this may have been discussed before, but alta reports 125in more than snowbird this year.that seems like a HUGE difference. is that based on when they started counting back in the fall, different altitudes of the measurement spot, or some other variant that is not visible to the skier who skis both on many days?
alta/bird 675 vs. 550?
- Thread starter hayduke
- Start date
Alta traditionally gets more snowfall, although I'll agree that the difference is bigger than normal this year. From my experience Alta frequently underreported snowfall this winter.
There are several factors at play. Two of them are:
1. Alta is at the head of the canyon, trapping moisture arriving from the W and NW.
2. Many of this season's big snowfall events were lake-effect driven, and those lake effect bands are narrow and focused.
Both reporting stations are at a similar mid-mountain altitude - Alta's near the top of the former Collins double, near Blitz and Taint, and Snowbird's at mid-Gad.
I trust Alta's reporting completely, as does the NWS who uses it as a hydrology station. If I'm not mistaken the site is an automated Snotel.
There are several factors at play. Two of them are:
1. Alta is at the head of the canyon, trapping moisture arriving from the W and NW.
2. Many of this season's big snowfall events were lake-effect driven, and those lake effect bands are narrow and focused.
Both reporting stations are at a similar mid-mountain altitude - Alta's near the top of the former Collins double, near Blitz and Taint, and Snowbird's at mid-Gad.
I trust Alta's reporting completely, as does the NWS who uses it as a hydrology station. If I'm not mistaken the site is an automated Snotel.
Thank you for your quick informative reply. I frequent the Snotel site and there is a Snowbird station. I wasnt implying that Alta over-reported. I was just surprised at a whooping 10 foot difference. Actually I think both of them under-report.
In Cali, a reported foot is really 5 inches. In Utah, a reported 5 inches is a foot. Could there be a male/female difference in the reporters??
In Cali, a reported foot is really 5 inches. In Utah, a reported 5 inches is a foot. Could there be a male/female difference in the reporters??
The long term numbers are 523 for Alta and 461 for Snowbird, both usually November to April only and a 13% difference. The current quotes are a 22% difference. The ratio of annual Alta to Snowbird snowfall has ranged from 86% to 140%.
I have been led to believe that official Alta and Snowbird snowfall numbers are measured near the base. At Alta somewhere behind the patrol building near Wildcat, and at Snowbird at the stake you can see in the shade while waiting outside the tram building. This would account for the impression visiting skiers have that snowfall is understated because it's more higher on the mountain. Though I've also heard that in the case of Alta it's only about 10% higher.
The current season numbers include 53 at Alta and 41 at Snowbird in October, both of which will be excluded from the numbers I compile later this spring. November was the second driest in history, so that October snow was truly irrelevent, except of course to a few :wink: who earned some turns right after it fell.
I have been led to believe that official Alta and Snowbird snowfall numbers are measured near the base. At Alta somewhere behind the patrol building near Wildcat, and at Snowbird at the stake you can see in the shade while waiting outside the tram building. This would account for the impression visiting skiers have that snowfall is understated because it's more higher on the mountain. Though I've also heard that in the case of Alta it's only about 10% higher.
The current season numbers include 53 at Alta and 41 at Snowbird in October, both of which will be excluded from the numbers I compile later this spring. November was the second driest in history, so that October snow was truly irrelevent, except of course to a few :wink: who earned some turns right after it fell.
TeleProphet
New member
Tony Crocker":rw89bfzu said:
I have to disagree. The October snow *did* stay through November and remain as base through the season. I was able to ski (gingerly) Alta throughout all of the November skinning season. If you discount October and November prior to opening, how can you use the base depth totals now being reported? Do you subtract the 1st 3 feet off? It's still there, no matter how try to justify removing it. Dig a snow pit down to the dirt, and you find October snow at the base. It's got to count, since we are still skiing on it. Look at a place like Stryn, Norway. They don't even open 'till June when the pass opens. Do they report a base of 0", since it fell before opening? See pict below for the lunacy of that argument.
Tele.
There was barely a foot of base from that 53 inches left at Alta by Dec. 1.
The main reason for excluding October snowfall is that so very few ski areas count it. My objective is to measure everyone Nov. 1 - Apr. 30 for consistent comparisons. The many areas that only have complete data Dec. - Mar. I can proportion up by the relationship of common months.
I do count October snowfall if it's enough to actually open a ski area.
The main reason for excluding October snowfall is that so very few ski areas count it. My objective is to measure everyone Nov. 1 - Apr. 30 for consistent comparisons. The many areas that only have complete data Dec. - Mar. I can proportion up by the relationship of common months.
I do count October snowfall if it's enough to actually open a ski area.