J.Spin

Event totals: 5.1” Snow/0.84” L.E. Details from the 12:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.5 inches New Liquid: 0.02 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 25.0 Snow Density: 4.0% H2O Temperature: 35.2 F Sky: Light Snow (2 to 10 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 4.0 inches

Event totals: 4.6” Snow/0.82” L.E. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.3 inches New Liquid: 0.01 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 30.0 Snow Density: 3.3% H2O Temperature: 30.2 F Sky: Light Snow (2 to 8 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 3.5 inches

Event totals: 4.3” Snow/0.81” L.E. Details from the 12:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.7 inches New Liquid: 0.06 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 11.7 Snow Density: 8.6% H2O Temperature: 30.2 F Sky: Flurries Snow at the stake: 3.5 inches

Indeed, we’ve had ¾” of liquid put down into the snowpack so far here in the valley, so that’s a solid resurfacing above the old base. Apropos on that note, right in line with the forecast it’s just switched back over to snow down here at 500’ in the valley, with huge flakes pouring down. Hopefully the mountains can catch a solid topping over all the dense stuff we’ve been getting.

Event totals: 3.6” Snow/0.75” L.E. There was another period of light freezing rain around here in the midafternoon period, and then the precipitation changed back to sleet. More recently we’re starting to get some snow in the mix as well, and the forecast indicates that precipitation is supposed to change fully back over to snow this evening. Details from the 6:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.4 inches New Liquid: 0.10 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 4.0 Snow Density: 25.0% H2O Temperature: 28.9 F Sky: Light Snow/Sleet Snow at the stake: 3.0 inches

As long as it’s been treated I don’t think it should be too bad in this area – precipitation isn’t all that heavy right now (some sleet with occasional flakes) and temperatures aren’t overly cold.

Event totals: 3.2” Snow/0.65” L.E. The precipitation has been mostly sleet this morning, although there was some glaze in there as well that indicates we had some freezing rain overnight. More recently, snow has been mixing back into the precipitation as well. Details from the 12:00 P.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.7 inches New Liquid: 0.26 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 2.7 Snow Density: 37.1% H2O Temperature: 30.4 F Sky: Sleet/Snow (5 to 15 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 3.5 inches

Event totals: 2.5” Snow/0.30” L.E. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 1.3 inches New Liquid: 0.16 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 8.1 Snow Density: 12.3% H2O Temperature: 31.5 F Sky: Light snow grains/sleet Snow at the stake: 3.5 inches

Event totals: 1.2” Snow/0.14” L.E. The precipitation here has generally been snow, but I did see some more granular flakes/sleet out there at one point that probably bumped up the density of the accumulation a bit. Details from the 12:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 1.2 inches New Liquid: 0.14 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 8.6 Snow Density: 11.7% H2O Temperature: 30.0 F Sky: Snow (2 to 15 mm flakes) Snow at the stake: 2.0 inches

It looks like snow started up here in Waterbury around 8:45 P.M.

I’ve got the updated advisory and projected accumulation maps from the BTV NWS below – they indicated that the latest guidance has been a bit warmer, with more mixed precipitation and slightly less snow, so it looks like they adjusted the maps accordingly.

Below are the latest maps for upcoming Winter Storm Gage from the BTV NWS. For projected accumulations through midday Tuesday, shading is generally in the 6-8” range for snow in valleys in this area, with some 8-12” shading for the parts of the spine of the Greens. The point forecast here suggests something in the 5-11” range through Tuesday, although the models also suggest another couple of days of snow with upslope on the back side of the storm cycle continuing into Thursday: .LONG TERM /TUESDAY NIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY/... As of 452 AM EST Sunday...We remain on the backside of an upper low slowly progressing eastwards on Wednesday. There are still a few vort maxes within that will advect across the North Country during the day. Coupled with a cooler air mass and southwest flow, we should see favorable conditions for snow showers during the day. This will be most true along the Greens and Adirondacks, where orographic enhancement will aid development. The slopes will benefit for the New Year.

Here’s this afternoon’s projected accumulations map from the BTV NWS through 7:00 P.M. Tuesday:

I just got a text alert that we’re under a Winter Storm Watch in association with this next system, which has been named Winter Storm Gage.

I saw that in the discussion and was going to post about it as well. The models have been showing some potentially decent backside snows for quite a while, even back when the storm looked like it was going to be substantially warmer. Ideally it would be nice to get some dense snow topped off by higher ratio powder to cover the old base and set up the powder skiing, but we’ll have to see how it plays out. The BTV NWS mentioning it is a good sign though.

Event totals: 0.2” Snow/0.04” L.E. We picked up a couple tenths of snow on the front end of this system, but since then the precipitation has generally been liquid and very light. We’re still under a Winter Weather Advisory in the area until 11:00 A.M. Details from the 6:00 A.M. Waterbury observations: New Snow: 0.2 inches New Liquid: 0.01 inches Snow/Water Ratio: 20.0 Snow Density: 5.0% H2O Temperature: 34.7 F Sky: Cloudy/Mist/Sprinkles Snow at the stake: 2.5 inches

These next couple of systems (a smaller one on Friday, and then a larger one starting Sunday) have generally looked like mixed precipitation, but the back side of the second one seems to consistently show snow potential in the models. It’s interesting that some models like the ECMWF and CMC show more wintry potential in that second system, but the BTV NWS doesn’t even mention anything about that in their discussion, so I wouldn’t lend it much credence at this point. For now, I’d certainly watch that Monday/Tuesday period for potential ski options depending on how the back side of the storm cycle plays out.

Well, it was likely that things would pop up at some point, and it looks like tonight is the first one of those. It’s obviously tenuous because it’s not even indicated on every model, but it’s there on the CMC, ICON, ECMWF, NAM 3km, WRF-ARW, WRF-ARW2, WRF-NMM, RGEM, etc. The thoughts as of this afternoon from the BTV NWS indicate that it’s fairly minimal and likely at elevation, but at least a bit of accumulation is a possibility here in the northern mountains: .NEAR TERM /THROUGH TUESDAY NIGHT/... As of 315 PM EST Monday...Mainly a persistence forecast over the next 42 hours with new NBM/blended data incorporated into existing datasets. A cold front remains on track to cross the area through the early to mid evening hours with winds shifting from south/southwesterly to northwesterly in the 6 to 10 pm time frame. Little sensible weather is expected along the boundary other than a trend toward cloudier conditions and some spotty sprinkles/flurries across elevated northern terrain where spot accumulations of a dusting to perhaps a half inch will be possible above 1500 feet. It looks like we might be moving beyond this bit of a snowfall lull though, with the models suggesting a potential system for Thursday/Friday and then another on Sunday.

Actually, Jay Peak has some of their most recent seasons (since the ’09-’10) listed on their website: https://jaypeakresort.com/skiing-riding/mountain You can also use the Co-Op data from the Jay Peak base and correct for summit elevation as I mentioned, either one should provide some decent numbers.

You have to remember, most of the resorts around here are going to make their snowfall measurements near the summits, or typically from mid-mountain up (PF makes his upper mountain measurements at 3,000’, approximately 75% of the way up Stowe’s lift served vertical). It’s essentially experiences like what you mentioned above that cause people to bitch and moan about the resorts inflating snowfall numbers. I’ve only been to Wildcat a couple of times, so I can’t speak much about their reporting, but I’ve been to Jay Peak numerous times. The reality of that day is most likely that in the wee hours of the early morning on the Jay Peak day you mentioned, when a patroller or mountain ops guy made his measurement, there were 9 inches in one of their usual high elevation, protected leeward spots. There’s probably less in most spots on the mountain, especially with the way snowfall drops off with elevation. Then you’ve got a few hours of settling before the skiers actually get there and start skiing it, and voila, it looks like there’s half the snow they said there was. Resorts should, and many do, provide the range of depths from summit to base to correctly inform the public. They essentially can’t account for the settling unless they literally deflate their numbers, and it’s really hard to blame them for not decreasing their observed snowfall by some amount to somehow account for potential settling. PF typically tries to go conservative on his numbers when he feels he needs to because he knows these things. I can tell you that in many hundreds and hundreds of lift-served ski days here in VT, I’ve never been duped by the snow reports. I follow the snowfall around here extremely closely as most on the forum know, so I’m well aware that they’re reporting early morning depths, from high elevation spots, before settling. I typically even know the density of the snow that fell, and what sort of settling to expect. The average skier/rider doesn’t know all this stuff though, so what one ends up with are the typical stories of overinflated totals that you describe.

Ahh, OK, if they’re averaging near 200” in the Hermit Lake Shelter area that makes more sense – when you mentioned that it was over 100” less than the summit I figured that meant they were averaging <180”. And indeed, I think the Mt. Washington summit area could average something like 350” or so, but they just haven’t got a convenient protected, calm, high-elevation spot on the leeward side of the mountain to make the measurements the way they’re done here at the ski resorts (such as with PF’s setup).

Wow, I didn’t know they’d started monitoring snowfall at the Hermit Lake Shelter area. How on earth are they measuring over 100” less than what the summit is measuring? That means they’re measuring what 150-175” of snowfall. That’s not all that different than what I record here at 500’, and just doesn’t seem to make sense for a site at 3,875’ in the Whites unless they’re in some sort of horrible shadow area. Is that 100” – 350” range you mentioned above for the Jay Peak Co-Op site? If so, note that they’re numbers from the base elevation, so a 350” number is quite substantial. That would translate to ~574” at summit elevation based on the typical gradient. Was that 350” for 2000-2001? If so, that year the resort reported snowfall of 571”, which would actually be pretty much in line with what you’d expect near the summit. https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Summary-US-State-Historical-Snowfall-Extremes

It’s good that you brought up those data, because actually, since people are typically loath to believe the resort snowfall numbers, the Jay Peak Co-Op numbers are some of the strongest (unbiased?) support for the 300”+ annual snowfall averages near the summits of the Northern Greens. Note that the ~1,840’ Jay Peak Co-Op site is actually at the base of Jay Peak. The 3,858’ summit is over 2,000’ higher. If one uses PF’s numbers from Mt. Mansfield (~200” @ 1,500’ = ~300” @ 3,000’), you get a roughly 16% increase in snowfall for each 500 ft. of elevation gain on the leeward side of the Northern Greens. So if you use the Co-Op data, you’d estimate 336” for annual snowfall on the leeward side of Jay Peak near the summit, which is not all that different from what they report. We know that Jay Peak Resort’s snowfall measuring is not considered the most meticulous in the industry, but if you assume the Co-Op numbers are decent, then that certainly puts their summit snowfall numbers in the ballpark. There’s an extensive discussion involving PF’s numbers here: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11837

When it comes to discussions of weather in different mountain ranges, windward and leeward geographic locations with respect to bodies of water can have significant effects, so there’s a lot of wiggle room with respect to “very similar” weather patterns. That topic aside though, the 280” number from Mt. Washington is measured at the summit (extremely challenging to do, but if anyone can do it, that crew can) whereas Stowe’s numbers are measured on the leeward side of the mountain where the resort is located. If Mt. Washington measured accumulations down in a relatively elevated leeward spot like Tuckerman Ravine, I bet the numbers would be higher.

It actually took several years of investigation to figure out that the biggest joke is actually that Mansfield Co-Op “snowfall” number. The determinations of “new snow” are actually made by sticking a ruler in a rain gauge. And, apparently it’s one of those 24” tall rain gauges because if there’s been more than 24” of snow since it was last emptied, they simply report 24” for the accumulation. You don’t have to take my word for it though. Stowe Mountain Resort has gotten extremely diligent with their snow measurement over the past decade. They got a guy there that even works with the BTV NWS and monitors a snowboard at around 3,000’ or so. I think he’s so diligent that he even takes pictures of every snowfall measurement to document the numbers, but I’m not 100% sure about that. I’m sure we can get in touch with him to bring him in on the conversation though. Also note, unlike for Mt. Washington, the resort numbers from the Northern Greens resorts typically don’t even include snowfall outside the ski season, so depending on the resort’s season, the numbers aren’t including October, early November, late April, and May snowfall.