Print

Print


Scott,

October 14th (today) last year, allen wes and I got our first silly  
skiing tracks on some real snow up at bolton. As such, i've been on  
the lookout for your forecast emails for some time now. Every time i  
see your name next to an email titled "Snow!!!!" I assume the best and  
then quickly have my hopes crushed.

Please play careful attention to the titles of your emails so as to  
avoid sending us all on emotional roller coasters, you seriously  
underestimate the power you have over this community.

Sam

ps. any snow coming up soon?

On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Scott Braaten wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:27:23 -0400, Mike Bernstein <[log in to unmask] 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:47:05 -0400, roger Klinger
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Why not?  In addition's to Mike's point about western snow  
>>> settling more,
>>> let's not forget that most of that 92" isn't snow, but ice.  After  
>>> each
>>> rainstorm, any snow that hasn't melted turns to ice.
>
>> I think the counter-argument is that:
>>
>> 1) It's difficult to find snowfall patterns anywhere that produce  
>> that
> ratio of
>> snowfall to settled snow depth. This points to Manny being either a  
>> very
>> different outlier amongst all known data points or...
>
> That's the main point...I can't think of anywhere that receives 230"  
> of snow
> and has a 90" base.  The ratio just doesn't make sense.  Snow  
> settling rates
> should equal to 1" per 3-4" snowfall.  Ask the Marc's when Alta's  
> base goes
> above 100"...its probably after 350"-400" of snowfall.  Even with ice
> factored in (probably off-set by snow loss during thaws), our  
> snowfall isn't
> that wet in general...especially at 4,000ft.  I firmly believe about
> 300-400" will get us 100" of base.
>
>> 2) We know that snowfall at the Stake is only measured once every  
>> 24 hours.
>> The NWS standard is once every 6 hours.  This means that a  
>> significant
>> amount of settling and, at time, melting, is reflected in the Stake
> measurement
>> that would otherwise not be impacting the number.  It is fair to  
>> assume that
>> by using the standard NWC technique, snowfall at 3900' on the East  
>> side of
>> Mansfield would be near or over 300" rather than the 230" implied  
>> by the Stake
>> data.
>
> And this is the cause of the lower snowfall numbers.  I think J.Spin
> measured over 200" of snow in his backyard last year (600ft asl) by  
> doing
> close to 6-hour measurements.  If we were diligent and did NWS 6- 
> hourly
> measurements at the stake, I'd bet it wouldn't be 230" (3,900ft  
> asl)...it'd
> be almost double that.
>
>
> -Scott
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html