NNE Spring Thread

[hvysnow79]

The heavy rain was impressive but the lightning is what was truly the most compelling part of this event. It was so constant, continuous. In cloud and cloud to ground. A fantastic display with some very close by hits.

It must have been insane up there, even here in Orford it was bright enough to light up the yard pretty much continuously from 8 pm thru 2 am!! Reminded me of storms when I was stationed down south in Biloxi and Jacksonville.

[Allenson]

Wow wow wow. What a night of storms! We had the first hit a few minutes after I posted about having the tornado warning. Both of the first two storms came with tornado warnings. We didn't get much wind but we had a ton of rain and some quality hail. The Biggest hail was large marble/small golf ball size hail and came with the start of the first storm. At this point with the hail and the tornado warning I figured we better play it safe and got the family in the basement for about 10 minutes. The storms were nearly continuous until late in the night. We lost power 3 times. There was quite a bit of water in the basement this morning. The heavy rain was impressive but the lightning is what was truly the most compelling part of this event. It was so constant, continuous. In cloud and cloud to ground. A fantastic display with some very close by hits.

The drive to St. J this morning was also very impressive. There were a number of washouts and the rivers/streams were raging though down from last night. It was very easy to tell just how high they had gotten from the debris everywhere. Route 2 in Danville was washed out on both side so there was only space for one lane of traffic down the middle of the road. Fortunately this is right next to where they are starting a major road project so it looked like they had all the equipment and personnel already there to do a fix. There are a number of road projects going on right now so it looked like the equipment was already being used for cleanup.

It sound like Barre/ Montpelier got it even worse.

Very impressive storms.

I just saw a fellow I know who lives right in Peacham village and he said basically the same thing you did here. Glad you all made it through OK.

A near miss for here....

[J.Spin]

The Northern Greens do incredibly well with locations such as Jay Peak getting close to 400"/yr, which puts them into the league of some of the lower-snowfall resorts such as those in Colorado that don't enjoy the benefits of latitude like Montana nor the benefits of lake enhancement like the Utah areas.

It’s great that you point that out, because many people aren’t necessarily aware of what the snowfall of the Northern Greens is like on a national scale. In terms of annual snowfall, the resorts in the Northern Greens actually surpass the low-level snowfall resorts of the Rockies and are most similar to the mid-level snowfall resorts of that region. For the most objective analysis of the snowfall at ski resorts, go to Tony Crocker’s website; he is the master ski resort snowfall statistician, and does a really nice job of weeding out the numbers that are just marketing hype. If you go to his site at the above link and scroll down a touch to where he lists the various ski regions, you can check out the annual snowfall numbers for the specific ski resorts. You’ll see that outside the coastal ranges (CALIFORNIA & PACIFIC NORTHWEST in his regional breakdown) there are very few areas that actually break that 400”/yr mark.

I’d arbitrarily break down the annual snowfall for resorts in the Rockies as low: 200” - 300”, mid: 300” - 400”, and high: 400”+. As I mentioned above, people might be surprised to know that there are just a handful of resorts in the U.S. Rockies that meet or break that 400” annual snowfall barrier, and most of them are in the Cottonwood Canyons in UTAH. Outside of that, you’re really talking about roughly one area per state: for the NORTHERN ROCKIES there’s the Targhee area in Wyoming, and likely Lookout Pass for Montana/Idaho (which isn’t a ski area covered in Tony’s data but I discuss it below). For Colorado I generally think of Wolf Creek as their 400” location, but according to Tony Crocker’s numbers, even Wolf Creek doesn’t quite hit that level. For Arizona and New Mexico, there aren’t any 400”+ resorts, and based on Tony’s data, there aren’t even any 300” resorts. Scroll through the NORTHERN and CENTRAL COLORADO, and SOUTHERN and WESTERN COLORADO regions, and you’ll see there’s nothing that hits 400”. I think that because some of the more famous Utah and Wyoming resorts are in that top category for snowfall, people get the impression that it’s like that throughout the Rockies, but after spending a good number of years living in Montana and doing a lot of skiing there, I can tell you that’s certainly not the case; most of the ski areas in Montana are in the 200” – 300” range for snowfall, which is actually substantially less than what the Northern Vermont resorts receive. Only the snowiest Montana ski resorts (probably about three areas in total – see my comments in the Montana snowfall numbers paragraph below) are up in that 300” to 400” range. Even if snowfall isn’t that spectacular in many places in the Rockies though, the snow preservation is often so good that I think it gives people the impression that the mountains get more snow than they actually do.

Since Montana is where we lived and skied the most in terms of the Rockies, I’ve got the annual snowfall numbers on hand and put them in some comparative tables below. From left to right, the first table gives the annual snowfall for the resorts on the spine of the Northern Greens, with an average for the four resorts at the bottom. The second table does the same for all the resorts in the entire state of Montana. The third table gives the numbers for the resorts that were somewhat “local” to us (~2 hours or less) when we lived in the Bitterroot of Montana. Here in Vermont, I’d say that “local” would include all the Central and Northern Vermont resorts, so the third table isn’t the best comparison to the Northern Vermont resorts in the first table, which are the “cream of the crop” around here in terms of snowfall. So, for a comparison to the snowiest resorts in Vermont, I made the fourth table, which covers the snowiest region in Montana.

Most folks around here are pretty familiar with the distribution of snowfall at the Vermont resorts; basically the farther north you go, the higher it gets. It’s not quite as simple in Montana with all the mountain ranges scattered around in the western ½ of the state, but in general, the farther west you go, the higher the snowfall gets. That’s because the farther west one goes, the more and more the climate becomes like the Pacific Northwest/Coastal Ranges, and the more moisture there is available. The farther east one goes, the more the climate becomes “feast or famine” in terms of moisture. I made a post over at First Tracks summarizing some of the Montana snowfall patterns and ski areas for those that want more details on the area. I added a map of the rough locations of Montana’s ski areas below for those that are not familiar with them. As I mentioned above, all the ski areas are in the western ½ of the state, because that’s where all the mountains are. The eastern half of Montana is just part of the Great Plains, you can see that in the map they don’t even show all of Eastern Montana. It’s a big state by the way for anyone that hasn’t driven across it; it essentially takes up an entire time zone (Mountain Time Zone) by itself at the northern border – check it out on a time zone map because it’s pretty cool.

A note on some of the Montana snowfall numbers: if you look around online you can find areas like Big Sky, Moonlight Basin, and Bridger claiming 400” per season, but based on Tony’s numbers (which he generally gets from the resorts themselves to throw in a nice little chunk of irony) it seems that those reported averages are way off – take a look at those resorts in the table above or on Tony’s site and see just how far off they are from 400”. Tony weighed in on some of those numbers in a post in that First Tracks thread. Montana’s term for dry Champagne Powder™ is “cold smoke”, and I like how Tony pointed out that the smoke seemed like it was being blown by some of the marketing departments. Presumably they can get away with it because it’s “The Rockies”, and people just assume that they get a lot of snow. I also suspect it’s difficult for a place like Big Sky to report that they only get an average of 258” of snow per season when they are competing against places like Targhee or Alta that get a lot more snowfall. You’ll notice that while for the Vermont resorts, the snowfall numbers are available to the nearest inch, most of the Montana numbers, aside from the ones that are on Tony’s site, are pretty round. Presumably they are being rounded to the nearest hundred, or nearest fifty inches, but they are pretty rough and it’s hard to know exactly where the numbers come from. It’s not necessarily something intentional, I’d say it’s just that the resorts aren’t that concerned about the snowfall. Based on my years of living in Montana and watching the snow reports and base depths, I’d say the only ski area that really hits that 400” mark in the state is probably Lookout. With a base elevation of just 4,500’, it’s not that high relative to many of the Montana ski areas, but it’s the farthest west of any ski area in the state (it straddles the Idaho/Montana border at Lookout Pass on I-90) and gets into the most Pacific Northwest moisture. Base depths don’t lie, and they were the only Montana resort I ever saw get up above 200” of base when I would monitor the base depths in the Montana snow reports throughout the ski season. Even with the fluffier snow often found in the drier areas of Montana to the east (their “cold smoke” is sort of like the Champlain Powder™ we get from upslope out here), it seems like Big Sky is stretching it with that 400” number. Our most local ski area (~45 min away) out in Montana was Lost Trail Powder Mountain, which reports 300”/season and that is very round of course, but seems about right based on my observations. Like Lookout, Lost Trail is also located on the Idaho/Montana border on the western side of the state, and it’s known for getting some of the most snow in the region. Knowing that, and watching the snowfall reports closely throughout the season, Montana Snowbowl to the north (our next closest area at ~60 min away) would always get a bit less snow from each storm relative to Lost Trail, so their 300” number is probably lower. And as for Teton Pass off to the east, it’s a smaller area that most folks don’t know much about, but based on its more eastern location, its 300” number is very suspect as Tony indicated in his response. With that information, it really whittles the Montana areas down to three that are likely in that 300” to 400” range, Whitefish/Big Mountain, Lookout, and Lost Trail.

For the Northern Vermont resorts in Tony’s NORTHEAST section, there are a couple of things to mention. He uses a number of 333” for Jay Peak because he takes an average of what is reported for the summit (355”) and base elevations. I used the summit number in my table to be consistent with the other Northern Vermont numbers, which as far as I know are from the upper elevations. In addition, Tony doesn’t have data for Stowe Mountain Resort (fortunately we have Powderfreak for that); Tony only has data for the Mt. Mansfield stake (230”/yr), which unfortunately isn’t very useful. As Powderfreak has pointed out many times, there appear to be serious issues with getting accurate snowfall measurements at that site; when the daily snowfall totals associated with the stake are sometimes less than the increases in the snowpack at the stake for the same day, you know there is an issue. Tony also doesn’t collect data for Bolton Valley, but I’d say most people are pretty confident in the numbers they put out since they fit in so well with the rest of the Northern Vermont resorts. I track the snowfall rigorously in the valley below, and I’m up at Bolton frequently during the snowy months, and I never see any issues with their reporting either.

It's mind-boggling to think how much snow Vermont would get if it had 10,000' peaks given the annual precipitation near 50" in our area.

It would be very cool to have some 10,000’ peaks around here, the only tempering I’d add would be that they’d potentially have incredibly nasty weather; they would probably be fantastic for the spring and summer, but they might be almost unusable in the winter. With tree line at 4,000’ around here, that would be 6,000’ of terrain above tree line. Even on Mt. Washington, with only 2,000’ to 2,500’ of terrain above tree line, the winter environment is one typically visited only by experienced winter travelers. Using the quick altitude/latitude comparison, I think 10,000’ at this latitude would be a climate equivalent to right around the Arctic Circle. There would probably be some amazing weather on 10,000’ peaks around here though. We had 54.17” of liquid for 2010 at the house, and we’re currently on pace to be ahead of that in 2011, so it would be nice to know what they get up on Mt. Mansfield. For what the data are worth, looking at a plot of the precipitation (below) from the stake it seems like the average is perhaps 70 inches/year? It certainly seems like there is an upward trend with time as well, with over 100 inches of liquid picked up in some of the more recent years.

[powderfreak]

This morning I was surprised to see the Winooski way back up to a level even with our local V.A.S.T. bridge and hogging almost the entire valley in our area, just like back in mid April when the snowpack was starting to melt. I think it may have even been a bit higher this time, as the typically flooded residences and farmland west of the Cider House seemed quite inundated with water. The water was probably the closest I’ve seen it to washing over Route 2 in that area – I think another foot of depth and there would have been water on the road.

Wow! Someone coming to Stowe today from Burlington mentioned the same thing... we never really seemed to get in on the real heavy rain (it seems like 1-1.5" around here) and the West Branch out back never really responded. The person commuting from BTV had said the Winooski looked like it was about to overtake Jonesville and Bolton which fits with what you were saying, Jay. I always wondered if the river gets high enough to go over RT 2 there between Jenny Lane and the Cider House. I've seen it like lapping up against the roadway, while flooding the homes on the other side of the road (some of those folks have some low, lying front yards that just seem to fill up several feet deep)... but I've never actually seen or heard of water going over the roadway.

Nice report, J.Spin.

[powderfreak]

The storms were nearly continuous until late in the night. We lost power 3 times. There was quite a bit of water in the basement this morning. The heavy rain was impressive but the lightning is what was truly the most compelling part of this event. It was so constant, continuous. In cloud and cloud to ground. A fantastic display with some very close by hits.

Glad you guys are ok! That was one of the most impressive lightning displays I've ever seen... it was still waking me up between 12am-2am, and the storms started around 7pm! Nearly continuous lightning for over 5 hours with several confirmed strikes in town that resulted in the power outages. Fire department was busy last night.

Its funny that pretty much all of us on here lost power several times throughout the evening/night... not surprising given the amount of lightning with those storms. That was just amazing... cloud to cloud simultaneously with cloud to ground... there were bolts everywhere, going every which way.

[powderfreak]

For the Northern Vermont resorts in Tony’s NORTHEAST section, there are a couple of things to mention. He uses a number of 333” for Jay Peak because he takes an average of what is reported for the summit (355”) and base elevations. I used the summit number in my table to be consistent with the other Northern Vermont numbers, which as far as I know are from the upper elevations. In addition, Tony doesn’t have data for Stowe Mountain Resort (fortunately we have Powderfreak for that); Tony only has data for the Mt. Mansfield stake (230”/yr), which unfortunately isn’t very useful. As Powderfreak has pointed out many times, there appear to be serious issues with getting accurate snowfall measurements at that site; when the daily snowfall totals associated with the stake are sometimes less than the increases in the snowpack at the stake for the same day, you know there is an issue. Tony also doesn’t collect data for Bolton Valley, but I’d say most people are pretty confident in the numbers they put out since they fit in so well with the rest of the Northern Vermont resorts. I track the snowfall rigorously in the valley below, and I’m up at Bolton frequently during the snowy months, and I never see any issues with their reporting either.

J.Spin... do you still communicate with Tony? I should definitely get in touch with him and can give him the past several years worth of our records. This past season's will be by far the most accurate as the snowfall measurements were taken from established snow study plots and the measurements are always from the same exact locations. We also record daily snowfall from Smuggs, Jay, Sugarbush, and Killington for comparison. Next season I'm going to add Bolton because our snowfall usually mirrors them except in strict west-slope events, then you'll often see Smuggs and Bolton be very close in reported snowfall, while Stowe (east side) gets less.

The funny thing is, we send our snowfall records to Fred L. (guy in charge of the Mansfield co-op) from WCAX, who then in turn tells us he just gives Tony that information.... because Tony refuses to believe that only 230" falls at 4,000ft. After myself and ski patrol met with Fred, he confirms and acknowledges that the snowfall data is faulty due to measurement technique, but after 60 years worth of doing it that way, he doesn't care enough to change it. Greg Hanson, the senior hydrologist at BTV, and I have discussed this at length and I do believe some change will be coming. I mean, its no wonder it under-reports because the measuring can is stuck on a wind-swept ridge (which is bare rock all winter long thanks to hurricane force winds), and its about twice the size of a tennis ball can... snow falls sideways up there, not vertically, and thus its not hard to see why the snowflakes don't fall into the small can opening. If said measuring can was moved about 200-300 vertical feet down the hill to where the measuring stake is (sheltered), I think we'd see a large difference. Lastly, I'm excited to continue taking our snowfall measurements to the next level at the resort, and so WFO BTV is going to loan us some equipment to take liquid measurements of the snowpack. Hopefully next winter is a big winter and we can really get some fun data.

[eekuasepinniW]

I get so excited when they circle CNH and draw arrows to us.

[MaineJayhawk]

I get so excited when they circle CNH and draw arrows to us.

No hail for me please. TIA

Warm one out there - upper 80s at the stately Jayhawk Estates, 76F at PWM and right on the shore lower 60s. Thankfully, dewpoints aren't too bad just yet - lower 60s generally.

[dryslot]

Looks like we may be stareing down the gun barrel later................

FLUS41 KGYX 271824

HWOGYX

HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAY ME

224 PM EDT FRI MAY 27 2011

MEZ007>009-012>014-018>028-NHZ001>010-013-014-281830-

NORTHERN OXFORD-NORTHERN FRANKLIN-CENTRAL SOMERSET-SOUTHERN OXFORD-

SOUTHERN FRANKLIN-SOUTHERN SOMERSET-INTERIOR YORK-

INTERIOR CUMBERLAND-ANDROSCOGGIN-KENNEBEC-INTERIOR WALDO-

COASTAL YORK-COASTAL CUMBERLAND-SAGADAHOC-LINCOLN-KNOX-COASTAL WALDO-

NORTHERN COOS-SOUTHERN COOS-NORTHERN GRAFTON-NORTHERN CARROLL-

SOUTHERN GRAFTON-SOUTHERN CARROLL-SULLIVAN-MERRIMACK-BELKNAP-

STRAFFORD-INTERIOR ROCKINGHAM-COASTAL ROCKINGHAM-

224 PM EDT FRI MAY 27 2011

...SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH 389 IN EFFECT UNTIL 8 PM EDT THIS

EVENING...

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR WESTERN MAINE...CENTRAL NEW

HAMPSHIRE...NORTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTHEASTERN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

.DAY ONE...THIS AFTERNOON AND TONIGHT.

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE

INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS.

SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...SATURDAY THROUGH THURSDAY.

NO HAZARDOUS WEATHER IS EXPECTED AT THIS TIME.

.SPOTTER INFORMATION STATEMENT...

SPOTTERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CALL OR RADIO IN SIGNIFICANT WEATHER

CONDITIONS ACCORDING TO STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.

[dryslot]

URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED

SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH NUMBER 389

NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK

200 PM EDT FRI MAY 27 2011

THE NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER HAS ISSUED A

SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH FOR PORTIONS OF

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS

MUCH OF MAINE

NEW HAMPSHIRE

EASTERN NEW YORK

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN VERMONT

COASTAL WATERS

EFFECTIVE THIS FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING FROM 200 PM UNTIL 800

PM EDT.

HAIL TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER...THUNDERSTORM WIND GUSTS TO 70

MPH...AND DANGEROUS LIGHTNING ARE POSSIBLE IN THESE AREAS.

THE SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH AREA IS APPROXIMATELY ALONG AND 75

STATUTE MILES NORTH AND SOUTH OF A LINE FROM 50 MILES WEST OF

ALBANY NEW YORK TO 45 MILES NORTH NORTHEAST OF BANGOR MAINE. FOR

A COMPLETE DEPICTION OF THE WATCH SEE THE ASSOCIATED WATCH

OUTLINE UPDATE (WOUS64 KWNS WOU9).

REMEMBER...A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH MEANS CONDITIONS ARE

FAVORABLE FOR SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS IN AND CLOSE TO THE WATCH

AREA. PERSONS IN THESE AREAS SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR

THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS AND LISTEN FOR LATER STATEMENTS

AND POSSIBLE WARNINGS. SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS CAN AND OCCASIONALLY

DO PRODUCE TORNADOES.

OTHER WATCH INFORMATION...CONTINUE...WW 387...WW 388...

DISCUSSION...THUNDERSTORMS ARE EXPECTED TO INTENSIFY THIS AFTERNOON

ALONG AND SOUTH OF SURFACE BOUNDARY EXTENDING FROM EASTERN NY INTO

ME. STRONG DAYTIME HEATING/DESTABILIZATION AND FAVORABLE WESTERLY

WINDS ALOFT WILL PROMOTE ORGANIZED THUNDERSTORMS CAPABLE OF LOCALLY

DAMAGING WINDS AND LARGE HAIL.

AVIATION...A FEW SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WITH HAIL SURFACE AND ALOFT

TO 2 INCHES. EXTREME TURBULENCE AND SURFACE WIND GUSTS TO 60

KNOTS. A FEW CUMULONIMBI WITH MAXIMUM TOPS TO 500. MEAN STORM

MOTION VECTOR 24035.

...HART

[powderfreak]

I get so excited when they circle CNH and draw arrows to us.

I hope you get crushed! But with your house still standing, of course.

[dendrite]

86.3F here...CON probably hit 90F.

Hopefully the storms pan out here. The cap was pretty strong.

[HoarfrostHubb]

Vermont looks to be in the driver's seat again today

Little cell maybe gets to Lebanon NH in a bit?

[dendrite]

Storms are really lighting up along the CT River and into N NH right now.

[eekuasepinniW]

I hope you get crushed! But with your house still standing, of course.

87.8 for a high temp.

Nice storm bubbling up way to my west. Kind of seems like the storms want to stay over there so I'm a little uneasy.

[slknight]

No hail for me please. TIA

Warm one out there - upper 80s at the stately Jayhawk Estates, 76F at PWM and right on the shore lower 60s. Thankfully, dewpoints aren't too bad just yet - lower 60s generally.

Now is the time I love living right at the coast. It's a beautiful 62 in Kport right now. I dislike hot weather.

[red]

In to the mid 80s here today, severe thunderstorm warnings are up but it feels cool and very breezy out there now. Storms are moving in from the west but I would bet they weaken considerably before they get here.

[dendrite]

0.95" of rain in 28 mins at HIE.

Still 76.5F here. Not looking too good for storms here.

[whitemountainhiker]

Storms are really lighting up along the CT River and into N NH right now.

We just hit/just missed the storms this evening. A couple of cracks of thunder, and a few downpours, that was about it. I heard there was hail over the river in VT.

[eekuasepinniW]

[J.Spin]

J.Spin... do you still communicate with Tony? I should definitely get in touch with him and can give him the past several years worth of our records. This past season's will be by far the most accurate as the snowfall measurements were taken from established snow study plots and the measurements are always from the same exact locations. We also record daily snowfall from Smuggs, Jay, Sugarbush, and Killington for comparison. Next season I'm going to add Bolton because our snowfall usually mirrors them except in strict west-slope events, then you'll often see Smuggs and Bolton be very close in reported snowfall, while Stowe (east side) gets less.

I generally just talk with Tony through the First Tracks forum, but I’ve got his email from our discussion about the stake data last summer, so I’ll send that along to you.

The funny thing is, we send our snowfall records to Fred L. (guy in charge of the Mansfield co-op) from WCAX, who then in turn tells us he just gives Tony that information.... because Tony refuses to believe that only 230" falls at 4,000ft. After myself and ski patrol met with Fred, he confirms and acknowledges that the snowfall data is faulty due to measurement technique, but after 60 years worth of doing it that way, he doesn't care enough to change it. Greg Hanson, the senior hydrologist at BTV, and I have discussed this at length and I do believe some change will be coming. I mean, its no wonder it under-reports because the measuring can is stuck on a wind-swept ridge (which is bare rock all winter long thanks to hurricane force winds), and its about twice the size of a tennis ball can... snow falls sideways up there, not vertically, and thus its not hard to see why the snowflakes don't fall into the small can opening. If said measuring can was moved about 200-300 vertical feet down the hill to where the measuring stake is (sheltered), I think we'd see a large difference. Lastly, I'm excited to continue taking our snowfall measurements to the next level at the resort, and so WFO BTV is going to loan us some equipment to take liquid measurements of the snowpack. Hopefully next winter is a big winter and we can really get some fun data.

From a skier’s perspective, getting the combined snow and liquid measurements from Mansfield would be really great, since we’d have some actual snow density measurements to look at. It’s also informative from the perspective of a winter weather enthusiast, but at times far more useful as a skier in terms of deciding which skis to bring, how hard one might have to play the wind, establishing what it’s going to ultimately do to base depths, etc., etc. After I grabbed that plot of total precipitation from the stake the other day, I also think it would be great to start getting a system up there (perhaps like Mt. Washington uses, or simply move the equipment to an appropriate location) to really collect all the liquid precipitation. I had no idea that Mt. Mansfield got so much total liquid, with some of those seasons over 100 inches, and to think that some liquid might even be missing due to the collection location. I did a quick check on some other mountains and it looks like in the Whites, Mt. Washington averages around 100 inches of annual precipitation, in the Cascades, Mt. Rainier averages about 140 inches, and in the Olympics, Mt. Olympus averages about 200 inches. Presumably Mt. Mansfield would be somewhere below Mt. Washington in that list, but it would be nice to have some reliable data.

[Allenson]

Just like on Thursday, the storms trained along just west of here, largely missing us. Had only 0.03" of rain yesterday despite some very imressive T & L in the vicinty.

Topped out at 80F. Having a thermometer in the truck has been fun since I picked up this rig. Left work in Hanover yesterday afternoon reading 85F and it was all the way down to 74F by the time I got home, 30 miles north, 700' higher & 45 minutes later.

Maybe some more action today by the sounds of things.

Hey, how 'bout them Bruins?

[dendrite]

Down to 61F with overcast skies and a very light E-ENE wind. Hopefully today doesn't go into the crapper.

[J.Spin]

Hey, how 'bout them Bruins?

Indeed that is very cool for the Bruins. It's always tough with Bruins/Lightning matchups because two of the big stars (Tim Thomas and Martin St. Louis) are both from UVM and on opposing teams, but I figure St. Louis and the Lightning got their Stanley cup in '04. It's been quite a while for the Bruins, so I'm glad they're getting their shot.

[MaineJayhawk]

I passed by the stubborn snow pile that I've mentioned a couple of times recently. It's still there, down to about waist high.

A coolish 68.9F with cloudy skies. Purchased some annuals and pots ... thinking I might dump a can of insect repellant on me and brave the mosquito gangland.

[powderfreak]

I don't think folks have realized just how WET this year has been (particularly this spring) so far... I know this doesn't really apply being only the end of May, but BTV is on an incredible pace for precipitation this calendar year.

This is now the wettest May on record, after the wettest April on record. Period of record is significant... back to the later 1800s.

More amazing is that the records weren't even close, with both April and May beating the old records by well over an inch.

.CLIMATE...

RECENT NWS BURLINGTON PCPN DATA

WETTEST MAY

8.26 INCHES IN 2011 (AS OF 8AM EDT 5/28)

7.10 INCHES IN 2006

6.31 INCHES IN 1983

WETTEST APRIL

7.88 INCHES IN 2011

6.55 INCHES IN 1983

6.12 INCHES IN 1996

METEOROLOGICAL SPRING - MAR/APR/MAY

19.53 INCHES IN 2011 (AS OF 8AM EDT 5/28)

15.46 INCHES IN 1983

12.77 INCHES IN 2000

It continues to rain across central and northern VT at this time... this is just incredible. The ground could not be any more saturated.

[powderfreak]

We can add some other May rainfall amounts for other ASOS stations in Vermont....

Saint Johnsbury.. .9.07" (including 4.55" falling this past Thursday, May 26th, in a matter of hours).

Montpelier... 8.74" (including 3.83" on the 26th and another 0.70" on the 27th)

Morrisville... 5.29" (falling behind due to missing the extreme rainfall of the past few days)

And if anyone was wondering when Lake Champlain might recede... its not going to happen anytime soon.

Eastern Shoreline... Plattsburgh... 8.12" so far in May

Western Shoreline... Burlington... 8.26" so far in May

Montpelier and Morrisville areas both drain into the lake, and a flooded rivers upstream aren't helping matters.

[powderfreak]

I guess Mother Nature has a favorite spot to unload rain these days... which apparently is in the North Country. Just like winter when the same spots get hit with snowstorm after snowstorm, "it'll snow where it wants to snow."

Morrisville is back down to 1 mile visibility in RN+

[powderfreak]

This is some absolutely ridiculous lightning... building shaking thunder. The core of this little cell is going right over me where its hitting 108. More heavy rain.

[adk]

When life gives you lemons make lemonade:

http://www.famousinternetskiers.com/surfing-the-flood/

A good friend and his neighbors decided to say let's have some fun with this mess!