some snow info for you

[beelze]

Well... I got a little bit carried away looking into this whole 'how far behind are we this season' thing. I grabbed some historical data from Mansfield - not a perfect proxy for Sugarbush but a good indicator.

http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx27/beelze_photos/vermont/snow.png[/img]

[Lostone]

That graph is showing what I've been feeling, only more so.

If I'm reading the daily, right, there has only been one 12" storm! :cry:

[noski]

I'm beginning to think my snow prediction in the fall was for Maryland. I'll concentrate a little harder next time.

[vonski]

For all us Southern weekend warriors, I suggest we all get a trailer and fill it with some snow and at least we can have some BYOS up north. This southern track is getting a little old at this point. But I still found a ton of untracked in Slidebrook on Saturday. The traverse was pretty sketch and scoured though!

[John Walden]

Be patient; it's coming soon! I am getting ready to use up some of my sick days.

[castlerock]

The map shows the snow depth at altitude and thus gets the benefits from orographically induced snow. This year the primary snow maker for us has been orographics, and orographic snows are extraordinarily altitude dependent.

It the Mansfield snow stake was 1000 feet lower. The difference would probably have been 50% of average. As opposed to the 80 % it shows

[Tin Woodsman]

The map shows the snow depth at altitude and thus gets the benefits from orographically induced snow. This year the primary snow maker for us has been orographics, and orographic snows are extraordinarily altitude dependent.

It the Mansfield snow stake was 1000 feet lower. The difference would probably have been 50% of average. As opposed to the 80 % it shows

OTOH, since it uses the Mansfield stake as its data source, it is hamstrung by the fact that snow at the stake is measured only once every 24 hours. This is inconsistent with the NWS methodology of measuring every 6 hours and accounts for the difference in annual snowfall totals between the 210" indicated here and the 280-300" that is the likely reality.

[flakeydog]

here is the latest snow at the stake for Mt Mansfield. The green is the historical average. Remember this is depth, not snowfall.




http://s1.postimage.org/q9nF0.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gxq9nF0)

[Lostone]

That says we're above average depth, for the present time? :shock:



I can't buy that for anywhere I've seen, or heard of.

[vonski]

That says we're above average depth, for the present time? :shock:



I can't buy that for anywhere I've seen, or heard of.

That could be because only one rain event to speak of. Think about last year ton of snow and then smack rain event. So, less loss this year.

[Lostone]

Think about last year ton of snow and then smack rain event


I'm thinking about how much I'm hitting on natural trails and in the woods.

This sure seems well below average, to me.

[John Walden]

There has been two rain events- Dec. 26-27th and Jan. 24-25th. Other than that , just cold pattern.

[vonski]

There has been two rain events- Dec. 26-27th and Jan. 24-25th. Other than that , just cold pattern.

Like I said one to speak of, the first did no major damage just set up the base more.