Big Sky Statistics

« Back to Group Discussions

Thanks for pulling the statistics together,  but all I need to know is that Big Sky was awesome the last time I was there and I can't wait to get back!

Annual snowfall at midmountain elevation of 8,903 feet is 258 inches.  This is based upon 116 months of patrol measurements over the past 36 years, projected to a Nov. 1 - Apr. 30 basis for consistent comparison to other ski areas.

http://173.193.223.192/~bestsnow/nrocnet.htm

 

I wouldn't usually call this out in a thread like this, but the snowfall quote in the

is the most extreme overstatement of any resort in North America.  The organizer of the Gathering, who presumably lives in the region, should know this and not have passed it along at face value to EpicSki readers.  As a freelance ski journalist  I can appreciate being put in a "don't bite the hand that feeds you" situation.  In that scenario I will usually remain silent rather than pass on misinformation.

 

While I would have preferred a mid-season date for the Gathering, late season is a vastly safer choice than early season in order to increase the odds of decent coverage on the super steep Lone Peak terrain with that modest snowfall. 

 

Please note that I am in no way discouraging attendance at this Gathering.  I may attend myself though it is somewhat inconvenient coming a week after my timeshare week at Snowbird.  I will be driving to Utah and probably make a late call during the timeshare if there is also some interesting skiing for the intervening week.

Edited by Tony Crocker - 9/25/12 at 9:40am

 

Tony, you are talking about an average year. I don't think we care about an average year at Big Sky. We care about a year in which the Epic gathering will be held. Such a year is anything but average.   What are the stats for THOSE years?

 

Seriously, I think Nolo was totally fine with her "according to the brochure" disclaimer. Everyone knows what that means. It's like when a magazine publishes the weight for a bike and then parenthetically adds "claimed". Readers all know this is code for "It probably weighs more than the manufacturer says it does, but we haven't actually weighed one, so we can't quantify the difference."

Send me the dates and I could probably figure it out. For the two I attended:

 

Tahoe 2012 was one of the best weeks in a very bad year.  There were a couple of weeks in March and one in April that were better due to similar powder over a deeper base.  But yes the Gathering was very lucky because any week prior to that one would have been a big disappointment to anyone coming from afar.

 

Summit/Vail 2011 was during a banner snow season. Our week was exactly average for snowfall and overall skiing IMHO for first week of April in that region.  We were luckier than average in that the snow came all at once (not the usual pattern in Colorado), so more powder on Monday at Breck.  Maybe unlucky with the overcast refrozen Wednesday at Vail. 

 

Needless to say the long term history of the area is a more reliable indicator than a few past Gatherings at varied areas.  However, from the few I know about, the Gatherings have been selected intelligently in terms of expected snow conditions at the chosen resort.

 

One of the points of knowing the snow condition patterns is to make a more fair evaluation of places you don't visit that often.  That's why I kept coming back to Jackson Hole despite conditions being so bad my first time there in 1986.

If the real number is 370 and someone prints 400 in a brochure, maybe that's rounding or liberally counting months beyond the ski season and not worth calling out.  But exposing blatant misrepresentations is one of the functions of an independent ski forum IMHO.

I am confused how there can be so much disagreement on quantity of snow. 

I'm losing track of even which mountain we're talking about....

Tony, Tony, Tony...I am surprised at you. You are usually so careful and precise!

You wrote: "Annual snowfall at [Big Sky] midmountain elevation of 8,903 feet is 258 inches." And you claim that that statistic conflicts with Big Sky's brochure claims of "over 400 inches" of annual snowfall. I suggest that more data are needed.

First, by your own admission (and confirmed on the website you linked to), the 258 inches is a "reliable seasonal average for the period November 1 through April 30"--a six month period only, in an area that can surely see snowfall in any month of the year--especially at high elevations.

Which brings up the second issue: you wrote, "late season is a vastly safer choice than early season in order to increase the odds of decent coverage on the super steep Lone Peak terrain." While I tend to agree, you must note that that terrain is almost entirely above the "mid-mountain elevation" for which your 258 inch statistic is measured. My experience suggests that most mountains receive substantially more snowfall at the top than they do at mid-mountain.

Unfortunately, the website you linked to does not list snowfall statistics at the tops of the mountains or for a 12 month (annual) period. But it does not seem unreasonable to believe that a mountain that gets 258 inches of of snow in a six-month period at 8,903' might well get at least 400 inches of snow on top (11,145') in a full year.

Just sayin'.... (And you know very well what they say about statistics and lying.)

Best regards,
Bob

Poor Tony...Truth hurts?   LOL

 

Don't confuse us with the facts?  Big Sky is due for a big year.  Last year the rocks were surfacing like school fish avoiding an attack.  We should have an idea what this year will bring by the end of February / beginning of March.

OMG! Tony has exposed the REAL TRUTH that ski resorts tend to exaggerate the FACTS! I am totally shocked! And dismayed! I may never go to another ski resort again! Frickin' LIARS! LIARS, I tell you! If only everyone could see the shocked look on my face!

The point of choosing 6 months is to make comparisons between resorts valid. Many resorts including Big Sky measure less than six months in some or all years,   so I have to project totals upward to get to 6 months.  FYI Big Sky did measure all 6 months in 23 seasons and the raw average of those is 261 inches.  Using more than 6 months would in most cases be irrelevant because October snow is usually melted out before the ski areas open, and very few areas are open after April 30.  I do include May snowfall for a few areas consistently open then and will also count October snowfall if it's enough to advance an opening date or have a significant effect on what's open in November.

Actually that level of disparity from mid to top would be quite unusual, and I there is one exception I know.   Jupiter Bowl 10,000 averages 394 inches while Summit House 9,200 averages 308 and the base of Park City 150.  The difference between Jupiter and Summit House is not due so much to altitude as to Jupiter being  close to the top of Brighton while the rest of Park City is well leeward of the crest of the Wasatch.

 

  Quote:

And there is zero basis for it, nada. If there were, there would be patrol data backing it up as there is with Jackson's new upper site.  My source IS the patrol data.  Big Sky like anyplace with the top far above tree line cannot measure accurately at the top due to wind exposure. You need a sheltered location.  But what most skiers want is snowfall at representative elevation for where they are skiing.  Big Sky's elevation range is 6,900 - 11,145.  So 8,903 is a good representation, particularly since there's at least as much ski terrain below as above 8,903.  

There are always lots of rocks on Lone Peak.   It's a recurring comment from nearly every visitor.  In good years they are avoidable, but you always want to be alert up there because in many cases if you fall you are quite likely to hit something.

 

I always tell people to use common sense, observe their surroundings and believe what your own eyes and skis tell you.  The comparison with Jackson is instructive in this case.  Mid-mountain Jackson is 370 and mid-mountain Big Sky is 258. Temperatures and much of the topography are similar. Even the casual observer can notice the difference in snow coverage.

Actually I'm a bit confused too.  Small overstatements most people will not notice or let slide.  But anyone who travels extensively knows what 400+ inch ski areas look like.   Here's the short list of non-coastal ski areas between 370 and 430 inches:  Brighton, Solitude, Whitewater, Wolf Creek, Steamboat, Fernie, Jackson. 

 

Another interesting point that enhances the confidence in Big Sky snow data is that it's very consistent.  Of the 23 years of complete Nov-Apr data the highest season is 342 inches and the lowest 174 inches, which is a very tight range.  Standard deviation of winter (Dec-Mar) monthly snowfall as a percent of average is the second lowest in the West to Targhee.   So while we may not expect to be buried in powder, the odds of a real disaster (where we dodged a bullet last year) are very remote.

Along with the consistency of snowfall as noted above, so no argument there.

Edited by Tony Crocker - 9/30/12 at 12:14pm

Was interested to see that your comparative figures for Big Sky and Jackson were for MID mountain, so went again to your site.  Noticed that your numbers for Whitefish were NOT for mid-mountain, they were for basically the summit, although the altitude you give for the snow stake is 6700 feet and not the 6817 they claim is the summit.  On the other hand, you show "lift served" altitude of 7000 feet, which is clearly wrong, as the highest chair stops at the CLAIMED 6817 mark and I believe that in fact the 6817 is for the Radio Tower hill just NW of that point.  In fact, I believe, the summit is a tad under 6800 feet and the snow stake is roughly at 6750-60.  I guess there's been some settling over the years?  Or do we include snow depth as part of the altitude (6780+20 feet of snow or something...).

 

Anyway, is the use of different relative statistics due to where the mountain measures?  How do we correct for that?  Is there a way to extrapolate likely stats based on some formula for altitude gain?

Seriously, Tony? I think you need to get your head away from your beloved "statistics" for a little bit and get some fresh air. Big Sky claims that they get over 400 inches of snowfall annually. A year comprises 12 months, not six, so it is hardly irrelevant to include the snowfall for each of those twelve months when measuring annual snowfall. Geeze!

Here in Colorado, most of our resorts report daily snowfall both at "mid-mountain" and at the summit (sometimes several summits, if the resort has more than one), and it is quite rare that the summit snowfall is not significantly more than the mid-mountain statistic. "Actually that level of disparity from mid to top would be quite unusual," you said--but my experience suggests that it is quite feasible. Furthermore, different exposures, as well as couloirs and other natural terrain features where we are likely to ski, are well-known for collecting snow, so that "mid-mountain" average snowfall measurement may well bear little relevance to the actual skiing conditions.

In any case, I do not see anything in your statistics that justifies your diatribe against Big Sky. It seems likely to me that they get their claimed 400" of snow, if not more, most years--based on the six-month mid-mountain measurements you have quoted. I see no justification for your statement that their brochure "is the most extreme overstatement of any resort in North America." None.

But "average" snowfall is pointless anyway, is it not? What matters is what you have now, under your skis. Like most places, I've skied Big Sky with limited snow conditions, and with extraordinary powder. I've seen the Big Sky ski patrol bring hockey sticks on the slopes to flick the floater stones from the thin cover into the woods, and I've seen snow so deep that the aerial tram dragged through it at the top. And I'll say this: it was great every time!

Statistics, schmatistics. Pray for snow! Ski whatever you got--it's all good!

Best regards,
Bob

Dear God, are we complaining about what the snowfall may or may not be at Big Sky again?

 

Tony, there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Your choices are simple:

1. STFU and come to Big Sky and have fun with us.
2. STFU and don't come to Big Sky and read about us having more fun then you.

 

Either way, the first four letters of both items are the important ones.

Tony thanks for trying to answer my question. I think its pretty obvious where you measure, when and how all matter alot. 

 

No need to be rude guys. Getting enough snow to open the lines and make them ski able is important, but I kind of don't think big sky in late march has that problem. To me the cool thing about bigsky is the variety and scope of the terrain. I actually think the lift served in bounds terrain is way better than jackson or LCC from an expert skiing perspective. If they don't get the big snow while we are there, so what?

 

After 5 years in UT I have skied more powder than I think most people get in a life time. When I go to a gathering its to be with friends and to socialize and ski some cool lines.

 

If you want to ski powder every day, what are you doing at the resort? 

Tony's stats on resort snowfall and how it correlates with various weather patterns is one of the best tools for predicting when and where your chances of encountering good snow will occur UNLESS you have a very short term planning horizon and can follow the storms.  Given the intent of his compilation of historic data to measure useable snow for skiing, as well as aspect and altitude, I think it's ridiculous to take personal offense if that data does not meet your personal expectations for a given area or event.

 

Tony, keep up the good work.  And before the first snowflake falls, may all the Epicski Bears keep up their eternal optimism for the best powder day ever.

 

Wow Binder, you really flipped over that!  Hope you recover. 

A couple of thoughts...

If a ski area is generally considered an outstanding place to ski, then by definition the amount of snow it gets must be enough.

 

Where his numbers are most valuable are on fringe questions, such as "Where for early season?" or to validate common (but occaisonally controversial) knowledge, such as "Squaw gets more snow than Heavenly" or "the cottonwoods get more snow than Park City."

And back when he had that 1st Powder Magazine article, those bits of common knowlege were known by locals, but most of us nationwide were in the dark and thirsty for information.

 

Guys, don't shoot the messenger.  But Tony, please accept that you are always going to be a bit of a Cassandra, and don't let it bug you (or make you quit).

Geeze!  Does anyone seriously think that the numbers would be more than ~10% higher if you counted 12 months instead of 6?   There are a handful of places like Mt. Rainier that do measure all 12 months, and that's about how much extra snow they get.  And maybe there's a microclimate like Front Range Colorado where it could be 15-20%.  In any case, if you're comparing to other places, those are on the same 6 months basis.  Forget about the stats.  Go visit the places on that list (Brighton, Solitude, Whitewater, Wolf Creek, Steamboat, Fernie, Jackson) that really get ~400 inches and then try to tell me with a straight face that Big Sky is even remotely close to 400.

So show me another one.  The fact is that 400 inches of snowfall is an elite level which very few resorts attain.  There are specific geographic and/or weather features of these unusually snowy microclimates, not obviously present at Big Sky.  So to me, if you want to make that level of snowfall claim you have the burden of proof to back it up with some hard data.

Actually I'm one of very few who pays attention to variation in snowfall (the "luck" component) vs. the averages.   Snow conditions were barely in the discussion when Tahoe was chosen for last year's Gathering (an average late February would have been a slam dunk).  It was only after 2+ months of extraordinarily bad luck that they became a potential issue, thankfully salvaged by just enough good luck at the last minute.

These are very good questions.  Most ski areas measure in only one place and I have to work with the data that is available.  I always insist on knowing the elevation of the plot area so that readers can compare to the elevation range of the ski area. I may have missed the exact elevation for Whitefish but what's relevant is that it's an upper mountain location.   Correcting/extrapolating is not simple and is dependent upon the specific topography of each ski area.   Most of the time the difference between mid and top is less than the difference between between base and mid, but I'm sure there are exceptions.  First hand observation from locals who have been onsite a season or two is the best way to answer that type of question.  I doubt we'll find a Bozeman local who thinks Big Sky gets 400 inches. 

Agree, Big Sky is definitely more about the terrain than the snow.

 

 Quote:

I addressed this point in my first post.

In terms of my scheduling, odds of my attending have gone up a little bit recently.

Edited by Tony Crocker - 10/1/12 at 1:21pm

 

After looking at the data presented in Tony Crocker's Northern Rockies analysis, the Big Sky brochure claim of 400 inches of snow does, indeed, appear overstated. If 400 inches were correct, it would be surpassed only by Grand Targhee for average snowfall, when, according to TC data, Big Sky is in the bottom half of resorts for average snow fall. Credit Tony for using a common system for reporting actual snowfall. The 400 inch level far exceeds TC's reported level for Yellowstone Club, which is immediately adjacent to Big Sky.  I'll leave it to the locals to confirm or dispute if Big Sky gets this much snow, but, I would not shoot the messenger for making the b.s. claim. Of interest, is that Big Sky standard deviation for snowfall, at 50 inches, is the lowest deviation in the Northern Rockies. That's a good thing in terms of predicting good snow for the Gathering.

 

Having said the above, I've no concerns with going to Big Sky for the Gathering. Sometimes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. 

Edited by Living Proof - 10/3/12 at 12:00pm

To Clarify - TC is Tony Crocker, not Trekchick..........

I was confused for a minute, while reading LP's post, but then I'm blonde. 

Phil and I were "clueless"  about Tahoe Weather and didn't know what we were doing either, but you know how the Tahoe Gathering turned out, right? 

 

Quite frankly, I don't care about the weather forecast.  We (as a group) voted to go to Big Sky/ Bridger/ Moonlight, and I'm going to have fun no matter what's on the ground. 

For us less than expert skiers from the flatlands, Bridger is a great place to get started out for a trip out west.  Last Feb with low snow my friends and I (3 advanced, 1 intermediate first time out west) had a very good time there.  At my home mountain, we ski when there is 20 inches of manmade snow!

You are THE ONE AND ONLY TC! My apologies.

 

I corrected my post!

Actually not, and I thought that Bozeman locals had that impression too.

 

Bridger has 201 months of snow data including the last 38 years of December to March.  Indexed Nov. 1 - Apr. 30 average is 302 inches.  There are 11 seasons with complete Nov-Apr and those average 297 inches.  Bridger's snow is measured at 7,100 feet, which is mid-mountain for them.

 

Bridger has a very independent microclimate relative to other Northern Rockies ski areas.  It missed out on the widespread mid-January 2012 storm that brought most of the other places close to full operation and thus looked unusually bad into mid-season last year.  But in many years Bridger will get a dump the other places don't and its long term snow record is pretty good.

 

My original source of snow data through 1995, the Westwide Network, also included base depths at the snow measuring sites.  Bridger's maximum season base depth over 22 seasons averaged 97 inches. Big Sky's maximum season base depth over 15 seasons averaged 68 inches.  Base depths are subject to many other influences besides snowfall, but this is just one more stat corroborating Big Sky snowfall.  At most low water content Rocky Mountain ski areas the ratio of max base depth to season snowfall is in the 22-29% range.   If Big Sky got 400 inches we would expect max base depths to be around 100 inches, which they are not.  And as noted by many, at Big Sky's altitude/latitude we would expect its snow preservation to be better than average. For Big Sky 68/258 = 26%, just what we would expect.  Bridger's base depth info looks somewhat high relative to its snowfall.

 

And the same applies to much of the Lone Peak steeps.

 

+1  Also required for the North Snowfields run off the top of Lone Peak into Moonlight Basin, which I thought was awesome.

Edited by Tony Crocker - 10/3/12 at 8:56pm