powderfreak

Riding the thermal rollercoaster and we are on the steep climb again. Already 82F at 10:30am! Yesterday we did 47F to 88F then back to 46F this morning, now already 82F. I’ll have to look but the past month has had so many 40+ diurnal swings. We’ll do it again by noon probably. Has felt like the desert.

6z Euro had slightly better temps from Kev north to here and points west this weekend. Still crap but maybe 60s instead of upper 40s to mid-50s.

88F late this afternoon… 55F at 10:30pm. The spring-time dry heat and high diurnal ranges is truly some of the best weather of the year. It’s like an oven in the afternoon, followed by cool refreshing air at night. It’s very Chamber of Commerce.

That’s a big fire up there in Nova Scotia. And you are downwind of the dry northerly flow.

How would it go 70F though? 100F to 30F? I have to think like 50-55F? Maybe a Hundo to an Atlantic Maritime 45F? I feel like it would be a back door front hitting during some insane heater… just going torch to water temps over land.

Yeah that’s what the models are getting at. Only in June can you get this within 90 hours. Not January.

Yeah wouldn’t think it’s a widespread 1.50-4” of rainfall like they show but spokes of showery wet weather pinwheeling around is what that signal is. Localized heavy rain possibly among a general light showery regime. The ensemble mean is spreading QPF out way too much… it’s more the cooler damp signal.

That’s a crazy 24 hour turn around. Only in New England. 1pm Friday to 1pm Saturday. A/C to Heat on.

That 18z NAM run is wild. Easy too cold but crazy to look at. Look at the Saturday 2pm-8pm maximum temps lol. Saturday is 30 to 40 degrees colder than Friday. Then Saturday night it’s tickling upper 30s to low 40s in hills with 925mb temps of 1C… even some 0C just inland in Maine.

Yeah it’s interesting because both of their Ensemble means are biting on it too. GEFS EPS

Big soaker there. Euro.. GFS…

Dew points real low across the region. Roosters. Parts of CT Valley in the 30s for dews.

Its definitely a topic amongst many of the weather fanatics up this way and I think even the NWS guys/gals. I will say the mystic is what gets it going too. Everyone knows they get the most snow and it makes sense to me conceptually. Just not the amount of difference. But like I said, I think it's a function of collection differences and how one arrives to their seasonal snowfall numbers. They absolutely do better on NW flow, but that was lacking this season. The NW flow upslope spots did quite poorly. Underhill spots had 77" and 83" this past year, like 36" less than over here in Stowe Village (because of largely SE flow synoptic). In like 2010-11 which was huge upslope, those spots did about 200". Last year was an interesting one as the differences likely shouldn't have been as big either between the regions as there wasn't a standout NW flow. So like Killington had 200", same as Sugarbush and Mansfield only 20" more at 220". Fairly unified without big mesoscale influences. Meso-scale snow was much diminished this past winter, which is why the lower elevations were closer to normal than the summits (J.Spin touched on that nicely). Much of the lift was mid-level synoptic driven outside of the influences topography and that spreads wealth at all elevations.

Warm and dry. 86/43 now at 22% RH. Back to the desert soon.

Each individual event is within the possibility of reason as a stand alone... but it does get compounded over the course of a season. I saw it first hand at Stowe when we used to do it that way when I started and even the first couple of seasons before I realized what was happening. It's the estimating of new snowfall ranges and adding up the top number. And I think that change has happened at a lot of other local resorts too so you are seeing snowfall amounts compress a bit.

I guess in all that writing... my biggest take away is be very wary when you see every single snow report update showing a good sized 2-4" range in snowfall because that's likely just estimates and the first number is likely spot on for the base area, but the upper number can be dubious and compounds on itself. Take a larger synoptic snowstorm that starts Sunday afternoon... Mon AM... 5" parking lot, grooming team says it's snowy, blowing around 6"+ likely... report calls it 5-8" Mon PM... 5" more parking lot... skied deep and fun... easily felt like another 6+"... add another 5-7" (storm total 15" so far!) Tues AM... 3" wind blown parking lot... groomers are excited on radio but can't tell, it's been snowing sideways all night, another 6" easy (this happens when it all starts swirling around)... call it 3-6" and say unsure but could be more. Storm total is now 21" by adding up the top ranges. Parking lot though is only 13". Tues PM... maybe add another couple inches or so of wind blown snow showers... 1-3" or 2-4" additional. Now your at a 14" - 24" storm range total from a synoptic storm. Which quite honestly in my experience, is not how it plays out if you measure. Sub-freezing synoptic storms do not give 10" ranges with elevation. The 14" is correct but the estimating up high by adding a few more inches each time gets a bit much. Reality is probably 14 - 18" but 24" gets added to the seasonal total. And honestly, not many skiers will notice a difference between 18" and 24", it's a good snowstorm. Everyone is stoked. Who cares. No harm no foul. But that is exactly how adding 2-3" each period for "summit snow" can really start to escalate seasonal totals.

Add in Sugarbush with exactly 200" Mad River Glen has removed their snowfall but I believe they were 186". Killington 198". So you get something like this (and this year is I believe the largest difference I can remember between Jay Peak and the rest in terms of percentage). Jay Peak... 353" Smuggs... 223" Stowe... 221" Bolton... 241" MRG... 186" Sugarbush... 200" Killington... 198" I really do not want to start a "I don't believe Jay Peak" discussion because it doesn't get us anywhere. I do believe they get the most snow. It's also very windy and I know people who work in their marketing/comms. I also know they do not have any standardized way of measuring and it's really a guesstimate. Again, I have no real issue with that. Stowe for a long time was guesstimate with no true data point and I do believe it inflated the ski area's snowfall going back 10-30 years ago. Let's think for a second who has actual measuring set-ups, snowstake cameras, and real data points. Stowe has a live cam and we have the High Road and Barnes Camp snow plots (every single inch reported is physically measured, there is zero estimation). Smuggs has one now (not live cam but there's a physical spot where they measure snow most of the time in the same spot at the top of Sterling from the photos I've seen). Mad River Glen has a live snow cam. Sugarbush has a live snow cam. Killington has a snow plot at 4,000ft. I have been convinced over time that there is zero doubt the places with actual data points have seen snowfall totals come down a bit over the years. Sure, it hasn't been a great decade of snow for NNE but I won't lie, it becomes harder and harder to just straightforward accept big differences without some sort of controlled plot where you measure the same snow in the same place over and over and over. Another thing is snowfall ranges. Notice the areas that get rid of the "range" of snowfall and just put one number. The one number is often a single data point or blend of data points. The areas that give a range of snowfall, and always add up the highest number will greatly out-pace the rest because you are ALWAYS adding in the absolute maximum snowfall one might find on the snowiest or drifted spot on the mountain. In following various data points around Mansfield, I am convinced offering a range of snowfall inflates annual snowfall unless you take the median to create a seasonal tally. And just for context, here's how guesstimates go (this is what used to happen at Stowe a decade ago): It snows. Someone pops a ruler into the snow in the parking lot. Gets 5". Then just arbitrarily adds 3" for the upper mountain. Snow report says 5-8". 8" gets added to the seasonal total. Now, no one complains or really notices because hey, with drifting and stuff, it feels like 5-8". Now, what if you actually had a plot up high. You get 5" base area but only 6.5" up top? Sure you could say 5-8" and it still skis like that. We often round down unless we get closer to a full inch. So previously that guesstimate of 5-8" (which feels ok to most people too, because who really cares? It's fresh snow in the ballpark) now turns into 5-6" because you have a sheltered non-wind affected spot. It's not drifted and it's not scoured. All the sudden you are adding 6" to seasonal tally because it's controlled, instead of 5-8" and adding 8" to total. I'm not sure if this is making sense... but I have noticed a fairly sharp containment of snowfall at ski areas when it is not "estimated" as a range. If you are to pick one single value that describes snowfall across a mountain, you are aiming for a median value as to not piss off customers. So seasonal snowfall totals are now adding up closer to median values instead of the absolute top range of every single possible snowfall. Add in that the snowfall does vary quite a bit and say at Stowe you ski around and go from Bypass Chutes that ski like 10" of feathers at 3,600ft. But the High Road Plot at 3,000ft shows 7". We are putting 7" into the seasonal tally when in the past the Snow Reporter might have said 6-10" of new snow (and added in the 10" of fluff to the season total). I believe that mountains like Sugarbush, MRG, Stowe and Smuggs are all starting to measure a single value more and more, and it leads to a more controlled seasonal total. Watch it next season. Watch the places that *always* have a larger range in snowfall totals on the report and then count the top number. They will outpace the others almost exponentially. I've watched almost two decades of snowfalls and have estimated (wrongly at times) and measured multiple data plots for a decade now... and many snowfalls do not have the severe elevation dependent gaps that are often reported. Especially synoptic snowstorms. The public often doesn't even realize it either. If it is a synoptic snowstorm where temps are below freezing and there is 4" in the parking lots from mid-level lifting mechanisms... there's probably only 4-5" up high too (you got 0.40" water overnight and 4"... the upper mountain did not get 7" on 0.70" water). But if you are guesstimating and in the habit of just adding 3" to the base area snowfall, it will pad numbers quickly. That same overnight synoptic WAA snow reported as 4-7" likely measures 4-5".

81/46 at 11:10am. Going to be hot, might push near 90F. Going to be another an easy 40+ diurnal swing today.

I dunno, sounds fake lol.

Just noticed BTV has close to a heat wave forecast here locally. 88F, 91F, 90F next three days in Stowe. Dare I might say, a torch.

I was thinking the coast is also background cool in climo this time of year due to the ocean… there really haven’t been many back doors or days and days of onshore flow that’s baked into climo. So even a cooler NW flow could get BOS above normal a bit?

Yeah Wednesday and Thursday look like solid heaters. Montreal won today and should do well next two days.

lol I love Kev and you know he’s just rollin’ with whatever comes to mind… but it always gets a chuckle when the data comes in with the exact opposite of whatever statement was just made. Boston is warmest of them all .

Ha, your analysis usually make it easy. Just love your knee jerk reactions to any blue colors on any map. Your temp estimates were probably not far off for that look.

82F up here. KTOLLA55 at 70.4F. No torch there, struggling into the low 70s.