J.Spin

Yeah, I’d say bwt’s and PF’s comments here help clarify it, and Tony’s got those hard numbers on the last page of that Liftlines thread from 40 years of snow data that Mont Sutton gave him. The largest discrepancy in the numbers seemed to be due to the fact that Mont Sutton has traditionally been measuring snowfall at their base – and it’s a relatively low base at 1,300’. On top of that, if they were collecting in a walled, “box-style” container, that can have undercatch issues as well. So, from what I’m seeing in the provided data, the best numbers on Mont Sutton for annual snowfall are: 1,300’: 184” 2,500’: 238” 2,900’: 250” 3,900’: ???” I’m assuming that 2,500’ for the “mid mountain” elevation, since I saw PF using it, but I’m not sure what’s considered “mid mountain” there. The reason the final number in my list above is only question marks is simple: Mont Sutton just doesn’t go that high. So think about that elevation difference between Jay Peak and Mont Sutton - Jay Peak has another thousand feet of vertical on Mont Sutton, and most of us assume that Jay Peak is measuring their summit snowfall numbers somewhere in leeward spots up near that 3,900’ elevation. What would Mont Sutton be recording for annual snowfall up near 3,900’ if they had that extra thousand feet of vertical? Perhaps something near 300”? It’s hard to say though; the orientation of the mountain and the local topography can make huge differences in snow accumulations, and everything suggests that Jay Peak has some serious optimization in that regard. Also note, as much as the annual snowfall totals seem to increase like clockwork as you head from south to north in Vermont, it’s not as if annual snowfall totals simply keep increasing as one continues to head north of the border. The totals increase all the way up the Green Mountain Spine until you get to Jay Peak, and then they start to drop off as you head north into the resorts of the Eastern Townships. Right over the border you’ve got Mont Sutton that may get 250” at their summit, farther off to the east there’s Owl’s Head that reports 175”, and head another hour north to Mont Orford and they report just 140” for annual snowfall. I can also say from first hand evidence of skiing all three of those Eastern Townships areas in a single trip, that the actual snow conditions and snowpack played out exactly as those annual snowfall numbers would suggest. Mont Sutton was by far the best in terms of snow, Owl’s Head represented a substantial drop from there, and then Mont Orford’s snow was definitely the worst. Once you head north of the Northern Greens, the next segment of the Green Mountains is the Canadian Green Mountains (click the link to see the area highlighted at Peakbagger). Why does annual snowfall drop off so drastically as one continues north of the border in the Canadian Greens? There are probably a number of reasons, but elevations only top out around 3,000’ in that area as we see for Mont Sutton, so that’s probably a factor. The Canadian Greens could be a bit more removed from Atlantic moisture, they may lack as much access to Great Lakes moisture, perhaps their orientation and topography are not as good, etc. I’m sure that’s another fun topic for conversation. On a final note, as much as a 250” annual snowfall number for Mont Sutton may seem a bit weak compared to its neighbor Jay Peak, it should be pointed out that 250” is way up there on a regional scale. You’re not going to find an annual snowfall number like that anywhere in the Eastern U.S. outside of the Northern and Central Greens. I’d guess Balsams might be in that range if they were in operation, but Mont Sutton is the only one I can think of around here.

I think we’ve had a rather typical summer up here in terms of temperatures if you average it all out. I believe this current hot spell is the 3rd one we’ve seen? I know there was at least one or two early hot spells back in May or June. I’m not sure if we’ve actually hit 90 F at our place or not, but we certainly haven’t had one of those classic stretches of midsummer highs in the 90s F that heats up the swimming holes sufficiently. I’m sure we would have hit one of our favorite spots or at least gone river tubing if we did. It may have been a timing issue in that heat in May or June just isn’t quite going to do it because the water is still too cold, and then July was on the cooler/rainier side. You have me thinking though; this may be the stretch to finally get out for some river tubing, even if we’re not getting into the 90s. With at least relatively warm overnight lows, it helps keep water temperatures up. We’re into August now, and we’re even passing that magic August 10th barrier when it really gets hard to have sufficient heat for that most comfortable swimming. These next couple of days may be about the last chance for high summer feel as you noted, because even above average temperatures past this point of the season can’t quite do it.

Yeah, I recorded 10 winter storms that month, with 8.60” of liquid. My liquid records only go back to 2010, but that’s the wettest November I see in there. In terms of winter storm distribution, the first one was right at the start of the month, but accumulations were minimal from what I see. The real show started a third of the way into the month, so that means the remaining nine storms were packed into roughly 20 days. That’s a very respectable pace of storms even for a midwinter month. Following up on the PF nostalgia with some shots from the month - once we got to the 10th, the hits just kept on coming: November 10th November 11th November 17th November 18th November 21st November 24th November 27th November 29th

Yeah, that was a solid November. Even down here in the valley bottom, the data show it. For our site I see that November 2019 was actually tops in the number of storms with 12, but November 2018 still had 10 storms, 18 days with snowfall, and almost 35” of snow down here in the valley. We’ve really had a solid run of Novembers as of late, and the data clearly show it. It might come as bit of a shock when one of those weaker Novembers comes around.

The November snowfall and snowpack at our site can certainly give an idea of what the month is like with respect to snow in the Northern Greens, but of course, data specifically from the higher elevations of the mountains is going to be even better when it comes to thinking about ski conditions. With that in mind, the plot below has the snowpack depth from the Mt. Mansfield Stake at Thanksgiving for all the years that are available in that data set. I think that snowpack depth at that time of year does have some utility with respect to what you asked about (trying to get a better idea of what late November looks like in terms of skiing around here in the Northern Greens). For folks that just want to know if there’s going to be any skiing, I don’t think the natural snowpack depth is too helpful. Manmade snow is going to guarantee that there’s at least some skiing, for those resorts with the snowmaking firepower and desire to open terrain, at least 90-95% of the time. The natural snowpack depth is essentially irrelevant when it comes to that aspect of the early season. The natural snow depth is definitely helpful in getting a sense for how much extra terrain might be open beyond the usual early season snowmaking routes, how much natural terrain might be open, what backcountry options there might be, etc. From depth alone, especially a single point, it’s hard to get a sense for the ski conditions because you don’t know if that depth is what just fell and there’s zero base below it, or it’s just the slushy accumulation that’s hanging on because it’s warmed up after an earlier storm came through, etc. At a certain threshold of snowpack depth (I’ll just throw out 20 inches as an initial value for discussion), you start to hit a point where it won’t matter if the snow just fell, if it’s melting remnants from a previous storm, if it’s fresh snow atop an established base, or whatever. At some point, there’s going to be enough natural snow in place that resorts are going to open additional terrain. -If one uses the 20” snowpack depth threshold, that would suggest you’re looking at expanded skiing in about 20% of seasons. I bet if we checked reports from those seasons in the plot where natural snow depth was ≥20”, you’re looking at substantial additional terrain being open for Thanksgiving. -Just based on first impressions, I think that snowpack of ≥20” is a virtual slam dunk for additional terrain being open at the resorts, so a snowpack threshold of 16” is also worth a look. With that threshold, you’re looking at about 30% of seasons with expanded skiing at Thanksgiving. -The lowest threshold that I think might be practical (and this is definitely pushing it with respect to natural snow terrain being able to support lift-served levels of skiers) is probably around the 12” mark. You can certainly pull it off on well-maintained moderate or low-angle terrain if the snow is dense, but this is definitely going to be pushing it for lift-served. Some resorts are more liberal than others are when it comes to doing this sort of stuff. That would put the occurrence of expanded skiing at Thanksgiving at about 40% of seasons. That is unquestionably a higher percentage than reality based on my years of skiing around here, but we’ll just throw it out there as an upper limit. Jay Peak does have that bit of extra snowfall bump above Mt. Mansfield, so they may be the closest of any resort to that percentage, but it’s still definitely an overestimate. I’ve roughly estimated the 24” snowpack depth threshold at the Mt. Mansfield Stake as when people seem to start venturing into the most amenable off piste areas (trees). Experience tells me that the point where skiing well-maintained trails begins is definitely below that depth, but I’m not sure how low. I can certainly look at some reports from past seasons to try to get a sense for it. When it comes to getting out for ski touring on low-angle, well-maintained, on-piste terrain with fat skis; that can certainly be done on less than 12” of snow without concern for hitting the ground. You can do that on 10” of snow easily, or even 8” without even bottoming out if the snow is reasonably dense. The mean depth at the Mt. Mansfield Stake on Thanksgiving is 10.7”, which suggests that in the appropriate spots at elevation, one should have a chance to get out for some natural terrain touring on, or at least around (due to the temperature inconsistencies at that time of year) Thanksgiving in 50% of seasons. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that to be the case if I checked my records; it sounds very plausible.

I put together a plot of November snow progression for each season at our site. The plot and some periods of note: -As people in the thread have mentioned, that 2018-2019 season (bright pink line) is noteworthy with respect to November snowpack. Once the snow on the ground returned on the 12th of November, there was no going back, right through the end of the month. The skiing was simply going off in the mountains: -During November in the 2019-2020 season (green line), the snow wasn’t quite as deep as the year before, but it was quite persistent. There was just that one dip down to a trace on the 11th, but there was coverage from the 7th of month onward. And that was in the valley of course. It wasn’t as deep as some Novembers, but there was plenty of snow for touring at elevation: -November in the 2014-2015 season (yellow line) had a strong finish. There was some great natural snow out there, even starting well before Thanksgiving: -Last season (orange line) was unique with that impressive period of snow at the start of the month. No other season has anything like that so early in November at our site during my period of record. Accumulations were nothing extravagant at elevation, but it was definitely enough to get out for some touring:

I do have the snow depth data for Thanksgiving at our site, so I can start with that. More directly relevant for conditions on the slopes will be snow depth at the Mt. Mansfield Stake of course, so I’ll see if I can get those data together later. For now though, here’s the Thanksgiving snow depth at our site. The past couple of seasons have had typical snow depths, with an inch or two of coverage, but as folks have indicated, Thanksgiving 2018 was up there with the deeper seasons. I have plots of the progression of snow depth at our site over the course of the month of November as well, and that gives one a better sense of the monthly progression, so I’ll try to put that together next.

Looking at snowfall days for November, we can see that they were slightly above average this past season. Although we don’t seem to get huge storms in November, it certainly comes across as quite a wintry month in terms of days with snow. This is especially true over the past four seasons, where on average; half the days of the month have had snow.

OK, I found the discussion that dove heavily into the differences between base and summit snowfall numbers for the Northern Greens. It was actually over in the Liftlines Skiing & Snowboard Forums at First Tracks!! Online Ski Magazine. The discussion began because Jay Peak recorded the most snowfall of any mountain in the lower 48 states during the 2014-2015 season: https://skivermont.com/skivt-blog/2015/04/13/ski-vermont-receives-most-snow-in-continental-us-during-2014-15-season/ Actually, Jay’s reported snowfall was only 357” that season, but all of the Western U.S. outside of Alaska had a rather poor winter in terms of snow. Looking through Tony Crocker’s numbers for the 2014-2015 ski season, even snowfall heavyweights like Alta and Grand Targhee were just pushing a bit above the 300” mark. Alyeska still recorded 478” of snowfall at their 2,750’ plot though, so that area was probably tops overall in the U.S. The snowiest season I can recall at Jay Peak was 2000-2001 when they recorded 513”, and I believe that was the same situation. I think that number beat out all the resorts in the lower 48 states, but again not Alyeska, which recorded 638” at the 1,400’ elevation. For some reason, Tony has 581” listed for Jay Peak in his 2000-2001 Ski Season Summary, so I’m not sure if he had to extrapolate some sort of summit number from a mid-elevation number, but he has the 513” number on his 2000-2001 Ski Season Analysis Page. In either case, it wouldn’t top Alyeska’s number, so it would remain a similar situation to 2014-2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Peak_Resort#Snowfall So, in terms of the base vs. summit snowfall differential, what came up in the First Tracks discussion were a couple of things. There was confusion about where Jay Peak actually records their “summit” snowfall numbers. It’s obviously not the actual summit of Jay Peak, since like Mt. Mansfield, that’s just a windswept area of rocks. The collection spot is likely in a protected, leeward spot (or spots) near summit elevation where the summit snow collects. It would be a spot like PF’s 3,000’ snow plot, or where the Mt. Mansfield Stake sits at 3,700’. Unfortunately, Jay Peak doesn’t have a PF like Stowe does, or even a measurement camera like Sugarbush and Stowe are starting to use, so their actual system of measurement is rather obscure. The second thing that came up in the discussion, and what also helped drive the discussion toward the details about base/summit snowfall differentials, was the snowfall at Mont Sutton, which is just a bit to the north of Jay Peak across the Canada-U.S. border. People (Tony initially broached the topic) were confused as to why the annual snowfall totals (200” at Sutton) simply seem to fall off a cliff as you head north of the border. The difference between reported snowfall at Jay and Sutton is so stark, that people thought Sutton might be reporting base area snowfall. Anyway, eventually PF made it to the conversation, and talked thoroughly about the cause of the snowfall differential between the upper and lower mountain areas in the Northern Greens. I’d already pointed out in the thread that the big differential is not due to an elevational rain/snow line, and PF came in to explain some very cool upslope stuff involving snow ratios, relative humidity, and mountain orographics that only someone like him would piece together. If you like the meteorology aspects of mountain weather, especially as it pertains to snowfall, definitely check out the thread (linked below) and PF’s contributions. In terms of rough upper mountain/lower mountain snowfall differential numbers, here’s a quote from PF in that discussion: “I've done the numbers before and regardless of the type of winter, the upper mountain plot (3,014ft) will receive somewhere between 30-40% more than the base at 1,550ft. It’s almost fail-proof. If the upper plot gets 300", the base will be around 200" or at least that's the general association.” I suspect PF will jump into this discussion at some point, so if people have questions or want to expand on that discussion at First Tracks, we can do it here. Here’s the link to that thread: https://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11837

I think I recall PF saying that more upslope actually enhances the difference in snowfall between base and summit elevations, due to the effect of the high ratio snow. We’ve got a discussion about it around somewhere, so I’ll see if I can find it. It’s hard to imagine the summit/base snowfall difference being greater at the SVT resorts though – with the relatively low snowfall numbers to begin with, they’d probably be looking at <100” of snow a season for the base areas, and that just doesn’t seem very practical. My quick recollection for Jay Peak would be that the annual snowfall at the base elevations is in the 200-250” range, but I’ll look around for the numbers we used in our discussions.

So as the plot above shows, I found that last season had the highest number of days with snowfall in our records. After looking at the data though, I see that it’s going to be able to claim another honor in that area: the winter of 2020-2021 was above average in snowfall days for all eight months of the snowfall season. Beyond being top of the heap for total days with new snow, the season also showed a remarkable level of consistency in that area. No other season in the data set even has seven months with an above average number of snowfall days; the next best performer managed to do it for six months. To get a better feel for how last season performed in terms of days with new snow, we can look at the individual months, starting with October as usual. This past October was actually quite typical for days with snowfall, but it did slip its way above the average:

Agreed, and that’s a good point - when one is using months for their intervals, they’re roughly equivalent spans of time, but not exactly the same. It would take a bit of work to get all the dates for days with snowfall from every season into the appropriate format to plot the distribution and find the actual midpoint for that parameter. While it might be interesting to know the midpoint of the season based on days with snowfall, a more practical measurement that I do have is the midpoint of the season based on cumulative snowfall. That point isn’t the middle of January, and it’s not the last day of January either – it January 25th (plot below). I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s pretty close to the midpoint that would be obtained from looking at snowfall days as well. With that date being the midpoint of the snowfall season for our location, we really shouldn’t get a single month serving as a symmetrical peak for the days with snowfall plot, and we also shouldn’t see January and February sharing the peak equally – the plot with those eight months would probably have its peak skewed a bit toward January.

Knowing the average number of days with snow at our site, I next looked at the monthly breakdown of days with snow. I actually had no idea how the data were going to distribute, but the appearance is certainly that of a unimodal distribution with a peak in January. It does look like there’s a bit of a skew of the peak to the left, but of course, we’re looking at a very coarse interval of months, and the eight months that happen to cover the snowfall season won’t necessarily correspond perfectly to Mother Nature’s actual snowfall season. We certainly have those years where it feels like January is relatively dry due to artic intrusions, so I could have easily seen some sort of bimodal distribution where January came in below December and February for days with snow, but that’s clearly not the case.

That’s good info, since as I mentioned, I don’t really have a sense for what numbers are like at sites around the region. Total snowfall numbers are always flying around, but days with snow isn’t talked about as much. I did the count for 0.5”+ from last season for my previous post, but I haven’t calculated all those thresholds yet. That’s an analysis I can certainly put on my “to do” list when I have time. I have it set up to run via COUNTIF in Excel, and with the CoCoRaHS data, it’s quick. There are of course a million different ways to analyze snow data (many that you and others here in the forum have shown me that I never would have thought about). What I find especially interesting about looking at the different parameters is discovering aspects of seasons that would never have been obvious. Who would have thought that the much-maligned, average-at-best 2020-2021 snow season would come out tops in our data set for days with snow? - not me. Nevertheless, that’s the type of interesting info that the analyses reveal.

The Northern Greens certainly seem to excel in the ability to put at least some flakes in the air throughout the winter. I haven’t really looked at that stat for other sites in the region or in the country, so I don’t know what’s typical, but 100+ days with snowfall certainly feels snowy. There are presumably sites in closer proximity to the lakes that get even more days with snow. I’d argue that many days with snow is a solid benefit when it comes to areas where winter tourism is important, since it at least improves the winter aesthetics for the visitors as you’ve noted. Thankfully, the flakes can be more than just window dressing and produce accumulations substantial enough to improve the surfaces on the slopes as well. If I check my data from last season for days with ≥½” of snow, which typically correlates with ≥1” of snow at the local resorts, that’s still 64 days. I should be able to do the monthly breakdown on days with snowfall, so we can look at that as well and see how last season stacked up. With 117 days of snow, it’s already up there at the top of the charts for the data set here, and I seem to recall we had a month this past season with just a couple of days where it didn’t snow.

That’s actually great timing on the inquiry LaGrange, days with snow was the next category I was planning to cover. Phin’s recollection is correct, based on the data I’ve collected so far, the average days with snowfall per season at our site is around 100. I didn’t track days with snowfall before joining CoCoRaHS, so I only have data from 2010 onward, but the plot is below. This past season didn’t have much to lay claim to since it was kind of lackluster in general snow stats, but days with snowfall was a category in which it edges out all the other seasons in the data set. Therefore, at least in our area, we had plenty of days with snow this past season, even if it was only average in terms of total snowfall.

Thinking about ways to get at which winter seasons had a tendency to deliver “larger snowstorms” vs. those that didn’t, I’ve made a couple of additional comparisons. Presenting the single largest storm as done in my initial plot above is certainly useful, but the single largest storm could easily be an outlier and not quite portray the tenor the season. Bringing a few more large storms from each season into the picture would temper the effect of those “one hit wonder” types of seasons. There are still plenty of options to consider with respect to how many storms to select, and whether to use mean and or median values from those storms, but here are two plots I made for now: 1) A clustered column plot that simply contains the snowfall for the five largest snowstorms from each season 2) A column plot that presents the sum of the snowfall from the five largest snowstorms from each season The first plot below is nice in that it lets one view the totals for the five largest storms of the season. It’s helpful for quickly identifying instances such as you mentioned above, where seasons had >1 storm of 20”+. I don’t think it works all that well for quickly getting at whether or not a season was one that tended to deliver large storms though. There’s enough data there in each set that they all just look like stair steps of data points unless you dive in and examine them closely. I think the second plot may do a better job of quickly highlighting those “big storm” seasons. Since each point is the sum of the top five storms, a season that consistently brings larger events is likely going to poke its head above the rest of the crowd. The 2016-2017 season is of course bolstered by the big 41” storm, but it’s still up there even when tempered by incorporating the next four storms. In this analysis, 2010-2011 and 2006-2007 also seem to pop up as potential “big storm” seasons. I like that 2006-2007 popped up on that plot, because it did have that “consistent, big storm feel” once it got going with what seemed like a notable storm on each holiday in the spring. Note that one could also plot the averages for the top five storms for each of these seasons and produce the same relative plot, but I think providing the number for total snow from the five storms gives a more immediate sense for the contribution that those top storms made to the season’s snowfall. While my initial plot of largest storm of the season certainly suggested that this past season was relatively weak with respect to large snowstorms, I think the plot summing the top five storms from each season solidifies that feel. This past season again came in as the second lowest in the data set next to the horrendous 2015-2016, suggesting that it was quite weak in the “big storm” department.

Don’t let anything get in the way if you have a chance to live out there – we certainly wouldn’t trade our time living in the Rockies; it was simply fantastic. My comments are of course just noting preferences from a weather/climate perspective, and while people certainly factor that into where they decide to live, it’s typically way down the list relative to factors that actually matter when it comes to making a living. Based on my years of roaming around and checking out much of Western Montana, I think my preference leans toward the northwestern part of the state if it was solely based on climate. Where we lived in the Bitterroot Valley is farther south, and when we’d visit equivalent valley areas in the northwestern part of the state, there always seemed to bit more moisture, more clouds, cooler temperatures, more snow, etc. Those areas are on the windward side of the Glacier National Park area along the continental divide, and like here in NVT, they’re not far from the Canadian border. I’m sure the bit of extra latitude helps too. I didn’t know it before we lived out there, but the Canada-U.S. border out in that part of the country is substantially farther north than it is out here. While the border here in Vermont is at the 45th parallel, the border out in Montana is notably farther north at the 49th parallel. From our numerous visits, I always had the perception that those valleys in the northwest part of the state had more clouds, precipitation, snow, etc., and if I look up the actual numbers, they support that. You can see the climate difference between where we lived in Hamilton and farther to the northwest in Whitefish: Hamilton, MT Elevation: 3,570’ Annual Precipitation: 13.1” Annual Snowfall: 32.1” Days with Precipitation: 106.4 Whitefish, MT Elevation: 3,028’ Annual Precipitation: 18.4” Annual Snowfall: 72.7” Days with Precipitation: 119.7 Of course, even the higher Whitefish values for precipitation and snowfall are quite paltry compared to the ~55” of precipitation and ~160” of snowfall we get out here; the precipitation isn’t even in the same ballpark, and the snowfall is only on par with BTV, which is generally chided for how snowless it is for this area. However, from a comparative perspective, the numbers do speak to my causal observations, and the differences are quite notable. In Whitefish you’re looking at a ~40% increase in precipitation, and a ~125% increase in snowfall. In addition, that’s with Whitefish being at ~500’ lower elevation. It’s funny, because in the grand scheme of Montana geography, even Hamilton is typically considered part of “Northwest Montana” because of the shape of the state, how big the state is, and the way the mountain ranges build natural climate areas (see maps below). The northwestern region is generally considered the wettest part of the state, but the greater northwestern or “Glacier Country” area extends well to south, and of course, there are many microclimates. The Bitterroot Valley is in the rain shadow of the 10,000’+ Bitterroot Range, which presumably cuts down on the precipitation and snow there relative to some of the other parts of the region. If you keep with the ski industry, I’m sure you’d be in a mountainous locale wherever you end up, but just watch out for the potential lack of “weather” and hot temperatures in the lower mountain valleys if that’s of interest. It’s probably great for the average person who would just as soon have little to no rain or snow where they live, but it’s very benign relative to what we’re used to around here.

I’m not sure if you’re actually allowed to say that last part aloud, because the subforum sunshine police will probably lump you in with the standard list of summer pariahs they pull out any time the forecast suggests it might get a bit cool and showery. Unless you really want/need a consistent San Diego-style climate for your work, exercise, recreation, or daily activities, the summer climate in NNE, especially the mountainous areas of NNE, is pretty sweet. We don’t have to deal with the constant heat and humidity of the Midwest or Southeast, or even what they seem to experience in parts of SNE. We still typically get a hot stretch or two each summer, sometimes more, sometimes less, that will warm up the swimming holes and make for great river tubing etc. As much as it can be a nuisance having to deal with a few sticky nights, it’s a nice change of pace and lets you comfortably get out on the water for some high summer activities. Even in July though, our temperature averages around here are lows in the 50s F and highs in the 70s F. Right from those numbers you can get a sense of what the typical, climatological dew points are up here in the summer, even if some warm season agendas in the subforum leave people trying to convince themselves that summer in New England somehow means dew points of 70 F. I certainly love it when our local trails are dry and the riding is great. Like PF, I enjoy that Rockies-style climate with the lower humidity, warm sunny days, cool nights, and generally dry conditions for recreation. However, having lived in the Rockies for several years, I can say that for me, the constant dry, sunny, cloudless days throughout the summer can get quite monotonous. The generally drier air is great in that it would cool down into the 40s and 50s F each night for consistently great sleeping, but that same dry air and lack of clouds meant that it would easily heat up into the 90s F every day. You certainly do get that big diurnal temperature range that PF loves. I just found that the constant sunny, dry, and hot weather, day after day after day all summer took its toll. Rain was infrequent enough that it was notable when it rained during the summer. I can distinctly remember the relief of actually having a night of getting to listen to the sound of the rain falling and thinking, “Wow, that is really cool, I wish that would happen more than once in a blue moon.” Now this was in Montana mind you, so it was nothing in the realm of what spots farther south like Salt Lake City or Arizona deal with, but the summers can still feel unnecessarily hot when it’s day after day of cloudless skies. If I was to live in the Rockies again, I think I’d pick a spot with more elevation that would provide more opportunities for orographic clouds, precipitation, and lower daytime temperatures. Here in Waterbury, we get four times the annual precipitation, and five times the annual snowfall compared to where we lived in Montana. There’s just so much additional potential for weather variety that comes with those numbers. I can remember a specific day soon after we’d moved back to Vermont where I really noticed a dramatic climate difference. We were out on the Stowe Recreation Path with the boys, and it was a typical summer day where perhaps a third of the sky happened to be covered with fair weather cumulus clouds. Every so often, a cloud would pass in front of the sun and bring on some shade. I’d rather forgotten that one could even have midsummer days like that with cool, refreshing interludes, and it was spectacular. I love the variety of weather we get here in the mountains of NNE; it’s likely akin to the typical mix of weather that a lot of the Eastern U.S. gets, but biased on the cooler (and in winter, snowier) side due to our latitude and orographics. I wouldn’t want every summer day to be socked in with clouds, fog, and rain, but I definitely enjoy those days as part of the mix. Yesterday after work, I was going to go for a ride, but it was a bit misty and gray, and it seemed like the trails might be a bit wet. So, I decided to go for a trail run instead, and the cool conditions were perfect for that. In my years up here, I’ve learned that it’s best to have many potential activities in your bag of tricks so that you can easily roll with whatever Mother Nature decides her mood of the day is going to be. Obviously, some activities have to be planned/scheduled and you have to hope for a certain type of weather, but it pays to have some alternatives available. If one really needs consistency, I guess there’s always San Diego.

I think on average, folks wouldn’t call this past winter season in CNE/NNE one that was notable for larger storms, and in the case of our site, the data for largest storm of the season speak to that. I don’t think the downward trend of the past few seasons it’s too much more than normal variance in our neck of the woods though, simply because I wouldn’t have thought twice about even the 17.0” top storm from 2019-2020 – that seems very typical off of a 21.4” average. The S.D. on that mean is 7.5”, so the 17.0” is well within that. That record you note from your past three seasons does seem rather anomalous though. Using just the single largest storm could be a bit misleading for some seasons due to the potential for those “fluke” types of storms that hit every so often. For example, some areas in central/southern NH and VT were hit with that intense banding storm this past season, so some of those sites may have a big 30-50” total for that largest storm, even though it may not reflect the tenor of the season. I can’t recall, did those areas have any other notable storms this past season, or was that a “one-off” sort of thing? For the 2016-2017 season when we had that notable 41.0” storm (Winter Storm Stella), we did at least have three other double-digit storms, topping out at 18.2”, so it wasn’t an entirely anomalous event among a sea of nothing. A better approach to get the feel for the occurrence of larger storms in a season and reduce the effects of anomalies might be to take the top five, or maybe top three storms, and then take the mean of that group (or maybe median would be even better to remove anomalies).

Continuing with the storm-related analysis, the next plot lets us look at the largest snowstorm for each season in the data set. The 2020-2021 season really wasn’t one for large storms in our immediate area, and that’s definitely borne out in this plot. This past season’s largest storm was just over a foot, it was well below the average, and second lowest in the entire data set. The trend since that 41-inch storm in 2016-2017 has shown quite the consistent decline in storm size, so we’ll see if this past season marks the nadir of that decrease.

I think there may be recency, availability, and repetition bias in some of these perspectives though. When it comes to this forum, whatever happens in the populated areas of SNE is heavily announced, discussed, echoed, rehashed, and dissected to the nth degree. That’s 95%+ of the discussion, so it largely sets the appearance of what people in the subforum think is happening. As the actual data show, there’s little doubt that large areas of SNE get more annual precipitation than the typical valleys in NNE on average, but when it comes to the mountains in NNE (such as Phin’s NH place), there’s just more overall liquid up north. On the map, there’s really nowhere in SNE that has annual precipitation beyond that light green 49-55” range; the next tiers of darker green are all up in the mountains of CNE and NNE. Phin wasn’t around when his NH site saw over 70” of precipitation a few years back, but you can bet that there weren’t 10 pages of discussion about it in the forum. This has been a drier than average year up here in NNE, so it’s definitely not the norm. The numbers don’t lie: Mt. Mansfield averages ~80” of liquid a year, and Mt. Washington averages ~100” of liquid a year. Sure, those numbers fall off somewhat as you head down in elevation, but the larger, orographically influenced annual precipitation totals still extend a good distance out from the summits as the map shows. The higher annual precipitation numbers up here in the mountains must come from somewhere, and it has to be from some combination of more rain events, and/or larger rain events. As for the “socked-in clouds and drizzle for days”, it’s tough to say exactly where Phin’s NH place falls. It’s becoming clear that the climate there is somewhat different than what PF and I experience here along the spine of the Northern Greens (it actually seems that Alex’s area might be more similar to what we experience), but this past year being drier than normal is not going to be a solid representative sample. I can tell you that typically at our site, I’m looking for windows in the precipitation regime to be able to mow the lawn, but I haven’t had to worry about it as much from last summer into this early summer thus far. Even in this relatively “dry” winter we just went through, we still had new snow recorded on 29 out of 31 days in January, and 23 out of 28 days in February. There are a few days per winter where we might get diamond dust from clear skies, but the vast majority of that snow comes from clouds. That’s many cloudy days. I’d say our route to higher annual precipitation totals along the spine of the Northern Greens tips toward more episodes of precipitation vs. larger episodes, but the distribution could be a bit different at Phin’s NH site. Whatever the case, something is pushing the annual precipitation there into that 55”+ range, and the data say that’s what happens when it all shakes out, even if it doesn’t feel like it.

At least in terms of average numbers at our site, snowfall occurrence with respect to size really drops off below the “once a season” level when the 20” threshold is reached. The list of snowfall sizes that I track in my data set are shown below, where the average number of occurrences per season is plotted. I have snowfalls up to the 48” threshold counted, although as the data indicate, I haven’t yet recorded a 48” snowfall at our site. Snowfalls above the 30” threshold seem to be relatively infrequent at our site in the valley, but the numbers change notably by simply going up in elevation in the Northern Greens. Based on my years of observation, a good way to obtain a rough estimate for snowfall occurrence in the higher elevations of the Northern Greens can be obtained by just doubling the snowfall sizes shown in my data set. Therefore, if our site averages one 18”+ snowfall a season as shown in the plot, then the higher elevations of the Northern Greens should average approximately one 36”+ snowfall a season.

As the snowfall size increases, eventually it becomes impractical to monitor first occurrence dates because they’re just too infrequent, so the 12” threshold is as high as I go in my data. Mean and median occurrence for first 12” snowfall in the data set here are right around the end of December/beginning of January, so this past season was certainly on the slow side for first 12” snowfall, but still ahead of a number of seasons where it didn’t occur until February.

As we move on to the 10” snowfall data, I referenced Tamarack’s earlier post, since he’d included 10” snowfall data there. Mean and median dates for first 10” snowfall in our data set are Dec 17th, and Dec 13th, respectively. Last season was near the back of the pack, which is consistent with the way larger storms were simply hard to come by around here during the 2020-2021 season. One thing that is quickly obvious in the lower right of the plot is that both of the past couple of seasons have been slow to reach that 10” snowfall threshold.