2011-12: How Bad Was It? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfacehoar 

One factor that I am particularly fond of, is MAX temp. The highest recorded temp in the day. Average temp can be skewed by cold nights, when it's really the hot times in the day where the snow is degraded.  Here is a graph of the MAX temp from the popular snotel sites across the west. (click to enlarge, hopefully)

 

 

I'd be really curious to know where your WA datapoint comes from.  At a rough glance, I see most days with a high above freezing, and an average high around 5C (or 40F).  As someone who skied this winter in WA, I'd call BS on that.  I'm the first to admit that we go above freezing more than I'd like here, but those numbers seem flat out wrong to me.

The "High Temp for the Day" graph is interesting but imo would be better if you could get temperature data from a ski area's base including elevation. This could give a good indication of snow pack quality between storms and fresh snow quality during storms.

The Wa data come from the Paradise snotel site on Rainier. 

The other plots are Squaw, Snowbird, and Arapahoe ridge, which I assume is A basin. 

Trying to create a level playing field is difficult. With different elevations, latitudes and only so many snow plots to choose from. From a relative stand point they are all within approx. 700ft of each other. Somewhere between 2000-1300ft below top of the closest lift. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfacehoar 

The Wa data come from the Paradise snotel site on Rainier. 

 

 

Interesting.  FWIW, I pulled the Stevens Pass snotel data from that site to compare.  That one is at 4000', at the base of Stevens Pass ski area.  The Paradise station is at 5100'.  Paradise averaged a high temp of 2.49 C from mid-November to mid-March.  Despite being over 1k feet lower, the Stevens Pass site averaged a high temp of 1.43 C.  That matches up a little better with my experience, as the base at Stevens does go above freezing somewhat often, but the upper mountain much less so.  Apparently Paradise is simply a little warmer, despite being higher in elevation.  I have heard that Stevens Pass runs a little cooler than some areas around because of the cold air coming through the pass from the east but never knew if there was anything to that.  Anyway, thanks for the link to the data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaobrien6 

 

Interesting.  FWIW, I pulled the Stevens Pass snotel data from that site to compare.  That one is at 4000', at the base of Stevens Pass ski area.  The Paradise station is at 5100'.  Paradise averaged a high temp of 2.49 C from mid-November to mid-March.  Despite being over 1k feet lower, the Stevens Pass site averaged a high temp of 1.43 C.  That matches up a little better with my experience, as the base at Stevens does go above freezing somewhat often, but the upper mountain much less so.  Apparently Paradise is simply a little warmer, despite being higher in elevation.  I have heard that Stevens Pass runs a little cooler than some areas around because of the cold air coming through the pass from the east but never knew if there was anything to that.  Anyway, thanks for the link to the data.

The "pass effect" is very real. Temps often drop quickly starting very near the Stevens highway telemetry station.That combined with the PSCZ (Puget Sound Convergence Zone) is why Stevens is usually a top finisher in the NA combined snow quantity+quality game.

I agree with jaobrien6 (and also looked up the Stevens station ). I skied the Cascades probably 3-4 days a week most of the season. Mostly Stevens. Hard to argue with "hard data", but my recollection is that the peaks (esp on north facing aspects) were not as high as the snotel info would make you believe.There were a few notable spikes. But most "warmish"days the high was just around or a tiny shade above freezing.  And remember - it was generally colder overnight and at least at Stevens, they saw an "average" of about half a foot every other day for the entire season... Most of the season, we were skiing either real powder or deep fresh snow multiple days a week. Fingers crossed for next season...

I was talking about  powder conditions, not spring skiing on corn snow. Totally agree that cold nights are critical for a good melt/freeze cycle. Tahoe is of course excellent in that regard. Also that humidity is another variable that should be factored in. Along with day light hours. I would also add the angle of the sun, and aspect to that list. I'm sure there are lots more variables as well. 

A lot of obsessing going on...

79-80 was the worst year in the Northeast...didn't need Tony's data to tell me that but it was nice to see it confirmed.  It actually was quite cold, but northern Vermont seemed more like the Sahara in terms of precip that year.  Destroyed a pair of new skis that year when we finally got an 8" dump and we ducked ropes at Smuggs.  The Olympic skiing events in L Placid were in grave danger that winter.

I was a spectator for most of 11-12 due to a tibial plateau fracture on MLK Day.  I actually appreciated no snow and warmer temps as I gimped around on crutches for 6 weeks.  I kept thinking the snow will come and the late February storm held promise but that was it for the season.

For us East Coasters that travel west for premium skiing, a year like last may have been ok for the locals, but I would have felt like I wasted a huge chunk of change to ski western areas that had less terrain open than Killington...had I gone.  I've given up my obsessive, gotta have the trip planned by Thanksgiving ways, and now try to wait until later in the season to decide (1) whether or not to go and (2) where to go.  Nice that Southwest has a very liberal cancellation policy and doesn't start blacking out seats for FF as the travel date gets closer.

Bad snow years can still yield good skiing. Bumps and groomers can be very fun and are great places to learn.

But skiing off piste in low snow is sketchy as hell and will kill your skis and maybe break a leg in the process. In the BC it we had a thin weak snow pack which never really stabilized much last year until it was already starting to thaw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohansson 

A lot of obsessing going on...

 

79-80 was the worst year in the Northeast...didn't need Tony's data to tell me that but it was nice to see it confirmed.  It actually was quite cold, but northern Vermont seemed more like the Sahara in terms of precip that year.  Destroyed a pair of new skis that year when we finally got an 8" dump and we ducked ropes at Smuggs.  The Olympic skiing events in L Placid were in grave danger that winter.

 

I was a spectator for most of 11-12 due to a tibial plateau fracture on MLK Day.  I actually appreciated no snow and warmer temps as I gimped around on crutches for 6 weeks.  I kept thinking the snow will come and the late February storm held promise but that was it for the season.

 

For us East Coasters that travel west for premium skiing, a year like last may have been ok for the locals, but I would have felt like I wasted a huge chunk of change to ski western areas that had less terrain open than Killington...had I gone.  I've given up my obsessive, gotta have the trip planned by Thanksgiving ways, and now try to wait until later in the season to decide (1) whether or not to go and (2) where to go.  Nice that Southwest has a very liberal cancellation policy and doesn't start blacking out seats for FF as the travel date gets closer.

Go to Baker. Planning problem solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfacehoar 

I'm all for total snow, base, and dick measuring in general. 

 

Although statistics will never tell the whole story, rain/wind/sun/crowds/elevation/temperature/snowfall/stability, there are so many variables,as well as intangibles like scenery that can't really be factored in. Combine this with personal preferance, and there really is no way to quantify the "best snow".

 

Of course, this doesn't stop us from trying.

 

One factor that I am particularly fond of, is MAX temp. The highest recorded temp in the day. Average temp can be skewed by cold nights, when it's really the hot times in the day where the snow is degraded.  Here is a graph of the MAX temp from the popular snotel sites across the west. (click to enlarge, hopefully)

 

Most notable is the St. Leon plot (interior of BC). Notice how the MAX temp did not break the freezing mark(0) from Nov-Feb hence the strong snow preservation in the interior. This plot is also relatively warm in comparison to the other plots in BC. It was chosen because the Revelstoke plot was broken, and it's elevation matched perfectly with the Snowbird plot. IE identical vertical change from plot, to top of lift. 

 

Also note how spring is early in interior and the Temperature advantage is lost by March. 

 

Another Chart I like is a comparison of 24 hr snow, and temperature. 

 

 

Here you can clearly see how much snow fell, and how the temperature corresponded.  However this graph doesn't tell the whole story either. That early FEB high pressure, resorts were tracked out and icy. If you wanted to ride lifts and ski the front side, it sucked. But sun was out, and the big mountains were stable. Finally after being in the milk jug all January it was nice to ski high alpine.

 

Also, one of the most memorable pow days was that first day of snow, after the early Feb dry spell, although only 5cm or so made it on the snowplot, there was no wind. I remember skiing deep, dry, extremely light stable snow in the alpine.  More snow fell the next day, and the next, but was wind effected and the stability was lost for pretty much the remainder of the season. 

Raised in Calif and living in the NE, this take on snow - which indirectly considers retention, melt, and settlement - is far more revealing than how much falls. Consider this March in NE, when a week of VT highs in the high 70's to low 80's pretty much destroyed the base, even though temps cooled later. More to the point, current climate models project that it's the variation in temps that will be the problem, more than some catastrophic falloff in snowfall or inexorable steady rise in temps. In our lifetimes we'll still have plenty of "good" winters as measured by total snowfall. In fact, in the near term, total precipitation (and cloudiness) should increase in some areas. As was said earlier, it's the thaws or mid-winter rains that are going to be the problem. Already is in places like Whistler. If you haven't tried Alyeska, strongly recommend it.

Over in the gear forum we should be all about about skis that handle ice and mixed or heavy snow, but of course our eyes are always on the perfect light powder day and the ski to match it...

Also, this is about increasing climbing fatalities from avalanches in unexpected routes, due to climate change. Think it has some relevance for recent arguments over in-bounds avalanche risk, not to mention back country stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/for-climbers-risks-now-shift-with-every-step.html?hp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Crocker 

???? Rain is the major risk at Alyeska, only 250ft elevation at the base and 2,750 at the top of chair 6.  I was there (admittedly at end of April) and there was a huge snowpack but totally rain-saturated top-to-bottom.  If you're worried about rain, high altitude (within regional context) is your best defense.  I strongly suspect the Whistler alpine gets less rain than the top of Alyeska lift service.  No question there's a lot of rain in Whistler village, but there are covered lifts that can be downloaded and ~3,000 vertical of skiing above the areas with high rain frequency.

Well, I've only skied Alyeska once, in early March, but it was single digits and no issue with rain. My understanding from locals was that it's too damn cold to worry much about the elevation. Cannot speak to April; maybe it was one of those temp spikes you don't believe in. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Crocker 

 

 Zero evidence of that in my snowfall stats. I have 25 areas with an average of 40 years of data and compared 1993 and later to 1992 and earlier. Average snowfall is 7% higher and standard deviation is 7% lower for the later time period than the former. That's not statistically significant but note that both numbers are in the opposite direction from conventional thinking, so there is no evidence whatsoever that snowfall is declining or becoming more volatile at North American ski areas.

This type of exercise is influenced by outlier seasons. As noted elsewhere 2010-11 was the best season in my database and the only one over 120%. The 4 seasons under 80%, 1976-77, 1980-81, 1991-92 and 1986-87, contribute to the 1992 and earlier volatility being greater than 1993 and later.

 

I realize the models are theorizing temperature volatility, but if true that would likely contribute to precipitation volatility.  I think the jury is still out whether these effects will occur in the future, but there is scant evidence that recent volatility of either temperature or precipitation is out of line with long term historical data.

 

We have more avalanche deaths than 30-40 years ago because more people are mountaineering, snowmobiling and skiing in the backcountry than ever before.

OK, first, IMO you're extending your data pretty far. The models, as you say, are discussing temperature.  I was not talking about snowfall totals, which is what your SD's apply to. And while I agree there's some complex relationship between precipitation and temps, the models I've seen can't make much in the way of predictions due to cloud cover, increasing particulates along with the CO2, hydrological cycle, the usual suspects. I'm not a climate scientist but I know a bit of statistics, and that part makes sense; it'd be a nightmare to try to model the two simultaneously with any predictive power. 

Second, according to the NOAA, total yearly snow cover (shown below for Northern Hemisphere) has dropped significantly since the 1920's. Not disputing your numbers, just saying that other folks seem to have different numbers that show different results. Maybe it's the way you cut up the data, or maybe it's the impact of higher temps on snowfall producing quicker melting, can't say. The scientists there state that the annual coverage drop is particularly influenced by decreased snow cover in the spring and summer, in both NH and Eurasia. So could be that our winters may be getting shorter, perhaps due to high temps, more melting, in spring. Which of course will alter albedo, leading to warmer ground, and so on...

Third, NOAA also states: "There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed." In other words, we're getting fewer really cold days in the winter, but the number of really warm days is holding. Ask anyone who's in charge of making snow about the impact; it requires more water to produce the same depth of snow at higher overnight temps, so higher costs, inferior snow. Same will hold for Mother Nature making her own. So lost in the snowfall data are the density and quality of the snow that falls. I'd guess there are fewer and fewer days of really light dry powder, on average. 

Fourth, the article I linked was not so much discussing increasing deaths due to usage as it was increasing avalanches due to climate change, particularly in specific areas that had not seen avalanches historically. I agree that some of the mortality is due to more people being out there climbing. But the article was quoting specialistis that the risk of avalanches themselves are increasing, regardless of who's climbing. Or skiing. 

OK, I can't seem to paste the NOAA chart and have it hold; here goes again:

March - April?  So we're looking at the end of ski season data?  And then putting data on the chart from two different data sets and comparing them?  

So, what we can deduce is that after 1972, ski seasons were shorter in some areas in the Northern Hemisphere.  

Just want to make sure I am tracking your point.  

Obviously, you're more interested in implying some flaw in a NOAA chart than tracking any of my points, which were set up in a numbered fashion. 

But for other members: the chart is not about length of ski season. The last two sentences of the "Second" paragraph included a reasonable inference that if there's less snow on the ground, and rising average temperatures, then that means a shorter ski season.TC would argue this means we'll just have to get better at chasing good snow, which is also a reasonable conjecture if we have the means to chase. 

Nor is the chart about "some areas" of the NH. The chart shows a trend in total accumulated snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere that's statistically significant, and visually obvious. Obviously, any natural data have variance, so some individual sites fall below the trend line and some above. The statistical tests that sort out probability of real change from noise take the variance into account.

Nor does it make outcomes necessarily unreliable when you combine data sets. You typically deploy a variety of techniques for the splice, and test the accuracy using a subsample of both sets of measurements, in this case station + sat. Pretty pedestrian for a professional data cruncher. Also, notice that the period between 1972 and about 1980 continued to bounce along much like the previous half century, suggesting that the splice was fine. Then, after 1980, you see systematic decline. Which suggests another cause. 

The choice of March-April is also not that mysterious, since it historically represents the maximum accumulation and coverage in the Northern Hemisphere. Obviously, some places will get a lot of early coverage and some a lot of late. But the end of winter is when climatologists tend to look at total snow. Which makes sense, again in the sense of a trend. 

No, but your writing is so wordy, I'm having trouble "keeping up".  

My distillation of what you are saying and your data:

 - We have less snow on the ground in the spring in the northern hemisphere than we used to.  This is based on TOTAL AREA in the Northern Hemisphere.  

My point is only that SKI AREAS may or may not have been impacted, but more than likely were, if only I could see the maps.  But in any case if we are only talking covered or not, they all could have had SOME coverage, skiable or not, I can't tell from your chart.  Mainly because I am not a meteorologist.  For instance the last sentence in the chart description is totally unintelligible to me.  I mean if we are subtracting the smooth curve (huh?) then why does the data in the shaded area track the smooth curve?  Like I said, means zip to me.  

What you are saying might make sense to Tony, but I have to re-read it repeatedly to even track your points.  

Most of us aren't.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Obviously, you're more interested in implying some flaw in a NOAA chart than tracking any of my points, which were set up in a numbered fashion. 

Pretty snippy.  

1) Sorry I don't write in a way you like. But there's nothing special - or misleading - about the graph, so suggest you Google NOAA and take your pick of other graphs if this one really bothers you. 

2) Not asking you to be a professional statistician, or meteorologist, but also not sure it's my job to do a Epic summer seminar in stat. So I was just glossing the background by saying that people who do this for a living don't think it's a sketchy or remarkable method. For the record, the fine print indicates that the mean (darker center line) is smoothed (set of techniques for reducing the impact of any single year or site), mathematically removed so that the remaining variance (yellow area) can be calculated, and then put back in in a nice dark black. The total variance determined the location of the dark line to begin with, so that's why the edges of the yellow more or less track the dark central line. 

3) I get your point about coverage. I'm not disagreeing about - or even talking about - whether some areas had sufficient coverage to ski on. Less coverage means that total area is less, and from what we know of settlement and melt, we can infer that less area also generally means less depth. Go look at David Brashear's amazing glacier site where he compares photos taken a century or more ago with now to see how this looks. Or I can attest to it personally, having been on the Mer du Glace in Chamonix periodically over the last 30 years. Less area = less depth. 

4) So yes, there is still plenty of snow to ski on. But to claim that it wasn't a bad winter in North America, or that there's no real trend in snowfall, IMO miscasts the issue. I think it was a bad winter judged by most criteria, I think that our winters are - on average, not every single one in every single place - getting worse, and I think that temperature, not snowfall, is the real culprit. 

I have spent so many hours, days, years typing stuff on the subject and debating Tony on FTO (Climate change, temps change, snowpack, annual snowfall), that I don't feel like getting into it here. I need to focus on getting some old TRs done for the blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Obviously, you're more interested in implying some flaw in a NOAA chart than tracking any of my points, which were set up in a numbered fashion. 

 

But for other members: the chart is not about length of ski season. The last two sentences of the "Second" paragraph included a reasonable inference that if there's less snow on the ground, and rising average temperatures, then that means a shorter ski season.TC would argue this means we'll just have to get better at chasing good snow, which is also a reasonable conjecture if we have the means to chase. 

 

Nor is the chart about "some areas" of the NH. The chart shows a trend in total accumulated snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere that's statistically significant, and visually obvious. Obviously, any natural data have variance, so some individual sites fall below the trend line and some above. The statistical tests that sort out probability of real change from noise take the variance into account.

 

Nor does it make outcomes necessarily unreliable when you combine data sets. You typically deploy a variety of techniques for the splice, and test the accuracy using a subsample of both sets of measurements, in this case station + sat. Pretty pedestrian for a professional data cruncher. Also, notice that the period between 1972 and about 1980 continued to bounce along much like the previous half century, suggesting that the splice was fine. Then, after 1980, you see systematic decline. Which suggests another cause. 

 

The choice of March-April is also not that mysterious, since it historically represents the maximum accumulation and coverage in the Northern Hemisphere. Obviously, some places will get a lot of early coverage and some a lot of late. But the end of winter is when climatologists tend to look at total snow. Which makes sense, again in the sense of a trend. 

Or.....TC would find a way to enjoy the snow that is available. 

This pic was taken at Mt Rose on January 14th.  Notice the bare ground around all the man made snow.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Obviously, you're more interested in implying some flaw in a NOAA chart than tracking any of my points, which were set up in a numbered fashion. 

 

But for other members: the chart is not about length of ski season. The last two sentences of the "Second" paragraph included a reasonable inference that if there's less snow on the ground, and rising average temperatures, then that means a shorter ski season.TC would argue this means we'll just have to get better at chasing good snow, which is also a reasonable conjecture if we have the means to chase. 

 

Nor is the chart about "some areas" of the NH. The chart shows a trend in total accumulated snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere that's statistically significant, and visually obvious. Obviously, any natural data have variance, so some individual sites fall below the trend line and some above. The statistical tests that sort out probability of real change from noise take the variance into account.

 

Nor does it make outcomes necessarily unreliable when you combine data sets. You typically deploy a variety of techniques for the splice, and test the accuracy using a subsample of both sets of measurements, in this case station + sat. Pretty pedestrian for a professional data cruncher. Also, notice that the period between 1972 and about 1980 continued to bounce along much like the previous half century, suggesting that the splice was fine. Then, after 1980, you see systematic decline. Which suggests another cause. 

 

The choice of March-April is also not that mysterious, since it historically represents the maximum accumulation and coverage in the Northern Hemisphere. Obviously, some places will get a lot of early coverage and some a lot of late. But the end of winter is when climatologists tend to look at total snow. Which makes sense, again in the sense of a trend. 

Or.....TC would find a way to enjoy the snow that is available. 

This pic was taken at Mt Rose on January 14th.  Notice the bare ground around all the man made snow.  

Hardcore............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

Or.....TC would find a way to enjoy the snow that is available. 

This pic was taken at Mt Rose on January 14th.  Notice the bare ground around all the man made snow.  

Yep, and that was far better coverage than we had back here in March. Which I dutifully skied on, if you count taking off skis and walking through the grass to get to the next patch of snow...I think the next breakthrough in ski technology should be all-terrain hiking bases, with little spring loaded caterpillar tracks that drop down on each side like crampons. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick 

I have spent so many hours, days, years typing stuff on the subject and debating Tony on FTO (Climate change, temps change, snowpack, annual snowfall), that I don't feel like getting into it here. I need to focus on getting some old TRs done for the blog.

Didn't realize this was an old argument when I walked in the door. Do now. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Crocker 

I agree that temperatures now are on average materially higher than in the 1970's.  So the total Northern Hemisphere snow cover map does not surprise me.  However the locations that had snow cover in the 1970's in March/April and do not not now are very likely at low altitude and not particularly relevant to North American ski areas. As noted before they may be relevant to some ski areas in other places.

It was absolutely a bad winter for skiing, but overall in my data there have been 4 worse ones, all before 1993.  In my original post I also made the argument that qualitatively (incidence of the snowfall, the worst regions being the ones with the most skier visits)  only 1976-77 and 1980-81 were clearly worse.   

I absolutely stand by this claim with respect to North America ski locations.

Again, no evidence of that where we actually ski in North America.  I suspect, based upon that snow cover chart and comments from some people like Patrick, that shoulder season snow coverage in the low altitude urban areas of the Midwest and East has decreased.   The ski season close to those areas has not yet seen much impact because so far improvement in snowmaking technology has offset the average few days lost to snowmaking due to above freezing temperatures.  With respect to the larger eastern areas typically measuring snow at 2,000 - 3,000 feet there is as yet no impact in snowfall, though from my perspective I would expect to see some in the future if temperatures rise further.  For most ski areas in western North America, I think we're still a long way from seeing a negative impact from rising temperatures.

As mentioned when I started my degree in Geography in the mid 1980s...snowfall will increase in the short term. That is what has happened. It was also mentioned that Winter precipitations would also increase. You might be getting more snow (in some years), but you are also getting more freeze/thaw, rain and heat that wasn't as frequent before. Quebec winter didn't get started until late December and the general ski season in Quebec (with the exception of MSS this season) is starting later and ending earlier. This season was particularly bad and for once, there was no Eastern US liftserved skiing in May in, a minimum, of 38 years. Regardless of snowmaking technologies, there is still a need for overnight freeze to be able to manage to make snow.

Beyond, the discussion with Tony has been carried on for years on another ski forum, firsttracksonline.

As I've explained before, this is much easier to see the impact in the last 40 years, if you've been living in a place in the East where snow on your street is the norm in Winter. Regardless of the Urban Heat Island (not sure how you call it), the same can be said if you drive out to Tremblant or Ste-Anne. MSA used to be a sure thing for early and late season turns. It wasn't this year. Gaspe Peninsula snow, small problem. Tuckerman, snow level for Tucks and other liftserved areas were gone 3-4 weeks earlier that usual and if you take into account the late start, that is a reduce season.

I know one season doesn't tell the tale, however years of observations and some background knowledge of some of the research from news, friends that did graduate studies in Climatology all point to the same conclusion. That record heatwave that hit us in March, we were beating records by a full +10c. temps in March were less than 8c was were we experiencing this weekend (close or beating daily records at around +35c).

My summary and last post from the Eastern Closing thread 2012

https://madpatski.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/cest-fini-eastern-closing-2012-part-last/

As we talked about the lack of Winter...the greatest effect have been in the northern latitudes. Yes, I talk about upper NE and Qc, but if you go above the 55th parrallei in QC, the difference are even greater. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick 

 

My summary and last post from the Eastern Closing thread 2012

https://madpatski.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/cest-fini-eastern-closing-2012-part-last/

 

As we talked about the lack of Winter...the greatest effect have been in the northern latitudes. Yes, I talk about upper NE and Qc, but if you go above the 55th parrallei in QC, the difference are even greater. 

Nice link, glad to make your acquaintance. My family and I ski whenever we can up your way. Wonder if that ice hotel northwest of Quebec is still making money?