New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

West to East - Page 3

post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
485 inches in 1999-2000, 581 inches in 2000-2001.
1999-00: Kirkwood - 495.5, Baker - 701, Alyaska, 741

2000-01: Alyaska - 638
post #62 of 84
Alaska? Come on! That is not PAC NW.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
Well I don't think you have ever seen our big gnarly mountains...they have just as much vert as most of the rockies but just not the elevation....
But of course. The 21 years I lived in the East I had my eyes screwed tight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10

I've seen many bald-topped, snow covered mountains in the oregon and washington cascades that were neither as large, nor as gnarley. I love uninformed people with strong opinions.
Should we reference your above post or this one as demonstration of an uninformed opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
Heres some from my most recent trip to the cascades of some of the most famous mountains in that range....they look somewhat small in comparison actually....not saying I wouldnt rather ski there though....mount washington has killed nearly as many people as everest, hehe.
So, from your perspective of Mt. Hodd on the highway, it "looked" smaller than Mt. Washington? Did you find that a useful tool for objectively comparing the two mountains or as a tool for understanding perspective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
What the heck do you call those little things in Washington?

There is one big mountain in the whole state.
Meaning over 13,000 feet? Or just what you could see from the bar in Seattle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
Well for ski racing it's actually quite appropriate to train on hardpack as you are most likely never going to encounter soft snow in a high level race...
And your opinion is that the Super G in Sestriere last month was not a high level race? Or just that high level races are only held on bluebird days?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I was just up there a couple weeks ago.

I've seen a lot of big, gnarly mountains around the world....and there aren't many in Washington. More like "inviting, friendly looking mountains".
Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Drove up there and went skiing.

Still pretty friendly in my book. Very nice skiing though.

And I'm not saying any of it isn't pretty or inspiring. Just saying that calling them big and gnarly is perhaps a bit silly when making a blanket statement about how soft and inviting the eastern peaks are...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=49475

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
The sisters area has some gnarly ones...jefferson, the sisters....but they arent bigger than our biggest back east....so I don't think someone whos probably never even seen our bigger mountains should be making a flat out statement like "theres no mountains back east just hills"
Mt Jefferson: 10,492 feet - Mt. Kathadin: 5,267 feet

South sister: 10,358 feet - Mt. Washington: 6,277 feet

Mt. Bachelor: 9,068 feet - Mt. Marcy 5,344 feet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr
You mean like this???
One difference is that Tuckermans gets skied - often by drunk college kids in shorts hauling a keg of beer. The peak of Shuksan is likely unskiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
The places I equate with "big and gnarly" have dozens of peaks like that where human feet trod only with great effort and great risk. There are only a couple places like that in the east (and on a smaller scale at that), and only a couple like that AFAIK in the northwest.
mebbe you should stick to what you do know.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune
1999-00: Kirkwood - 495.5, Baker - 701, Alyaska, 741

2000-01: Alyaska - 638
I'm well aware that those aren't records for those years....I was just providing some data.

Quote:
Meaning over 13,000 feet? Or just what you could see from the bar in Seattle?
Meaning really, really big, and really, really hard to get to the top of and then back down. Not show up in the car and hike from the road. Not an afternoon trip. Not something which pretty much anyone with the right gear could climb.

Washington is a pretty small state with a pretty big population and nice fancy paved highways just about everywhere.

When I think of places with big gnarly mountains and scary topography, I think of places like Alaska, not Washington. If that gets your panties in a bunch, I'm so very sorry. :
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Meaning really, really big, and really, really hard to get to the top of and then back down. Not show up in the car and hike from the road. Not an afternoon trip. Not something which pretty much anyone with the right gear could climb.
So, what you're saying is you never got out of the car?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Washington is a pretty small state with a pretty big population and nice fancy paved highways just about everywhere.
No, I guess you didn't. But your 3 days in Washington should have been more than enough to give you an opinion, regardless of anything inconsequential like spending a few days out around Hozameen or Glacier Peaks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
When I think of places with big gnarly mountains and scary topography, I think of places like Alaska, not Washington. If that gets your panties in a bunch, I'm so very sorry. :
But you have gotten out and skied Alaska quite a bit then?
Funny, so have I.
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I'm well aware that those aren't records for those years....I was just providing some data.
You claimed that Jay had "the most snow in the country on numerous occasions." You followed the challenge to prove it with those statistics. I was easily able to find that, in fact, they were not the highest totals in the US in the given year and I gave the correct amounts. So why would you give that data if you were aware that it didn't prove your point, and can you meet the challenge? Put up or shut up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Meaning really, really big, and really, really hard to get to the top of and then back down. Not show up in the car and hike from the road. Not an afternoon trip. Not something which pretty much anyone with the right gear could climb.

Washington is a pretty small state with a pretty big population and nice fancy paved highways just about everywhere.
You really don't have a clue here. I would give it up if I were you.

I'm not claiming that Washington is bigger, more, better, wilder, higher, or greater than everywhere else. However, your assertions are simply uninformed blather.
post #67 of 84
[quote=Posaune]You claimed that Jay had "the most snow in the country on numerous occasions." You followed the challenge to prove it with those statistics. I was easily able to find that, in fact, they were not the highest totals in the US in the given year and I gave the correct amounts. So why would you give that data if you were aware that it didn't prove your point, and can you meet the challenge? Put up or shut up.
[quote]
Go read the thread, guy. I didn't make that particular claim. In fact, I know that claim to be untrue.
Quote:
I'm not claiming that Washington is bigger, more, better, wilder, higher, or greater than everywhere else. However, your assertions are simply uninformed blather.
What, that Alaska has big scary mountains and Washington....largely doesn't?
post #68 of 84









But of course, these must be all be nothing after all the gnarly first descents you've scored there in Alberquerque.. er, uh, Alaska.
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Go read the thread, guy. I didn't make that particular claim. In fact, I know that claim to be untrue.
Well, shut my mouth! You're right. It was CSOcean10 that made that claim and I misread it. My sincere apologies.

You're still wrong about Washington, though. You really have not seen the state the way you think you have.
post #70 of 84
Fair enough. I don't mind being proved wrong...particularly when it involves me learning about new fancy places to ogle.
post #71 of 84
Well I don't know where to begin with you harry morgan....What you seem to forget is that the base elevations in the east ar far lower than the west on average so the actual size of the mountain does not correlate with maximum elevation in this context. Frankly I think you need a chill pill. Or a dunce cap with the words "chief debunk attempter" on it. As for the super-g in sestriere, they were clearing the new snow from the course constantly as the day went on, and in most cases the snow is injected with water to make it fast(icy). Also where did I ever mention mount hood from the highway? I was talking about the sisters and bend area mountains sir so get off your high horse. I would never try to compare anything in the east to hood. I am not a moron. Most of the cascades(from central washington down as this is the only area I have seen and I am aware that northern washington has many rugged mountains) are no less in inviting than most of the appalachians but there are several exceptions such as some of the high peaks of the adirondacks, mount washington, and mount katahdin for the east and the wallowa area of oregon and the sisters and hood. As for the jay peak highest anual snowfall, yes it has happened on more than one occasion and yes I have seen the newspaper clipping(it may have been 50 years ago for all I know I never said it was recent) If you go there near the tram entrance there is a record of snowfall totals over the years and some are ridiculously high.
post #72 of 84
Well I tried finding the snowfall records dating back to the founding of jay and couldn't. Next time I'm up there(this weekend) I'll check the board again and bring back actual numbers for ya.
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
As for the jay peak highest anual snowfall, yes it has happened on more than one occasion
Earlier you said it happened on "numerous occasions." Numerous usually means quite a few, at least in my understanding. It would be interesting to find out how many "numerous" is in this case.
post #74 of 84
Those that have known me on this board for the last few years know that the one thing I dislike the most are inaccurate statements and information. CSOcean, I like you but I'm going to take you to task for some of the following statements, which simply are not true:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
...What you seem to forget is that the base elevations in the east ar far lower than the west on average so the actual size of the mountain does not correlate with maximum elevation in this context...
Actually it does. Looking at the peaks you seem to have some familiarity with along the central Cascades, you can Google Earth some of the peaks and get an idea of the skiable size, based on peak to base (ending where terrain angles are too flat):

*Note: someone on this board complained about the links to the thumbnails below are infested with malware. I checked and found none. The links do go to a comercial hosting site with imbedded ads, but those did not contain any malware either. If you are in any way concerned, just don't click on the thumbnails.*

Mount Adams - 12,276' - 5,000' (7,276' vertical)


Mount Hood - 11,225 - 5,000' (6,225')

Mount Jefferson - 10,497' - 5,000' (5,497')


Sisters - 10,358' - 6,000 (4,358')


Now you mentioned several big peaks of the East and here they are too:

Mount Washington - 6,288' - 2,000' (4288')


Mount Katahdhin - 5,270' - 1,500' (3,770')


So, you see that the Central Cascades are *indeed* considerably higher AND have greater verticals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
...As for the jay peak highest anual snowfall, yes it has happened on more than one occasion and yes I have seen the newspaper clipping(it may have been 50 years ago for all I know I never said it was recent) If you go there near the tram entrance there is a record of snowfall totals over the years and some are ridiculously high.
Please do bring back those numbers. Then we can go year by year. In the mean time, we have this little tidbit of info:

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1223/

Which claims that 2001 saw "a NEW ALL-TIME SNOWFALL RECORD " for Jay Peak (543"). So going back in time, we find that the snowfall winner for each year from 1995 was (source: Tony Crocker's well respected snowfall site):

- 544", Alta '95
- 777", Mt. Baker '96
- 677", Alyeska '97
- 1096", Mt. Baker '98
- 741", Alyeska '99
- 638", Alyeska '00
- 736", Mt. Baker, '01
- 586" Mt. Baker '02
- 593" Alta '03
- 722" Kirkwood '04

So, all of those numbers are above the 543" all time high for Jay. I could go back further, but I have too much to do at work.
post #75 of 84
Thread Starter 
This thread has evolved into quite the technical discussion. Interesting info.
post #76 of 84
Ok well you got me...can't argue with the numbers. Washington is comparable with the sisters and is considerably higher than bachelor and also quite sprawling compared to the lone cone shape of that mountain. In pictures it may not look quite as rugged but thats because most of the craggy areas fill in with about 50-100 feet of snow blow off the summit by the high winds(highest recorded over land actually). Also the knife edge area of katahdin is quite rugged and this mountain in general is a weird one for the east as it is a lone high white wide-arse monster. It really is a sight. My google earthing did in fact seem to place both of these big guys ahead of our oregonian volcanos in terms of actual land coverage however. My point wasnt to decide which was superior but merely to show that we do actually have some nice mountains around here if you know where to look, though most are just gentle rolling hills. Oregon is probably my favorite place on earth and I lived there for a while(in vida, less than two hours from sisters)
As for the jay peak
post #77 of 84
continued from last post...As for the jay peak comment I will have to look into that as I definitely remember seeing a few numbers in the realm of about 600. That being said I imagine that most places in alaska do far better than 600" even on not so great snow years, but there probably werent too many ski resorts in alaska 30-50 years ago so they might not really come into play. In regards to the big boys in the lower 48...take this year for example. We have had a terrible year for snow in most of the east(though jay somehow managed nearly 400" and is expecting another 18) yet many of the places in the rockies, sierra nevada, etc have been doing quite well. This pattern can go both ways and it is possible that somewhere like mount baker could have a bad year at the same time that the east is having a good year. So jay could have gotten the highest annual snowfall some time in the past (before I started skiing there). It may not be probable, but it is possible. I suppose the chances are that I misread that article while standing in the tram line but I also heard the same thing from a vermonter friend of mine when I called him and asked him about it. So who knows. I shall bring back some hard data after this weekend and until then I retract my claims.
post #78 of 84
Hey, Jay has a chance of coming out on top this year...if they pick up 400" in the next few weeks.

I would like to ski Jay some time, if I'm already in the neighborhood. However, with a 200" base here and well over 20 good powder days behind me this season, I doubt I'd pick up and head east anytime soon.
post #79 of 84
How much snow has baker gotten so far this year? They hold the all time record, correct? Or is it somewhere in Alaska?
post #80 of 84

Washington Mountains *are* gnarly

Because I lived for 22 years in Washington and know the state very well..I have to call major bs on this "Washington Mountains are Friendly Mountains" crap

Have you never heard of the:

Olympics-one of the youngest and most jagged ranges in the US

North Cascades-Dito

Enchantments/Stuart Range-Parts can easily be viewed from I-90

Check out "Selected Climbs in the Cascades" by Nelson and Potterfield if ya don't believe..many of these climbs are super tecnical

I would still be there if not for the gloomy winters and heavy wet snow..still love the state though
post #81 of 84
Yes, Baker has the record. In part that is because there are many places where snowfall isn't measured.

As of March 15, Baker had recorded 716" for the season. It hasn't been snowing much lately, so I would guess we're at about 760" or so now.

January was pretty amazing with 279".
post #82 of 84
Wow thats beyond belief. I think their record is somewhere above 1000", correct?
post #83 of 84
The record was 1140", recorded at the Heather Meadows base lodge at 4220'.

Worth noting also that this record was set 6000' below the summit of Mt. Baker proper, which is a few miles SW of the ski area.
post #84 of 84
Wow that is a massive amount of precip. Is that region rainforest as it is in parts of the oregon coast? I have been to the oregon coast MANY times and never have seen a bluebird day. It has either been raining, misting, or foggy each time, yet a few miles inland it is often beautiful. The climate of the PNW is fascinating.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion