or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Steamboat Breaks record with 450"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steamboat Breaks record with 450"

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Steamboat breaks snowfall record yesterday with 450" so far this season. Too bad they are closing April 6....
post #2 of 31
Whooo, hooooo!
Some day you'll tell the story of the record year for snow fall being 2008, and you remember it because it was the year you suffered a groin injury.
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Steamboat breaks snowfall record yesterday with 450" so far this season. Too bad they are closing April 6....
LOL, they waited till I left.
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
LOL, they waited till I left.
Think about it.
post #5 of 31
We are well over 500 in JH this year and still gaining. I can't believe we got another 10" last night. I'm extra lucky today to be skiing with a group of crazy middle aged moms for the 3rd day in a row. They were really excited to be skiing a few double blacks yesterday. Finndog... next time you come here I promise to show you around better than I did this year.
post #6 of 31
2008 will possibly be the record year for many! I was at Steamboat last week and it was awesome. Champagne Powder and sunshine were my conditions for the week!
post #7 of 31
Resorts with big years so far (21MAR2008):

Alyseka - 755"
Alta - 583"
Jackson Hole - 545"
Grand Targhee - 519"
Stevens Pass - 508"
Solitude - 493"
Wolf Creek - 492"
Snowbird - 478"
Kirkwood - 462"
post #8 of 31
I love that we have more than Targhee this year. We probably won't hold on to it though as their season is longer
post #9 of 31
So does Alta really get more snow than Snowbird, or is it a matter of where each mountain locates their snow stake?
post #10 of 31
Alta tends to get more out of a storm because it's at the top of little cottonwood canyon. The really fires up the oragraphic precipitation factor. As air rises it cools, colder air can hold less moisture... so it dumps out. As this same air mass tops out and descends the other side of the mountain it warms and dries out. This warm dry downslope wind is called a foen or chinook. Chinook is inuit for snoweater as this condition tends to cause snow to sublimate and dissapear.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
So does Alta really get more snow than Snowbird, or is it a matter of where each mountain locates their snow stake?
There's no way that Alta can get 100 more inches than Snowbird. I'm sure they get a little more, but the snow stakes have got to be at different locations.
post #12 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Whooo, hooooo!
Some day you'll tell the story of the record year for snow fall being 2008, and you remember it because it was the year you suffered a groin injury.
Nice blend of pleasure and pain!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post
We are well over 500 in JH this year and still gaining. I can't believe we got another 10" last night. I'm extra lucky today to be skiing with a group of crazy middle aged moms for the 3rd day in a row. They were really excited to be skiing a few double blacks yesterday. Finndog... next time you come here I promise to show you around better than I did this year.
I'll be there the 3rd week in January! Too bad we couldn't have hooked up but I understood, you gotta make hay when the sunshines. I look forward to next season. :
post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchskier View Post
There's no way that Alta can get 100 more inches than Snowbird. I'm sure they get a little more, but the snow stakes have got to be at different locations.
Yeah - Alta's is at Alta and Snowbird's is at Snowbird.

Actually, I think the 100"+ discrepency is due to Alta measuring total seasonal snowfall and Snowbird (for some strange reason) measuring total snowfall since they started running lifts. Parts of Alta usually get a little more out of each storm, but it's a small amount. Definetly not anything that would add up to Alta getting 100"+ more per season.
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchskier View Post
There's no way that Alta can get 100 more inches than Snowbird. I'm sure they get a little more, but the snow stakes have got to be at different locations.
I don't know anything about Alta/Snowbird measuring methods, but snowfall in the mountains can vary widely in very short distances.
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Actually, I think the 100"+ discrepency is due to Alta measuring total seasonal snowfall and Snowbird (for some strange reason) measuring total snowfall since they started running lifts. Parts of Alta usually get a little more out of each storm, but it's a small amount. Definetly not anything that would add up to Alta getting 100"+ more per season.
Huh?

Who measures "seasonal snowfall"? You measure when the lifts start turning. Snowbird isn't strange -they're normal. Alta is the weird one. I know Howie their snow guy and I find it strange he'd deviate so much from the norm. Is that really what's going on with the difference between the two?

(Randy, if you're reading this, what do we do? Just curious.)
post #16 of 31
100 plus inches difference?

So, if alta gets on average, another inch (which isn't much) every day it snows over the ski season, which might be 100 days, it could get 100 more inches than Snowbird couldn't it?

Seems unlikely, but everyone knows how faulty snow reports can be.

LOL. the descripency of the snowfall between Alta and Snowbird could power every ski resort around here for a whole year.
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post
We are well over 500 in JH this year and still gaining. I can't believe we got another 10" last night. I'm extra lucky today to be skiing with a group of crazy middle aged moms for the 3rd day in a row. They were really excited to be skiing a few double blacks yesterday. Finndog... next time you come here I promise to show you around better than I did this year.
I see there is more expected over the next few days. I sure hope trend continues through next week since I get in to town Saturday.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr View Post
Resorts with big years so far (21MAR2008):

Alyseka - 755"
Alta - 583"
Jackson Hole - 545"
Grand Targhee - 519"
Stevens Pass - 508"
Solitude - 493"
Wolf Creek - 492"
Snowbird - 478"
Kirkwood - 462"
You're missing the one at the top.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinn View Post
Huh?

Who measures "seasonal snowfall"? You measure when the lifts start turning. Snowbird isn't strange -they're normal. Alta is the weird one. I know Howie their snow guy and I find it strange he'd deviate so much from the norm. Is that really what's going on with the difference between the two?

(Randy, if you're reading this, what do we do? Just curious.)
So the snow that creates your initial base doesn't count? Makes a difference if you're starting your season on 8" or 80".

Personally, I think whether the lifts are running or not is irrelevant. I ski before they start and after they stop.
post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinn View Post
Huh?

Who measures "seasonal snowfall"? You measure when the lifts start turning.
The total tells you how much has fallen overall; those amounts may be part of the total base (inbound or out) and also tells how much snow has fallen in a given winter season. Only counting after the start of the season would be discounting all the snow that had previously accumulated to create the base. You really only need to look at what's new! (given theres a decent base) :
post #21 of 31
Both places report a settled snow depth, and that would have to be a seasonal number (ie, unrelated to lift operations) to even make sense. Right now, Alta reports 152" and Snowbird 145". That number, and the 12/24/48 hour snowfall totals are probably all that really matter for a snow report. The total snowfall has flaws no matter how the zero is defined, so I suppose it doesn't matter as much.
post #22 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Both places report a settled snow depth, and that would have to be a seasonal number (ie, unrelated to lift operations) to even make sense. Right now, Alta reports 152" and Snowbird 145". That number, and the 12/24/48 hour snowfall totals are probably all that really matter for a snow report. The total snowfall has flaws no matter how the zero is defined, so I suppose it doesn't matter as much.
True, but it's still fun to see the total amount.
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr View Post
Resorts with big years so far (21MAR2008):

Alyseka - 755"
Alta - 583"
Jackson Hole - 545"
Grand Targhee - 519"
Stevens Pass - 508"
Solitude - 493"
Wolf Creek - 492"
Snowbird - 478"
Kirkwood - 462"
Mammoth has only gotten a paltry 339" so far.
post #24 of 31
Crested Butte is having a good one too! For their standards anyway. Those Alta snow totals are verrry impressive though.
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Both places report a settled snow depth, and that would have to be a seasonal number (ie, unrelated to lift operations) to even make sense. Right now, Alta reports 152" and Snowbird 145". That number, and the 12/24/48 hour snowfall totals are probably all that really matter for a snow report. The total snowfall has flaws no matter how the zero is defined, so I suppose it doesn't matter as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
True, but it's still fun to see the total amount.
I agree that it's fun to see the totals but I also think that the totals are important as well.

Here at Jackson Hole, I don't know that I've *ever* seen our settled base number much above what it is now at around 130". That said, it's been above 100" many times in the last ten years. Some of those years have provided great skiing and others have been so-so.

The difference THIS year is that we've had so much total snowfall that there are lines on the mountain that have become skiable this winter that really have only been that way in two other seasons since 1995. Just looking at our settled base wouldn't necessarily tell you that, and looking at the past 12 or 24-hour snowfall certainly wouldn't tell you that.

So, I think that a reliable total snowfall number is helpful in giving you a true feel for what the off-piste skiing might be at a given area. Conversely, it's probably true that if you're skiing mostly on-piste it doesn't matter a great deal if there's 60" or 130" of snow underneath the surface you're skiing on.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Conversely, it's probably true that if you're skiing mostly on-piste it doesn't matter a great deal if there's 60" or 130" of snow underneath the surface you're skiing on.
Maybe at mountains without any interest to the terrain. Here, the difference between what is skiable at 100", 200" and 300" base is significant. What's more, the base will not tell the entire story, as certain areas fill in with overall snowfall...many of the chutes will get wider as the base depth in the chutes will increase at a rate greater than the base depth. Some of the chutes now hold 400" and will be skiable well into the summer.

The other thing about season snowfall is the reflection of the number of deep powder days. I know just how fortunate we have been in that regard - Over 3/4 of my days this season have been boot deep or better. Mostly better.
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by skieast569 View Post
Crested Butte is having a good one too! For their standards anyway. Those Alta snow totals are verrry impressive though.


Monarch is at 432 for the season, thats gotta be close to a record for them.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
You're missing the one at the top.
OK, Harry, you obviously mean Mt. Baker. What's the total and where did you find it? I have never found a place where I can track total snowfall for the current season. They list past seasons on Baker's web site, but not this one. I've searched around on Google, but can't find it.

I have no doubt at all that you're correct. It must be up around 800" somewhere by now.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post
I have no doubt at all that you're correct. It must be up around 800" somewhere by now.
That's pretty close. I don't know of a website where it is posted unfortunately, so I just keep track weekly. I don't have an exact number but it should be somewhere between 800 and 850 now. Next year I'll do a better job getting the exact numbers entered.

BTW - did you make it yesterday? Snowing 1"+ per hour and nobody there.
post #30 of 31
I knew Baker had to be way up there, but it was the only big snow resort I couldn't find totals for.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Steamboat Breaks record with 450"