2010-11: The Greatest Natural Snow Year of Our Lifetimes?

[Patrick]

Whoa, hold on a sec, I must have missed that part. So 10-11 was poor in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast, and half of Eastern Canada and it was only average in the entire east in general. Sounds to me like half of the ski areas in North America had an average or below average year if we were to start counting ski areas. And for the record, I am considering 102% average. I don't think it is really easy to tell the difference between 100% vs 102%.

I'm thinking that the only one with provincialism and tainted is Tony.

The amount of snow in California and Utah has been so great that it exaggerated his analysis. :stir:

 

[Tony Crocker]

Of course 102% is average. But it's very unusual for 102% to be the lowest region.

I'm thinking that the only one with provincialism and tainted is Tony.

You must have missed the part where I touted 2007-08 as a top 3 season when California was 93%. http://bestsnow.net/seas08.htm

Sounds to me like half of the ski areas in North America had an average or below average year if we were to start counting ski areas.

Patrick originally wanted to weight results by skier visits. Now Riverc0il wants to count a Midwest or Ottawa molehill the same as Vail or Whistler.

 

[Patrick]

Sounds to me like half of the ski areas in North America had an average or below average year if we were to start counting ski areas.

Patrick originally wanted to weight results by skier visits. Now he wants to count a Midwest or Ottawa molehill the same as Vail or Whistler.

](*,)
So let me get this straight, you based your assumption on only 6 ski areas in the entire East and Midwest of the continent the size versus 7 distinct ski areas in the West? Then you make an assumption on the entire continent? Talk about OUR Lifetimes? That table is so Western skewed that it cannot be taken seriously. The NE (with only 6 areas for a huge geographical area in which has 2 areas having exceptional years) only account for 12.5% of your continental average?

I know it's not your fault, but you have only one dataset from Quebec and none from Maine. You come up with 102% based on only data from these areas listed below? Le Massif data (unless mistaken) is taken at the summit Lodge, so the odds of an even worst number might happened if it was taken at the bottom + have been historical known to start counting early. I don't necessarily want you to measure Midwest and Ottawa molehills at the same level than Whistler, I want you to have a larger sample size. Only one area in a whole territory like Quebec, one in New York, one in New Hampshire and zero in Maine. Cannon and Whiteface probably blustered your number higher? How much snow did areas like Bretton Woods, Loon, MTW, Wildcat in Cannon neighbourhood received? Was that phenomena repeated at Loon or Waterville (similar in size and close)? Or what it very isolated? If it was isolated, it would have skewed your number.

Whiteface is the only NY number. Where is Gore? Did Gore do so well this year? 50% better (I don't know)? If you sample would be greater, your numbers (without entering all the molehills) might more representative of the actual picture in the NE.

Jay Peak 105%
Sugarbush124%
Killington 105%
Cannon Mt.167%
Whiteface 151%
Le Massif 88%

Ski season has only been over for 2 days and people are going batty already.

The ski season is never over, it just move around. It goes batty when you're making assumption skewed methodology or preconceived notions.

 

[Tony Crocker]

you based your assumption on only 6 ski areas in the entire East and Midwest of the continent the size versus 7 distinct ski areas in the West?

No. The http://bestsnow.net/seas11.htm monthly detail is a sample of areas to illustrate monthly snowfall incidence during the season. The complete list of areas is on http://bestsnow.net/summ11.htm. 14 eastern areas supplied snow data for 2010-11, and as noted below my snowfall percentage for the Northeast is lower than Kottke's. I have 7 distinct ski regions in the West, from which 56 areas supplied complete data in 2010-11. Patrick is also quoting the eastern numbers from my April 10 Progress Report, not the final numbers I got from the areas in May. I don't know why he would be getting a cached April version of http://bestsnow.net/seas11.htm when I uploaded the final version on June 8.

I looked up the detail of the Kottke snowfall averages: 2010-11 was average in the Midwest (81 vs. 75 avg) and Southeast (69 vs. 65 avg). Kottke has the Northeast at 172 vs. 137 average. Overall including Kottke's 3 western regions was 248 vs. 185 average. That's 134% of a 20 year average, certainly in the ballpark with my 128% of a 36 year average.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

No question 2010-11 was poor in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast and maybe half of eastern Canada. That's a quite small fraction of skier visits and a much smaller fraction of North American ski terrain.

Whoa, hold on a sec, I must have missed that part. So 10-11 was poor in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast, and half of Eastern Canada and it was only average in the entire east in general. Sounds to me like half of the ski areas in North America had an average or below average year if we were to start counting ski areas. And for the record, I am considering 102% average. I don't think it is really easy to tell the difference between 100% vs 102%.

My God - could you people be more pedantic about this? just b/c it wasn't a fantastic season in your backyard, and the backyard of an additional small % of skiers, that invalidates his title?

Bullshit. 1000% bullshit. For the ski areas providing the vast majority of skier visits, his data and representation of same are clearly correct. As a % of total skier visits, what goes on in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast and half od Eastern Canada is next to meaningless. As Tony stated, the fact that the lowest ranked region (Northeast at 102%) was still at avg is remarkable in and of itself, irrespective of whether you personally had good conditions in March/April.

 

[Patrick]

I don't know why he would be getting a cached April version of http://bestsnow.net/seas11.htm when I uploaded the final version on June 8.

I stand corrected....I found that it was funny that those 6 from 2010 that I mentioned average out at 102%

Jay Peak 103%
Sugarloaf105%
Killington 99%
Cannon Mt.158%
Le Massif 92%

Here are Tony's areas.

HIGH
Cannon Mt., N. H
Whiteface (Lake Placid), N. Y.

ABOVE
Sugarloaf, Maine
Jay Peak, Vt.
Sugarbush, Vt.
Stratton, Vt.
Smuggler's Notch, Vt.

BELOW AVERAGE
Killington, Vt.
Stowe, Vt.
Mt. Washington, N. H.
Snowshoe, W. V.
Okemo, Vt.
Waterville Valley, N. H.
Le Massif, Que.

Still mentioned that the entire East+MW accounting for only 12% doesn't make sense for your continental average.

My God - could you people be more pedantic about this? just b/c it wasn't a fantastic season in your backyard, and the backyard of an additional small % of skiers, that invalidates his title?

Bullshit. 1000% bullshit. For the ski areas providing the vast majority of skier visits, his data and representation of same are clearly correct.

So the entire East and Midwest account for a fraction of skier visits??? His continental average account for 12% of the continent. I'm pretty sure that these areas account more than 12% of the skier-visits?

I still think that the Eastern number might be skewed. Cannon is high above average and WV is below. If Tony's wants to talk about the West as a whole, I'm would be comfortable with that, but Cannon, WF (and Sutton) would the East are outliers which would be dragging the number above average here. As for the negative outlier at Le Massif (92%), I suspect that they are way more common.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I am really mystified that Patrick has so much trouble with this. Kottke has 42 Northeast areas, and they get 125% for the Northeast vs. my 102%.

So the entire East and Midwest account for a fraction of skier visits??? His continental average account for 12% of the continent. I'm pretty sure that these areas account more than 12% of the skier-visits?

Once again I choose to weight snowfall by size of ski area, not skier visits. And also once again, why should a snowfall rating include areas for which snowfall is only marginally relevant to the quality of skiing? I'm sure Riverc0il thinks my 102% is a more accurate representation of the quality of the eastern ski season in 2010-11 than Kottke's 125%, which probably includes a bunch of snowmaking dependent places that got 125 inches instead of 100.

But the real puzzlement here is that Kottke uses Patrick's criteria, counting small areas in low snow regions and implicitly weighting by skier visits. And what is the result? A record snow year by Patrick's criteria and a higher percentage of normal overall 134% vs. my 128%. Looking at my data I think the reason for this is clear. The two regions that produced record breaking snow in 2010-11 were Front Range Colorado and California. These regions have high skier volume and perhaps pulled more weight in Kottke's analysis than mine. You want to add in some bad numbers from eastern Canada to Kottke? If so you also get to count Whistler's 148% with 2 million skier visits.

 

[riverc0il]

Patrick originally wanted to weight results by skier visits. Now Riverc0il wants to count a Midwest or Ottawa molehill the same as Vail or Whistler.

Pfffft. As if skiers that can't afford to fly across the continent to ski count any less when we are talking about the greatest snow year of "OUR" lifetimes. That is insulting. Again, I don't care how you weight your calculations. My contention is the inclusiveness of your conclusion. Which I find even more slanted considering you clearly have weighted your conclusions with a clear bias. The thread topic had a question mark in it and some of us have provided feedback but it sounds like you already reached the conclusion and were not actually asking...

 

[Tony Crocker]

some of us have provided feedback

Which prompted me to examine the Kottke report in detail to compare a methodology that weights by skier visits as opposed to "my bias" of weighting by area size.

As if skiers that can't afford to fly across the continent to ski count any less

??? I don't know how many different ways I can explain that weighting by skier visits yields the same conclusion as weighting by area size with respect to the quality of the 2010-11 ski season. I guess the 8 million skier visits in California and the 13 million in Colorado have zero weight with Riverc0il. Only Northeast visits count? Who's showing more bias here?

 

[riverc0il]

Wow, way to take what I wrote completely out of context.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I'm Jamesdeluxe and I approve this thread.

 

[rfarren]

No question 2010-11 was poor in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast and maybe half of eastern Canada. That's a quite small fraction of skier visits and a much smaller fraction of North American ski terrain.

Whoa, hold on a sec, I must have missed that part. So 10-11 was poor in Alaska, New Mexico, the Southeast, and half of Eastern Canada and it was only average in the entire east in general. Sounds to me like half of the ski areas in North America had an average or below average year if we were to start counting ski areas. And for the record, I am considering 102% average. I don't think it is really easy to tell the difference between 100% vs 102%.

Every other region had an unbelievable year. The EC was average in snowfall but above average in preservation and lack of rain. That makes it above average for the majority of EC skiers, because the majority of EC skiers are like me and travel from outside of "ski country".

You all have to get over your disbelief that other regions, which make up the majority of ski terrain in America, had stellar years even if you deem yours didn't. If you forget Tony's numbers and just follow this years threads you will see that it was an amazing year for consistency, snow, and longevity. If you want to argue this that's fine but you guys are doing it through rose colored glasses and I caution you to remember that there are many regions in this country with snow besides where you're from.

Patrick, I believe in quality over quantity. Therefore I choose to spend my long weekends and spring break out west visiting friends. I ski the east when I can and the snow is good. However, it costs me just as much for four days at Stowe as it does for four days at Alta, if not more when you consider gas, lodgings, and car. That is certainly true about Quebec or Sugarloaf. Therefore, before you rip me because I split my time between the East and the West I urge you to put yourself in my shoes( NYC= cheap flights).

 

[jasoncapecod]

sorry for the drift.. and :dead horse:

However, it costs me just as much for four days at Stowe as it does for four days at Alta, if not more when you consider gas, lodgings, and car. That is certainly true about Quebec or Sugarloaf. Therefore, before you rip me because I split my time between the East and the West I urge you to put yourself in my shoes( NYC= cheap flights).

this is not true when you have a family with school age kids..
1 week in quebec over christmas/newyears = 2k
1 week out west over the same holiday =6k

 

[Geoff]

Wow, way to take what I wrote completely out of context.

Yep. How dare we question a number cruncher's interpretation of the data! None of us quibble with Tony's analysis of skiing west of the Mississippi. As has been said in the thread previoiusly, the thread title would be fine if it were constrained to be "west of the Mississippi". Tony's attempts at providing letter grades to eastern skiing are pretty disconnected from reality.

 

[soulskier]

This thread confirms to me that many of you guys on this forum just like to argue.

Tony, I have been a Tahoe passholder since 1987, and this was the most snowfall I have ever seen. The most astonishing thing was with the exception of 6 weeks, Jan 1-Feb 15, it never stopped from November into early June. The snowpack is still phat in the upper elevations and we are still skiing, here's my wife in her 4th of July attire this weekend.

 

[rfarren]

this is not true when you have a family with school age kids..
1 week in quebec over christmas/newyears = 2k
1 week out west over the same holiday =6k

Good point. When you have school age kids the car becomes far more economical in comparison for 2 more plane tix. I don't think the lift tix or lodging is any cheaper if you do SLC and stay in the valley.

 

[Marc_C]

Good point. When you have school age kids the car becomes far more economical in comparison for 2 more plane tix.

Remember that for many years while they're still young, you can just stuff them into extra luggage. The additional baggage fee is far cheaper than an airline seat.

 

[berkshireskier]

"This thread confirms to me that many of you guys on this forum just like to argue." - Soulskier

I nominate this statement for the "most obvious observation" award of the the past 20,000 years.

 

[Patrick]

"This thread confirms to me that many of you guys on this forum just like to argue." - Soulskier

I nominate this statement for the "most obvious observation" award of the the past 20,000 years.

I disagree, we don't have enough data to quantify the amount of years. Most posters here weren't around to actual know. Second of all, the Earth is only 5,000 years old.

 

[riverc0il]

Second of all, the Earth is only 5,000 years old.

Awesome.