Northern Vermont Snow Advantage vs. Rest of the Northeast

[Patrick]

Start at Mt Snow, following the spine of the Greens you get more snow the further north you go. It doesn't have be so complicated.

No - it's not that simple. If it's not that complicated, why does Okemo, which is both lower in elevation and further south than Whiteface, get 20% more snow? Why does Mt. Snow, at the bottom of VT and topping out at 3600', get more snow than Cannon, near the top of NH and with a peak of 4000'? It's actually MUCH more complicated than you seem to appreciate.[/quote]

You're off the spine Mike. But you are correct, it's not that simple.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Start at Mt Snow, following the spine of the Greens you get more snow the further north you go. It doesn't have be so complicated.

No - it's not that simple. If it's not that complicated, why does Okemo, which is both lower in elevation and further south than Whiteface, get 20% more snow? Why does Mt. Snow, at the bottom of VT and topping out at 3600', get more snow than Cannon, near the top of NH and with a peak of 4000'? It's actually MUCH more complicated than you seem to appreciate.

You're off the spine Mike. But you are correct, it's not that simple.[/quote]

Then I'm not sure what his point was about? Certainly there's a correlation within the Spine with regard to latitude and amount of snow received, but it's not iron-clad, as his own example of Cochrans points out. More to the point, why does Mont Sutton, which is part of the Spine, get only 250" despite being even further north than Jay Peak? Regardless, the question the thread was seeking to answer was why the Spine gets so much more than mountains in NH or NY which are at similar or higher latitudes. Bushwhacker's post doesn't really speak to that at all.

 

[Patrick]

Certainly there's a correlation within the Spine with regard to latitude and amount of snow received, but it's not iron-clad, as his own example of Cochrans points out.

Agree, you definitely need to take altitude into account. I believe that Bushwack's argument is overly simplified regarding the Greens, but it might be easy to understand that the more complete answers from JSpin and Powderfreak.

More to the point, why does Mont Sutton, which is part of the Spine, get only 250" despite being even further north than Jay Peak?

That is why I asked, where does the spine end? :mrgreen: Plus, some might even argue that Jay is seperate from the spine. Just throwing it outhere.

Bushwhacker's post doesn't really speak to that at all.

I guess we are all trying to drive Tony crazy by getting off-topic. :lol:

 

[Mike Bernstein]

More to the point, why does Mont Sutton, which is part of the Spine, get only 250" despite being even further north than Jay Peak?

That is why I asked, where does the spine end? :mrgreen: Plus, some might even argue that Jay is seperate from the spine. Just throwing it outhere.

IMO, the Spine of the Greens runs from Mt. Greylock in the South to Mt. Orford in the North. I know Greylock is considered parts of the Berkshires, but it's just so different from an elevation standpoint from everything else around it and it aligns nicely with the Spine in SoVT. Orford on the North end is a much easier call. A quick look at Google Maps topo feature from far away tells that story.

 

[Bushwacker1951]

Well, the thread kind of drifted to the diference in snowpack along the spine of the Greens and I kinda drifted along with it. I live in Vermont so I guess that's what I know. For me the Greens are in Vermont starting from Rt 9 around Wilmington north to Jay Pk. Greylock is part of the Berkshires, both ranges are part of the App Mountains.

 

[Tony Crocker]

IMO, the Spine of the Greens runs from Mt. Greylock in the South to Mt. Orford in the North. I know Greylock is considered parts of the Berkshires, but it's just so different from an elevation standpoint from everything else around it and it aligns nicely with the Spine in SoVT. Orford on the North end is a much easier call. A quick look at Google Maps topo feature from far away tells that story.

From a geography standpoint I tend to agree with analyses like these, surely more relevant than political boundaries.

More to the point, why does Mont Sutton, which is part of the Spine, get only 250" despite being even further north than Jay Peak?

Isn't it quite a bit lower, less orographic uplift?

IMHO the "spine" discussion is not a , clearly closely related to the main topic.

 

[Admin]

Not only is Sutton somewhat lower, but it also sits on an east/west axis.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Isn't Orford a classic monadnock? Doesn't that eliminate it from being part of the Greens?

 

[Admin]

Isn't Orford a classic monadnock?

No, it's connected to lower rolling hills to its south. Think of the narrow valley that the 10 winds through as it approaches Orford from the west.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Not only is Sutton somewhat lower, but it also sits on an east/west axis.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Just checked, and the little sub-range within which Sutton sits tops out at around 3200', though the lifts top out at around 2850'. Still, that's not too much of a difference from, say, Bolton Valley. The lifts there top out at 3100' give or take, yet BV seems to get 60-70" more snow per year than Sutton 100 miles to the north. As for axis, while Sutton itself is on a E/W oriented ridge, it appears that the range within which it sits is more ENE/WSW in orientation. Maybe that 20-30 degrees makes a difference. I don't know. I think there's something to be said in Bolton's case for the fact that within 10 miles in either direction, you have the massifs of Camel's Hump, Bolton Mountain, Mansfield, Madonna and Sterling, all of which top out at 3600' or higher. Just as J.Spin gets more snowfall at his house in the Winooski River valley between these mtns as compared to Willison/Richmond to the west or Middlesex to the east, so does Bolton benefit from being close to its larger neighbors.

 

[J.Spin]

This is a follow up to a post by ChrisC in the 2008-2009 Vermont Snow Updates thread, but as Tony wants that thread closed, I’ve added the additional information here since it is about Northern Vermont upslope snow and seems to fit. ChrisC was wondering why our valley location gets so much snowfall, and while I did provide a lengthy response in the initial thread, Powderfreak has provided some additional insight since that time with some more detail. In response to one of my posts on easternuswx.com, Powderfreak provided a response with a map of Northern Vermont that depicts some of the upslope trends he has seen in his daily travels through the area. He has since had to delete some of his stored files at eastern, so the map is no longer available in the message, but he gave me a copy and I now have it on my server. For additional information about what is going on in the Winooski Valley during those events with regard to ChrisC’s questions, or for those that are interested in learning more about the upslope phenomenon that goes on here in the Greens, I’ve added Powderfreak’s map and some relevant parts of the discussion below. There is also additional information about our specific location with regard to snowfall on my “Weather and Snowfall Measurements” page.

I'm actually pretty stoked to be out here in the upslope region. I can walk out to the end of my driveway and look up at Robbins Mountain (I'm a stone's throw from the Jonesville Bridge). I really can't wait to compare snowfall totals with you as I've saved many (too many) radar shots of upslope snow over the years, and the area between Jonesville and Exit 10 on 89 is definitely the "main zone" with a maximum right over your location on the county borders. From my years of driving from Burlington to Stowe, the worst of the upslope snow is always on I89 right where it starts to increase slightly in elevation (area where the interstate lanes are close and only separated by cement jersey barriers). I'm sure you know the "zone" I'm talking about.

It's really great to have your observations from daily travel through that area Scott; I've never had the consistency of traveling all the way through from Burlington to the east side of the mountains to observe the snowfall subtlety about that section of the interstate. You probably won't find this surprising then... we actually live right at the east end of that cement barrier zone of the interstate. Our neighborhood is down along the river below the east-bound rest area that’s right at the end of that section. I hadn't though about that slight increase in elevation you described, but once I did, it seemed like the rest area was right around the local maximum in elevation.

Your comments got me thinking a little more about our local topography. With your observation in mind, I couldn't resist popping into Google Earth and checking out the lay of the land (1st image below). Sure enough, that rest area right above us is certainly a local high point along the interstate (for reference, you can also see the rough location of the Chittenden/Washington county line marked as a thin, light green line in the background). The elevation increase of the interstate is somewhat subtle, so to enhance the elevation details I expanded the vertical scale in Google Earth by 3X (I always get a kick out of doing that - it gives our local mountains and valleys the appearance of some incredible alp-style terrain). When I did this, the more subtle terrain features really popped up. The height of the interstate near the rest area (marked with a yellow tack on the 1st image below) was immediately obvious. However, something interesting also appeared along the valley floor. In that same Google Earth image, if you look off into the distance down the Winooski Valley, you can see that it's relatively flat, but right in the valley at that high point of the interstate, there is that notable elevated area of land that appears to just block the floor of the valley. Looking at the river in the picture you can see how the Winooski has to bend around that hill. I snapped a second Google Earth image (2nd image below) from valley level, again with 3X vertical expansion, and it really gives an idea of how that chunk of terrain just sits there blocking the middle of the valley. I wondered why I’d never seen such an obvious feature in real life, traveling through the area so often, but it’s because that whole area is really hidden from the Interstate (and even Route 2 and River Road for that matter). It’s the location of the dam and power station. You may have seen the big, elevated power wires in that area with the large balls on them (spherical markers for aircraft), crossing over I-89 – down below there is the dam. I realized that I actually have seen that hill that sits in the middle of the valley, because if you walk to the end of our street and down to the river, you are in the area above the dam. The third picture below is a photo I took in that area. Off to the left in that picture you can see the very bottom of that hill dropping steeply to the dam on the river. There’s much more to the hill than what’s visible in the picture, but it gives a sense of what’s there. I’m guessing that area of the Winooski is reasonably narrow and has some good elevation drop (falls), so it’s probably no coincidence that a dam happens to be in that area. Having seen this whole setup, it makes me wonder if the additional constriction of the Winooski Valley (narrowing, elevation rise, terrain blockage) in our area plays a part in the enhanced snowfall we see relative to areas of similar elevation.

Nice maps! I had no idea you could enhance terrain like that with Google Earth. Its funny that you mention that I-89 pull off/rest area at the top of that hill... that is most certainly the area where upslope really cranks it out. I've noticed a lot of subtleties in how each individual upslope event plays out. Each upslope event is slightly different in that wind speed, direction, inversion level, and moisture dictate what areas will get the most snow. I've started to figure out that the big west slope events happen with a moist profile under a low 4-5k foot inversion level...moisture can't get over the spine and therefore backs up all the way to Williston and beyond. With a higher inversion level near 7k feet or so, upslope is more restricted to an area closer to the spine as moisture doesn't back up as far. There are also events that seem to almost favor the eastern slope region from Stowe to Waterbury...its like the snow generated over the spine is blown downstream on strong WNW winds and doesn't actually reach the surface until its a few miles beyond the spine. This is often seen quite well on RT 100 between Stowe and Waterbury when it'll look like its Partly Cloudy overhead and east, but yet its still snowing at a moderate to heavy clip blown downstream from the spine on strong NW winds.

Here's where I'd put the max upslope zone (inside yellow lines)... the spine is the blue line and the green lines are the general "upslope region." After I made this, I do think the eastern yellow line should be another couple miles east...pretty much on top of the Waterbury exit on I89. The gradient on the east side is definitely much sharper than it is on the west side so I should've illustrated that better.

Also, in my travels to Stowe I usually notice that its snowing in Waterbury at the exit, but by the time I work northward between Waterbury Center and Stowe, the snow often stops or slows dramatically before I drive back into it on the Mountain Road heading up to Stowe Mountain Resort. I do think the area between Bolton (just E of my location) and Waterbury gets a boost from both being adjacent to 3-4K foot terrain, but also from low level convergence in the Winooski Valley. On a moist NW flow, you have both forced ascent by terrain but also convergence in the valley as a lot of air is funneled between 2-4K foot terrain on either side of the valley. I think its this low level convergence in the Winooski Valley (plus lack of downsloping) that can cause Waterbury proper to get slammed when areas north and south on RT 100 are drying out. If you go back to the upslope radar image I posted a while back in my original post, you'll see that RT 100 on either side of Waterbury is drying out but Waterbury proper continues to see relatively strong echos. Interesting stuff.

-J