snow depths. This is not a big deal; the odds of socal and johnnash's Christmas week trips being bad are still very low.

But anyone considering flying somewhere to ski before Christmas week surely should be booking Whistler now.

I look forward to MarcC successfully this thread to SLC's fine dining options.