J.Spin

I’ve been checking it out for our site for a few years now, ever since Ginx pointed it out and the fact that CoCoRaHS stations are in there. I’ve found it generally to be quite good for my site. It definitely takes the empirical observations into account at times (see the data assimilation points in the plot) to at least augment the modeling, but they don’t seem to just immediately lock the modeling to the actual observed data points when they do the assimilations from what I’ve seen (and as you can see in the plot below). I don’t really follow the data for other sites to see how well its modeling reality, but I bet the meteorologists can provide more input on that. I’d suspect results are going to be better with the modeling if you’ve got consistent data input, such as at a CoCoRaHS or co-op site, but it’s not too hard to imagine that if you’ve got a site with zero empirical observations and 100% modeling (I’m not sure if they do that), the output could get quite far off from reality.

I hadn’t really checked the weather models much this week aside from a quick look in the short term to see if anything had changed for the bread and butter storms, but I just took a look ahead and I’m seeing some potential snow in our area on Tue/Wed? If it was just one model I’d guess it was nothing of note, but I just saw it on multiple models. The GFS seems to be trapping some moisture that hangs around for quite a while after the system passes. I guess we’ll see what the BTV NWS thinks about it in their afternoon AFD.

Oh, and the NOHRSC output does have a standard panel that tries to get at the snowpack layers (lower plot in the image below), and I think it’s roughly getting at the layers that PF is talking about. You can see the modeled settling in the very top layer of fluff, and at the very end of the modeling timeline what even looks like some compression in that lowest layer of faceted snow he mentioned:

Yeah, the snowpack topped out at ~18” here the other day, and it’s dropped a couple inches to 16” now. My last snowpack liquid analysis was on the 19th, when then snowpack had just shy of 2 inches of liquid in it. Based on what we’ve picked up in the past several days, we’re probably in the range of ~2.5” of liquid at this point? As I mentioned the other day, it looks like the NOHRSC modeling for our site (plot below) had the snowpack SWE a tad high because some of the Winter Storm Malcolm liquid when the temperatures were marginal probably percolated down through the snowpack here, and their modeling didn’t seem to account for that. They have now done a couple of assimilations of the actual data I’ve sent in (green lines on the plot), and I think they’ve reigned in the disparity a bit. The NOHRSC plot currently has our average snowpack density here at around 20%. As PF mentioned, there’s plenty of fluff on top in the form of dry snow from these recent days, so I know we’ll see some settling of that. But, there’s that very stout middle layer from the dense part of Winter Storm Malcolm that won’t settle much, and then a sugary/faceted layer below that representing the previous snowpack. I think it’s generally going to be the top portion of the pack settling as we go forward, so we’ll settle some, but it’s not as if the snowpack depth will get cut in half.

Ahh, it becomes much clearer now why Phin has been so very insistent about having that snowpack in place at the house. I’d be stressed as well if my main spiritual/emotional outlet during the winter was in jeopardy. We’re definitely glad he’s got the new spot in NNH.

LOL, don’t worry bwt, “epic” is totally subjective and fine to use whenever you want. As a skier, let’s just say that’s clearly a good sign if the word is even coming up in the conversation. Indeed, as PF alluded to, as a scientist, what I like about this forum is that one can dive into the data and actually get a sense for where things really stand vs. just simply relying on hype, poor memory, weenie hyperbole, agenda, opinion, anecdotes, recency bias, etc. etc. And I love that the meteorologists on here will often pull out real data to shut down misconceptions. I get it that for many folks, the forum is more focused on the entertainment aspect, and that’s great, but I really like the science/data-driven side a lot. A great analogy for what the forum is like from my perspective (and I mean the main threads for the most part, the NNE thread is pretty even-keeled), is like listening to Dr. Fauci talk about the COVID-19 pandemic on one hand, vs. listening to Donald Trump talk about the pandemic on the other. One of those presentations is more for show, publicity, entertainment, popularity, etc., whereas the other deals more with the nuts and bolts. One (you can probably imagine which one) is rather cringe-worthy from the perspective of someone who has been training and working in science for decades, and the other just clicks and makes sense. I’m clearly biased in my preference of course (Dr. Fauci was technically my boss during my years at NIAID), so it’s posts of that sort where I put a lot of my efforts. It is funny to think of us pulling out the data to tell folks how excited they should be, LOL. Hopefully I’m not overselling the past week with this one:

I’d been meaning to follow up on my initial “sub-epic” comment for bwt with an example, and it’s nice to see from the discussion that I wasn’t totally out to lunch somehow relative to the perspectives of some of the other NNE mountain veterans in here. As you can see from my comment above, I was thinking that for the period to more appropriately qualify as “epic”, we’d want to see some snow totals in the 1.5X to 2X range of what we saw this past week, and I wanted to grab an example. One that jumps to mind was that Feb 18-24 period in 2009, which did have back-to-back synoptic storms along the line of what PF mentioned as a possibility. I copied one of my forum posts from that period: That brings our total for this event to 18.2 inches, and our total for the back to back storms is 33.4 inches. As I suspected, some of the mountains have now hit six feet of accumulation from the last six days of snow. My daily email from Bolton Valley this morning had this to say: Six Feet of Snow. “Looking back at the log we keep of snowfall totals for the year I can hardly believe the last six days. It seems as if I am dreaming. We have measured snow of a foot or more on four of the last six days. We have a six day total of six feet. That's taller than most people. That's two yards of snow.” Here are some of the two-storm totals for local areas on the Green Mountain spine, listed north to south: Jay Peak: 68” Smugg’s: 54” Stowe: 52” Bolton 72” I was thinking there had to be periods where places like Jay Peak, with their penchant for upslope, have pulled in something in the 80-100” range in roughly a week duration (something roughly 2X what we saw this week), so I was glad when I saw that PF threw in that 80” value in his comment. Of course, this is all just dealing with the numbers and perspectives of various people – don’t let that get in the way of anyone who personally had a week that was epic for them. I think the veterans around here just wanted folks to have a sense for the fact that we’re nowhere near the ceiling on how weeks can go around here. If we get one of those systems that can hit up here where we get the full brunt of a big synoptic snowstorm and it tracks appropriately to drop a huge upslope event on the back side (I see PF mentioned 36” of upslope in 36 hours), that’s when the resorts can quickly get those 40”, 50”, or even 60” storm totals. Using the detailed snowfall numbers for individual storms on my site, and knowing the fairly consistent correlation of roughly 2 to 1 for snowfall at the local ski resorts of the Northern Greens relative to our site in the valley (which actually works fairly well on both a season-long, and storm-by-storm basis), I can provide estimates for the average frequency of storms of certain thresholds for the resorts of the Northern Greens. These numbers won’t really work for other parts of the region of course, but they definitely apply for bwt’s location at Jay Peak: Storm Size (snowfall) vs. Frequency of Occurrence 24”+: ~3 per season 30”+: ~2 per season 36”+: ~1 per season 40”+: ~1 per season 48”+: ~1 every other season So, on average for winter storms, the local mountains here should get about 3 two-footers a season, 1 three-footer a season, etc. etc. Note that this is not going to represent the frequency for mountains in other part of the Northeast of course, and certainly not for any valley locations, so folks hopefully aren’t looking at this and thinking that they’re going to be averaging a 40-incher every season at their house, or even their local ski area if it’s outside the Northern Greens. But if we’re doing that well in this area from a storm, then it’s probably not going to be an all-out famine at nearby mountain sites. This past week is a bit tough to compare in terms of the individual storm frequency estimation methodology because the snow was derived from what my records show as four storms. Here are the various storm totals from our site: 1/16/2021: 12.2” 1/19/2021: 2.9” 1/20/2021: 2.9” 1/21/2021: 8.4” The first storm in that series (Winter Storm Malcolm) represents the main synoptic one with the dense snow that kicked off this past week, so if you following my usual methodology, that one should be roughly a two-footer for the local resorts. PF did mention that the mountain-to-valley snowfall ratios haven’t been quite as disparate as usual for this week’s snowfall (one can take that as either “yay” for the valleys or “bummer” for the mountains I guess), but how did my data correlation work with respect to Winter Storm Malcolm? If one goes back to my storm summary for the VT ski areas for Malcolm on Monday, you’ll see that when it was all said and done, the resorts along the spine had picked up 18-24” from that one. Yeah, the Northern Greens specifically, were only topping out around 20” in this case, but these things are all going to be ± to some degree of course, and I can certainly live with that. That’s actually the first 12”+ storm I’ve got in my records for this season, which means (barring some early season elevation bomb that wouldn’t have affected our site) that must be the first roughly two-footer for the Northern Greens this season? That potentially speaks to the way the season has gone around here thus far, but is it outrageously late for the first two-foot storm? As I was writing this, I realized that I’ve got some data for that. The average date for the first 12” storm of the season here at our site (thus an ~24” storm for the local mountains) is January 3rd, with a pretty large S.D. of 34 days. So, this would be a couple weeks later than average for the first storm of this size in the mountains, but it’s still nothing unheard of. This past week should definitely get a gold start in terms of mountain snowpack/ski quality recovery efforts though, as bwt proposed. The zero to hero factor for the week was excellent.

Event totals: 8.4” Snow/0.21” L.E. We’re really cleared out now, so it looks like this will be the last accumulation to report from this system, and the numbers above should be the final totals. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.1 inches New Liquid: 0.01 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 10.0 Snow Density: 10.0% H2O Temperature: 1.6 F Sky: Mostly Clear Snow at the stake: 16.0 inches

There was technically that more substantial synoptic storm to kick off this run, but there’s really no two ways about it at this point; you’ve definitely been able to experience a solid NNE bread and butter week now Phin. It’s funny, the whole “days and days” thing is actually a sarcastic snow weenie meme that they use in the main threads sometimes, but it’s not a joke up here, it really does that. Actually, tomorrow will be the 30th day in a row that we’ve recorded a trace of more of snow at our site, so we’re in quite a long run of flakes since Christmas

So you’re saying we have to deal with this guy and all his buddies now? Sigh… he has a mean look.

Event totals: 8.3” Snow/0.20” L.E. Well, flake size is way down today, and at 5.0% H2O this is the densest snow I’ve seen from this whole storm. We’ll blame those damn arctic hounds PF was talking about and assume they’re messing up the dendritic growth. Details from the 12:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.2 inches New Liquid: 0.01 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 20.0 Snow Density: 5.0% H2O Temperature: 17.1 F Sky: Light Snow (1-3 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 17.5 inches

Event totals: 8.1” Snow/0.19” L.E. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 2.0 inches New Liquid: 0.05 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 40.0 Snow Density: 2.5% H2O Temperature: 12.0 F Sky: Flurries Snow at the stake: 18.0 inches

I hadn’t checked on the resort snow totals for the past week, so your comment got me thinking and I just assembled the list below to see where things stood as of this evening. As expected, Jay Peak is leading the pack with 46”. For perspective, at least with respect to just snowfall numbers for the past week, I don’t think we’re really in “epic” territory. I’d say the week is actually better characterized as “very solid”, or “strong”, or “great”, or something along those lines. Obviously these terms are highly subjective, but for “epic” (sort of a “once-a-season” type of week), I’d want to see snowfall numbers 1.5X to 2X what we’ve seen this week. The snowfall numbers below, or even higher totals, could easily be picked up in one solid storm cycle over the course of a couple of days, and then if the rest of the week has solid daily snows, or you happen to get a second big, synoptic storm, you can imagine where the numbers would end up. I think for describing the overall ski conditions, “epic” might have a better chance, simply because it was that perfect combination of starting off with a hefty shot of beautifully dense, high L.E. snow, followed by day after day after day of very solid refreshers of midwinter dry powder. That’s seriously what makes for the best ski surfaces, so conditions have just been really good. And, the “zero to hero” factor sort of makes it feel somewhat more epic than it really is. I still think we’re falling short of “epic” all around though – the existing snowpack was just way too shallow starting off the week to immediately go to that “no holds barred” type of off piste skiing. To that point, I see that the snowpack at the Mt. Mansfield Stake is 36” (vs. an average of 44”), so we’re still below average in that regard and really haven’t even reached the point of the 40” rule yet. I feel like we’ve at least got to get there before we get into “epic” territory. Of course it’s all subjective, but no doubt it’s been a very solid week for snowfall and ski conditions around here. It would be interesting to hear where PF would place the week for Stowe based on his extensive experience. North to south listing of available 7-day snowfall totals from the Vermont ski areas: Jay Peak: 46” Burke: 18” Smuggler’s Notch: 32” Stowe: 35” Bolton Valley: 29” Mad River Glen: 30” Sugarbush: 30” Pico: 36” Killington: 36” Okemo: 23” Magic Mountain: 19” Mount Snow: 35”

Event totals: 6.1” Snow/0.14” L.E. Details from the 10:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.8 inches New Liquid: 0.02 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 40.0 Snow Density: 2.5% H2O Temperature: 21.9 F Sky: Light Snow (1-2 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 17.0 inches

Yeah, absolutely, in some cases, you just need to go full tilt with studded snows to ensure that you’re going to have bomb-proof transportation if you live in a challenging location.

Yeah, the Nokian WR series; we learned about them from a close friend who ran them on his Subaru. We’ve been running them on our Subarus for probably more than a decade now, and we’ve never looked back. They’re on to the fourth generation at this point (Nokian WR G4), and they’re always trying to improve the unique combination of snow and dry road performance. Obviously, one can go with a more aggressively winter tire, such as a full blown Nokian snow tire, or even studded tires if they really need to, but the beauty of the WRs is the ability simply “set it and forget it” and really get winter performance close to a full blown snow tire. Anyone who runs two full sets of tires knows how much of a headache it can be to get them changed, even if you’ve got two sets of rims and you’re doing it yourself, but an even bigger factor that I like removed is the when component. Around here, especially as someone who is always heading up into the higher elevations to ski, I can need tires to deal with snowy ski area parking lots and snowy inclined roads from October through May. What are the options – run summer tires just for June, July, August, and September, and leave winter tires on for the other eight months of the year? Or, do you put them on late/take them off early and deal with potentially getting stuck in snow during the fringe seasons? Using the WRs really takes all that hassle and guessing out of the equation, and for an all-wheel drive vehicle like a Subaru, you’ve got plenty of great winter performance without having to go to a full blown snow tire or studs. Yeah, the softer rubber on WRs is going to wear a bit faster than what’s on all seasons or summer tires, but to us, that’s nothing compared to the time and money that would be spent changing tires over on multiple vehicles every spring and fall.

I agree with respect to the wind issue for MWN, and it’s good that you mentioned the ravines, because it’s not as if the snow is just nuked into oblivion, it still has to go somewhere. So for MWN, they really should be able to get a more reasonable representation of the snowfall in Tuckerman Ravine or at Hojo’s. Unfortunately, I don’t think either of those sites has consistent snowfall monitoring, and from what I’ve heard, even Pinkham Notch isn’t monitoring snowfall consistently anymore? Pinkham is probably too far removed from the summit to actually be a good representation of summit snowfall anyway (it’s more representative of a “base elevation” snowfall), but it’s still unfortunate if they’re not keeping up the records. With that said, MWN is at least cognizant of the challenges in collecting snow in an extremely windy environment, and they have some measures in place to adapt to it. They’re always doing experimental weather stuff up there, so I bet they’ve experimented with different approaches and are getting a more reasonable number than many could in that environment. Contrast that to Mt. Mansfield, where they were (according to PF’s research) simply using a standard metal rain gauge to try to collect snow on the ridgeline, and of course they were engineers associated with the communications towers, not meteorologists or scientists that might be trained to deal with those nuances of snow collection. That’s why PF has his plot around 3,000’ on the east side of Mansfield; it’s essentially the Mansfield version of collecting the snow that falls on the MWN ridgeline and gets blown into the ravines. It’s probably a better overall representation of Mansfield’s upper elevation snowfall in a meteorological sense, and it’s certainly a better representation of what people are actually skiing each season, since the east slope is where people ski, not the windswept ridge line. I’m still not convinced that Cannon is actually missing out on recording much actual snowfall though, or at least relevant snowfall. OK, so the higher elevations of Cannon Mountain are blasted by wind (just like all the other high peaks around here), but as I mentioned above, the snow has to go somewhere. It’s not as if that snow is going to blow 10 or 20 miles away, it should be collecting on the leeward side of the mountain, just like for MWN and Mansfield. A lot of the trails at Cannon appear to face north (good choice for snow preservation), so they would not really be collecting snow from north or northwest winds, but those trails could get summit snow from more southerly winds. The terrain in the tram area terrain certainly has some easterly component to it that would catch summit snow on westerly winds. Some of the issue could come down to where the ski area is measuring their snowfall, but I can’t imagine that after many decades of the ski area being there, they haven’t figured out where/how to do that effectively. If they’re trying to measure near the summit, then they have likely figured out a sheltered spot that collects snow by now. Or, if they’re measuring mid-slope, then that really should be an accurate representation of the snow that falls there, where people are skiing, so the numbers are the numbers. There’s also the ground truth of people going there and frequently experiencing icy conditions, which indeed can speak to wind if you’re near the summit, but the mountain has trees, so if the icy nature of the surfaces isn’t improving quickly as you get descend out of the summit winds, that’s still not a great sign with respect to the mountain’s overall snowfall.

Event totals: 5.3” Snow/0.12” L.E. Details from the 12:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.9 inches New Liquid: 0.03 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 30.0 Snow Density: 3.3% H2O Temperature: 33.3 F Sky: Flurries Snow at the stake: 17.0 inches

Event totals: 4.4” Snow/0.09” L.E. After a relative lull in the precipitation overnight, I was ready to make this morning’s observations the last for the Thursday system, but looking at the BTV NWS AFD and the models, all these rounds of snow are parts of this same low pressure moving through southern Quebec, so I’ll keep them together as part of the same system. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.2 inches New Liquid: Trace Temperature: 23.7 F Sky: Flurries Snow at the stake: 17.0 inches

Event totals: 4.2” Snow/0.09” L.E. Details from the 8:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.8 inches New Liquid: 0.02 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 40.0 Snow Density: 2.5% H2O Temperature: 22.3 F Sky: Light Snow (1 to 5 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 18.0 inches

Uh, oh – you are NH and not VT though, so possibly no Subaru?

Yeah, skiing ice, especially steep ice, isn’t just “unfun” or irritating (although you can find people who would argue this), it’s also quite dangerous. See Ginx’s comment for an example, and I’ve actually had to save friends from similar “slide for life” encounters in the past. Sure, skis have metal edges, but even experienced mountaineers are smart enough to know not to go on steeply pitched ice without crampons and an axe. Yes, many expert skiers see skiing ice as a “badge of honor” sort of thing, and that’s to each their own of course, but I ski for fun/recreation/exercise etc., so if it’s not fun, I’m not going to force myself to do it. The analogy I always use for skiing hard snow/ice is like going swimming on a cold, windy day, with water temperatures in the 50s F. Sure, you can do it, but what’s the point? For typical, high-traffic, lift-served terrain around here, I find there’s generally an inverse correlation between steepness and snow quality – so much more pressure is applied on steep turns that it just beats down and or scrapes away the snow that much quicker. Obviously, when conditions are really good, or you’re in low traffic or backcountry terrain, you can get both steep terrain and high quality snow if you want, but for typical lift-served terrain, it’s often a compromise between the two. Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to these opposing forces, but given my preference, I’ll typically sacrifice some pitch for better quality snow. After thinking about your experience at Cannon today, it got me thinking about the nearby NH ski areas around you (see map below), and if I had to rank them in terms of typical snow quality based on both personal experience and what I read, I think I’d go as follows, going from lowest to highest: 1) Cannon 2) Wildcat 3) Bretton Woods 4) Balsams So, yeah, I think that on average, Cannon is probably going to have the roughest snow quality of the areas near you. It’s unfortunate, but I think Balsams isn’t even running their one main lift anymore as the resort is in limbo regarding plans for a bigger resort, but from everything I’ve read (high snowfall, low skier traffic, etc.) I think they would offer some really nice snow surfaces. There’s also Black Mountain as possibly the next closest in proximity to you on that map? I’ve seen the mountain, but haven’t skied there, and I don’t see enough reports to get a sense for their snow quality. They are a bit lower in elevation, so that may affect their snowfall/snow quality to some degree, but folks who know that area can probably fill us in.

Yeah, Cannon in not exactly famous for the quality of its skiing surfaces, unless you’re a racer looking for something to sink your insanely sharp edges into without any loose snow to throw you the slightest bit off your line. I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1) Relatively speaking, I don’t think the area gets a lot of snow. 2) The mountain gets pretty harsh weather, with plenty of wind. 3) For a mountain location in NNE, it really seems like they just don’t get a lot of snow. Yes, I mentioned the snowfall twice, LOL, but I think it’s a big factor. I got lucky the last time I was there and I think we had about six inches of fresh snow to ski, but take a look at the recent opinion article below: Opinion: Cannon Mountain, NH Has the Most Underrated Terrain in New England Obviously it’s opinion, but I bet most skiers in the know would agree with this statement from the article: “The problem is despite being one of the coldest locations in New England, Cannon often gets the shaft from Mother Nature. The resort can only claim an average annual snowfall of 160″, approximately 200″ shy of Jay Peak. As a result, Cannon doesn’t often reach its full potential and show the world its world-class terrain. If this mountain was located in Vermont, it would be in the elite company of Jay Peak, Smugglers Notch, and Stowe. Unfortunately, it is in central New Hampshire and is a sheet of ice more often than not.” The mountain does really have some impressively steep terrain that easily rivals the steep stuff at other resorts in the region, so that’s fantastic. But the steeper the terrain, the more snow it takes to appropriately cover it. If you don’t get the prodigious natural snow needed to cover terrain like that, you’re either going to have to cover it with icy manmade snow (which only becomes icier with use because steep terrain requires harder edging and thus results in more scraping) or you leave it with incredibly boney, dangerous, natural snow coverage, and you’ll need to have it closed a significant amount of time anyway. Just think about the 160” annual snowfall quoted in that article though – I believe that’s less annual snowfall than you probably get at your house. It’s a 4,000’+ peak in NNE, so how in the heck do they not get the snow? I’m sure the forum meteorologists and NH locals can comment on why the area doesn’t get more snowfall relative to a lot of other mountain locations, and it would be interesting to hear that discussion. Also note, you were just there today. It’s not as if we’re in one of those exclusively Northern Greens patterns this week. A lot of NNE is getting in on these daily snows, so if a resort doesn’t have some seriously kick ass conditions right now, there’s probably something suboptimal with respect to their mountain climate. They’re probably in a spot that misses out on a lot of that NNE magic. Again, if you get some fresh snow, Cannon can be great (see my Cannon trip report), and the Mittersill area is some really cool sidecountry (although that unfortunately might not be the case anymore because I think they rejuvenated the running of a lift there?). Some people are blissfully oblivious to icy trail conditions, and it may not even matter to them, but based on your comments about today, you obviously aren’t one of them at this point. I’d say follow the advice of that article and watch for when Cannon does get snow to go and have some fun on their great terrain. I’m sure there are forum members in here or in the ski thread who frequent the mountain and may be able to give you the best advice on when to go, or perhaps what parts of the mountain are better than others with respect to the ice factor.

You know, I’ve been thinking about this post for the past couple of days, and when I first saw it, my immediate thought was, “Well, you don’t need to worry about those other groups, you’re in the Dendrite group”. Did you used to have something like that in your signature, or was it somebody else? There’s always that running discussion in the forum about where the demarcations for the SNE, CNE, and NNE regions belong, and obviously it’s a point of contention because there’s no perfect answer. I think CNE is the hardest to define (I haven’t even found something to work as a representative CNE “link” yet), because at the most basic level, you’ve got this northern border of MA that one can just use to define SNE as RI, CT, and MA, and NNE as VT, NH, and ME if you’re just going to split the region in two. Or, it looks like you can consider SNE as whatever is south of the CT/RI/MA border, then I guess MA is CNE, and NNE is north of that. A main issue for the NNE area is that proximity to the major mountain ranges drastically changes the complexion of the climate, and the effects of latitude (certainly with respect to snowfall/precipitation) really breaks down. Latitude, or even a combination of latitude and longitude to impart distance from the coast and incorporate modest elevation increases moving away from the coastal plain, works pretty well until you run into some of the major mountain ranges. Once you get to the major mountains, then a lot of things break down, and you’ve got these unique microclimates. In terms of snowfall, many of the mountain valleys around here along the spine average more snow than even a place like Caribou, despite the lower latitude. It’s hard to argue that you guys in VT, NH, and ME outside the major NNE mountain ranges are somehow CNE (and that’s essentially impossible for someone like Tamarack with his latitude), but the climate is definitely different without the prominent mountain effects on weather/climate. There’s definitely been an uptick in NNE mountain dwellers in the forum in recent months, but I don’t know at what point the area would be worth its own thread – the whole NNE thread is still pretty small potatoes relative to the main threads in the forum.

We just traveled back from the Lebanon/Hanover area, and it was snowing the whole way, so this seems to be hitting much of NNE with at least some snow. The heaviest snowfall we saw was actually as were setting out from the Connecticut River Valley/West Lebanon area into Vermont, and counter to what one typically sees, the snowfall was lighter through the higher elevations of I-89. Naturally, we could have been leaving during an uptick/burst, and it’s always hard to make solid comparisons among areas when you’re traveling in both time and space. Snowfall ramped up a bit as we approached Waterbury, and then a bit more as we headed farther west to the house. I’d still call the snowfall intensity we saw here light to perhaps moderate, but the flakes were larger at our site relative to what we saw along the route. Obviously snow growth has been quite potent here along the spine with the accumulation thus far coming in at almost a 50 to 1 ratio.