Ski Patroller

Wildcat reporting 13" of fresh powder in the 6AM Conditions Report and snowing like hell.

Nice app, but no way to the subscription model. Let us buy the darn software.

https://www.mountwashingtonavalanchecenter.org/forecasts/#/presidential-range

Avalanche Watch
ISSUED Tuesday, April 2, 2024 - 4:00PM EXPIRES Friday, April 5, 2024 - 4:00PM
What

A significant winter storm, bringing the possibility of 30+ inches of snow and strong wind to the higher summits in the Presidential Range, will create dangerous avalanche conditions.
When

In effect from Tuesday, April 2, 2024 - 4:00PM to Friday, April 5, 2024 - 4:00PM
Where

The Presidential Range avalanche forecast area, including but not limited to Tuckerman Ravine, Huntington Ravine, Gulf of Slides, Great Gulf, King Ravine, Burt Ravine, Ammonoosuc Ravine, Oakes Gulf and steep, open terrain in the mountains that are bounded by US Rt 2, US Rt 302, and NH Rt 16. This includes hiking trails that traverse across steep terrain like Summer Lion Head trail. Similar avalanche danger may exist at locations outside the coverage area where steep, open terrain exists that has collected wind drifted snow.
Impacts

Large, destructive avalanches are likely to occur naturally and spontaneously and will exist throughout steep terrain including hiking trails.These avalanches may be large enough to bury multiple people, do significant damage to trees or buildings, and will likely run far down in paths or to areas that are normally considered safe zones. Precipitation rates are forecast to be heavy, with 1-2 inches of snow falling per hour at times and visibility limited.
Precautionary/Preparedness Actions

As the storm develops, expect rapidly changing and dangerous conditions. Strong winds and heavy snow will limit visibility with white out conditions expected. Avoid traveling in or near avalanche terrain.

Assuming that the forecast for the Presidential Range holds, any opinions on the expected quality of the snow? Any chance of dry powder? Thanks.

8.3F in NW CT this morning, and just about 6" of snowpack.

Jiminy Peak may miss the heaviest, too. Hoping that the bullseye moves up into the Berkshires/S. Greens...

On 2/3/2020 at 5:49 AM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Had a great weekend at Stratton with firm groomers offering plenty of speed. Even in crap winters there are good days to be had if you put in the time. 

It's almost impossible to predict conditions from home. I'm a ski patroller and way more often than not I bitch my way to the mountain, expecting the worst, and get  nicely surprised.

Colebrook, CT

3.2" today, 16.3" for season

On 1/25/2019 at 12:57 AM, snowlover91 said:

 

Read what was posted. If you want to advance in one of these fields then research needs to agree with AGW theory or else you have no future in said field. That’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not saying it’s a coordinated effort or hoax. I’m saying the emphasis on AGW, “saving the planet”, and other similar ideals are widely perpetrated in both the media and academia. To that end the pressure is to conform to that standard and it’s quite easy for scientific research to succumb to a “group think” mentality when this type of emphasis is in place. Whether intentional or not the pressure pushes people that direction. 

I also have to disagree about climate scientists having nothing to gain. They have everything to gain. Their current job stability, funding, grants, opportunities to advance in their field, etc. There are immense amounts of money used for “green” projects in countries all over the world, we are talking billions and billions of dollars. Governments fund various projects, grants, research fields, etc dealing with climate change and other areas. It’s ludicrous to say these people have nothing to gain.

Just in the US alone here are some numbers concerning tax payer money going to climate change related uses. https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

“From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.

If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.”

It's almost as if this writer has no understanding whatsoever about how science is done. And citing increases in funding as proof of conspiracy ignores the fact that money follows the problem, not the other way around. I work in a dendrochronology lab and the claims in this post are outright laughable and right out of the Fox News playbook. No legit scientist is going to put his entire career on the line by faking data - all of which is subject to peer review and shared with other researchers who scrutinize every word.

Denial is nothing but right-wing politics at its frothy worst. Our lab gets emails all of the time from deniers, and we don't respond, having learned that such people are borderline cultists in their denial.