calendar year 2004-worst snow year?
- Thread starter skiadikt
- Start date
Killington had 102 inches snowfall Jan. to Apr. Sugarbush (which had 104 Jan. to Apr.) has had 54 season-to-date. Total 156 inches (13 feet). That's still pretty bad when you consider the average is 250 annually and standard deviation is only 52. Since 1966-67 Killington has had only one season (Nov.-Apr.) as low as 156 (138 in 1979-80).
riverc0il
New member
i've been debating the snow year in terms of early season 04-05 and entire 04 calander year in similar terms. i didn't have stats to back up my thoughts, so i hadn't posted yet regarding my hunch which is neither has been the worst, but certainly must be in the top ten or maybe even top 5 worst since the beginning of downhill skiing in the usa.
though consider this: would it really be that bad now if it wasn't for the rain and warm temperatures that followed every snow we've gotten in the past two months? i suspect the reason the past two months seem so dismal isn't the lack of snow (although it has been lacking), but rather the snow-rain-freeze-thaw cycle we can't seem to shake.
though consider this: would it really be that bad now if it wasn't for the rain and warm temperatures that followed every snow we've gotten in the past two months? i suspect the reason the past two months seem so dismal isn't the lack of snow (although it has been lacking), but rather the snow-rain-freeze-thaw cycle we can't seem to shake.
Rain is the chronic Achilles' Heel of eastern skiing IMHO. There are a whole lot of places that do just fine on the 200-300 inches of snowfall that Vermont gets. The difference at those other places is that once coverage is adequate, conditions will usually be decent until the spring meltdown.
And the seasons regarded as good in the East are not necessarily the ones with snowfall above average, but more likely the ones where temps stay below freezing and it doesn't rain for 2 or 3 months.
And the seasons regarded as good in the East are not necessarily the ones with snowfall above average, but more likely the ones where temps stay below freezing and it doesn't rain for 2 or 3 months.
rsn reports 29" in december for killington and i'll give them 7" for november putting 04's total right around that 138" mark which was the low for the '79-80 season.
i agree with tony about rain and other weather factors being the problem with eastern skiing. we hit keystone last year during president's week and their snowfall total at the time was somewhere around the 130" mark and yet every trail was open with great conditions, maybe a rock here & there in certain exposed areas but i'm talking steep bump runs, trees & bowls. it was unbelieveable how good it was. the elevation, exposure and dry air all are factors. it seems like the snow out west, colorado in particular, gets refreshed everyday even when it doesn't snow. it almost seems to dry out overnight.
i agree with tony about rain and other weather factors being the problem with eastern skiing. we hit keystone last year during president's week and their snowfall total at the time was somewhere around the 130" mark and yet every trail was open with great conditions, maybe a rock here & there in certain exposed areas but i'm talking steep bump runs, trees & bowls. it was unbelieveable how good it was. the elevation, exposure and dry air all are factors. it seems like the snow out west, colorado in particular, gets refreshed everyday even when it doesn't snow. it almost seems to dry out overnight.
Colorado is in fact the perfect comparison to Vermont. Only a handful of the big areas get more than 300 inches, and Keystone is at the low end of the scale, barely over 200, about the same as Stratton/Mt. Snow.
The entire difference in conditions is due to snow preservation characteristics. With altitude, exposure and dry snow most Colorado areas are nearly optimal for snow preservation. Thus those who book in advance for February/March can have high expectations of full operation on a packed powder surface.
The tendency for frequent small snowfalls to refresh the surface is also a contributing factor to Colorado's consistent conditions. As I have mentioned before however, this pattern is not conducive to producing big powder days. A skier living within day commute distance of Jay Peak can probably get more lift serviced 1+ foot powder days than one living in Denver. Of course Mapadu and Winter can hit the backcountry for several days of well preserved powder after each storm.
The entire difference in conditions is due to snow preservation characteristics. With altitude, exposure and dry snow most Colorado areas are nearly optimal for snow preservation. Thus those who book in advance for February/March can have high expectations of full operation on a packed powder surface.
The tendency for frequent small snowfalls to refresh the surface is also a contributing factor to Colorado's consistent conditions. As I have mentioned before however, this pattern is not conducive to producing big powder days. A skier living within day commute distance of Jay Peak can probably get more lift serviced 1+ foot powder days than one living in Denver. Of course Mapadu and Winter can hit the backcountry for several days of well preserved powder after each storm.
skiadikt":3fxkfwsp said:
Sun Valley (and Snowbasin, UT) have big, sophisticated, up-to-date snowmaking systems. That's how they survive on those numbers.
mapadu
New member
Tony Crocker":345eqdls said:
Having lived in VT for almost 30 years, then living here (CO) for the last three, I absolutely agree on all points. By sometime in early November, it stops raining here. It won't rain again (above 9,000' or so) until April at the earliest, you can count on it.
Another side effect of the things Tony mentioned (and didn't) - Colorado has the most dangerous snowpack in North America.
CO's NHL hockey team is aptly named.
Combined with frequent high winds above TL, those frequent small snowfalls that Tony mentioned form more layers than you'll find in onions and ogres combined. When there's a dry spell (which is common), the sun sucks all the moisture out of already dry surface snow, which turns it to surface hoar, or "sugar". It basically rots. Then, when it starts snowing again, and/or the wind blows, slabs form on top of that surface hoar - making it depth hoar - , and lookout, the avi danger turns dead red. Depth hoar also forms at the ground level and the snow tends to rot from the ground up too. All products of high altitude and a dry climate.
Low-angle and below TL places are the best (safest) to explore here in the winter, outside of lift-served. But the things that make it dangerous in the winter are the things that make it great here in the spring/summer. Year round skiing here is not only possible, but very, very good. (you just have to know where to look come August/September) Wet slides become the rule, and those are far more predictable than slab avalanches. For the most part, if the sun hasn't baked the slope all day, it's not gonna move, regardless of pitch. That's about as sure a bet as the lack of winter rain.
And yes, living close to Jay (or Smuggs - which in reality gets just as much snow - don't believe everything you hear), you're likely to get more 12"+ powder days than living in Summit County. Outside of my first winter here (which was beyond spectacular 02-03), that is absolutely correct.
AlpineZone
New member
Call me just foolishly optimistic, but I think we have plenty of winter left to be able to call this a decent ski season. I got out 5 days in December and I would consider only one as being really bad. Most of the others were typical early season. It was really the intermittent rain storms that killed us. Believe it or not, Bradley Airport had a slightly colder and snowy December than normal. I personally thought the areas that I visited did a decent job of getting terrain open quickly when the snowmaking temps allowed.
AlpineZone":3nripua6 said:
Therein lies the rub for me. You tend to frequent the more southerly ski areas that are more accustomed to relying upon snowmaking, and thus have a greater ability to bounce back from adversity without help from Ma Nature. I prefer the more northern locales, which lack that ability. I'm therefore torn before skiing on total garbage where I prefer the terrain, or skiing below-average conditions on terrain that I otherwise wouldn't ski. It's a lose-lose situation for me right now.
Though my backcountry experience is extremely limited, I did read Knox Williams' avalanche book, which outlines the chronic danger of Colorado's snowpack for avalanches.
My understanding is that the problem is caused by the dry spells at very cold temps. The temperature differential between the interior snowpack (which tends to be just a bit below freezing) and the much colder air creates a surface layer that is weak and can break loose months later from the weight of snow accumulated later on top of it.
Here in the Pacific States the air is not as cold, melt/freeze cycles and occasional rain can bond the layers together, and thus our avalanches can be huge but are usually confined to storm cycles and a short period thereafter. I have heard anecdotally that many serious backcountry skiers live out here because they consider Colorado too dangerous. And the permanent snow of the Cascade volcanoes is the standout location for summer skiing (see http://www.turns-all-year.com ).
To me the Intermountain climate (as classified by Knox and other avalanche researchers) of Utah, the Tetons and presumably the Selkirks farther north is most ideal for skiers. Quantity of snow is only decreased a little vs. the coastal zone but water content is reduced and rain is rare. Temps are more moderate and the avalanche danger is not as high as the continental climate of Colorado or Alberta despite much higher snowfall.
I'll bet Marc is counting the days!
My understanding is that the problem is caused by the dry spells at very cold temps. The temperature differential between the interior snowpack (which tends to be just a bit below freezing) and the much colder air creates a surface layer that is weak and can break loose months later from the weight of snow accumulated later on top of it.
Here in the Pacific States the air is not as cold, melt/freeze cycles and occasional rain can bond the layers together, and thus our avalanches can be huge but are usually confined to storm cycles and a short period thereafter. I have heard anecdotally that many serious backcountry skiers live out here because they consider Colorado too dangerous. And the permanent snow of the Cascade volcanoes is the standout location for summer skiing (see http://www.turns-all-year.com ).
To me the Intermountain climate (as classified by Knox and other avalanche researchers) of Utah, the Tetons and presumably the Selkirks farther north is most ideal for skiers. Quantity of snow is only decreased a little vs. the coastal zone but water content is reduced and rain is rare. Temps are more moderate and the avalanche danger is not as high as the continental climate of Colorado or Alberta despite much higher snowfall.
I'll bet Marc is counting the days!
Patrick
Well-known member
Always happy :? to see impression back up with numbers. Thanks Tony.
The early 80s were definately bad snow years.
My observation on the current weather paterns for Winters is that the East (if we are counting the beginning of last season Nov-Dec 03) is that the precipitation in the Winter seems to be more important, the problem is that a greater proportion of it is now in liquid form. Even the Snow Accumulation seem to be greater (ie. last December), however the thaw are harsher and more frequent.
I remember reading something a few year back regarding Global Warming and how the total snow fall in Quebec would actually the same or even increase, but with the more frequent rain and thaw cycles, the net results for the ski season would be negatif, except on those powder days. To support this point, look at the early season bang in the East last season compared to the actual season.
The early 80s were definately bad snow years.
My observation on the current weather paterns for Winters is that the East (if we are counting the beginning of last season Nov-Dec 03) is that the precipitation in the Winter seems to be more important, the problem is that a greater proportion of it is now in liquid form. Even the Snow Accumulation seem to be greater (ie. last December), however the thaw are harsher and more frequent.
I remember reading something a few year back regarding Global Warming and how the total snow fall in Quebec would actually the same or even increase, but with the more frequent rain and thaw cycles, the net results for the ski season would be negatif, except on those powder days. To support this point, look at the early season bang in the East last season compared to the actual season.
The volatility of weather is such that one can not draw conclusions over even medium-term time periods. If you don't believe this, consider that Mammoth averaged 247 inches snowfall for 6 years from 1986-87 through 1991-92 and 459 inches snowfall for 8 years from 1992-93 to 1999-2000.
If temperatures are warming, the main impact in the East should be truncation of the shoulder seasons.
Every season has its weather anomalies. L.A. averages 4.05 inches rain season-to-date but this year we've had 15.47 so far. More than the long-term average for the whole year (measured July-June) of 14.85.
If temperatures are warming, the main impact in the East should be truncation of the shoulder seasons.
Every season has its weather anomalies. L.A. averages 4.05 inches rain season-to-date but this year we've had 15.47 so far. More than the long-term average for the whole year (measured July-June) of 14.85.
Chromer
New member
Patrick":3o03fe8n said:
Anecdotes can't support or refute climate change. I could offer the counter-example of two seperate periods last winter when the daily high temperature at my house didn't go above zero fahrenheit for 10-12 days at a time. Does it mean anything? Not really. There was a big blob of cross-polar air blocked in place over us. This year the jet stream has been in a different place for the past couple weeks. OTOH, Newfoundland has been getting pounded with storms and Marble Mountain stands a good chance of having the best conditions in the east and rivalling western snow totals (excluding the Sierra's)...
Patrick
Well-known member
Chromer":1b1hec22 said:
I perfectly agree Chromer, I just stated the fact that what was observe in Northern New England and Southern Quebec was pretty close to what I read on a typical Winter might be in the next 20-30 years. I also agree with Tony that the margins of the season was really doing to suffer. One problem is that the Holiday Period is more and more on the edge of the shoulder of the season. This means big money for most ski areas/resorts.
On the Anecdote side again, if I compare the Holiday skiing in the Ottawa area compared with last year, Ottawa had no snow last december, compare to snow and not much rain this year. First rain of the month was on the 23th after a few inches snow fell.
I remember the early 80s having a couple bad snow years and late starts to the season. Prior to my time, the early 50s were also snow bad years.
Patrick":1gk6a5cm said:
So our takeaway is, "lousy ski weather happens."
Two years ago at the end of January, I skied after a rain/freeze event at Snowbird of all places. It sucked like no one's business, just as it does when that kind of thing happens back east. Unfortunately, our season has been nothing but that so far.
I'm booked for Quebec City Jan 13 - 18. I've put in an official request with the Minister of Weather to demand good conditions.