Lake effect weekend!

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:52:43 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:


"uglymoney" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:23:18 -0600, bdubya
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:43:37 -0600, "pigo"
wrote:

We're supposed to be getting lake effect too. Bet ours is better!

Pfaugh. You call that a lake? "Pond effect", maybe, but isn't it
really more of a desert/mountain effect? I mean, granted, it ought
to be better (bite me, btw), but still, you need a Real Lake to have a
lake effect. IMHO, YRSMV, etc.

Lets compare.

Water temp. vs. air temp.
Amount of lift (aerographic?) between lake and Mtns.
Total amount of snowfall generated by said "lake effect".
Quality of snow generated.....
Angle of terrain where snow falls in order to take advantage of previously
mentioned "lake effect".

Your "lake" may be bigger but our ''effect" is better.

Your "effect" has very little to do with the lake. Are you really
saying that if that salt-pond weren't there, your snow would suck?
'cuz that's how it sounds....

bw

"bdubya" wrote in message
...

Your "effect" has very little to do with the lake. Are you really
saying that if that salt-pond weren't there, your snow would suck?
'cuz that's how it sounds....

You obviously know more about where I live than I do.

The lake has a HUGE effect on snowfall in the Cottonwood Canyons. That is
the reason they usually get 3X more snow than pc.With the southern flow
these past couple of weeks, pc totals have been closer to those of the
Cottonwoods.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:36:28 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:


"bdubya" wrote in message
.. .

Your "effect" has very little to do with the lake. Are you really
saying that if that salt-pond weren't there, your snow would suck?
'cuz that's how it sounds....

You obviously know more about where I live than I do.

Don't get all cranky here, save the strawmen for people who care, and
please answer: are you saying that if the lake weren't there, the
snow would suck? Y'see, the average snowfall in the UP would be
vastly less without the lake; in fact, it would more-or-less suck. I
have this strange hunch (and hey, I could be wrong) that without the
lake, the snowfall in the Wasatch would still be pretty respectable.
Am I wrong?

The lake has a HUGE effect on snowfall in the Cottonwood Canyons. That is
the reason they usually get 3X more snow than pc.With the southern flow
these past couple of weeks, pc totals have been closer to those of the
Cottonwoods.


What has a bigger effect? The lake, or the mountains? Or the desert?
Or the Pacific, maybe? If I'm not mistaken, the pc resorts are on the
east side (i.e. the lee side, most days) of the range, so one would
expect them to get a lot less snow anyhow. Am I wrong? And if the
Salt Pond throws so much snow, then why doesn't BCC get more snow than
LCC (being a little closer to the lake), and why doesn't Snowbasin get
more than either? Don't get me wrong, O Cranky One, I'm not saying
the salt lake has no effect, I'm saying that I suspect it's relatively
minor, and that if it weren't there, the difference would not be
particularly significant.

bw

bw

"Bob Lee" wrote in message
...
bdubya wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:36:28 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:


"bdubya" wrote in message
.. .

Don't get all cranky here, save the strawmen for people who care, and
please answer: are you saying that if the lake weren't there, the
snow would suck? Y'see, the average snowfall in the UP would be
vastly less without the lake; in fact, it would more-or-less suck. I
have this strange hunch (and hey, I could be wrong) that without the
lake, the snowfall in the Wasatch would still be pretty respectable.
Am I wrong?

My guess is that without lake effect Alta would get a couple of hundred
inches less snow.

Interesting point. The Ruby Mtns in Nevada are in the same storm track,
but on the other (upwind/west) side of the lake - no lake effect and
they get what you'd call pretty respectable snowfall.

They do get pretty good snow. 500"?

The lake has a HUGE effect on snowfall in the Cottonwood Canyons. That
is
the reason they usually get 3X more snow than pc.With the southern flow
these past couple of weeks, pc totals have been closer to those of the
Cottonwoods.

What has a bigger effect? The lake, or the mountains? Or the desert?
Or the Pacific, maybe? If I'm not mistaken, the pc resorts are on the
east side (i.e. the lee side, most days) of the range, so one would
expect them to get a lot less snow anyhow. Am I wrong?

The pc resorts usually get 1/3 to 1/2 the amount of LCC. Crayons about 1/4.
Largely due to the fact that long after it stops snowing there it still
nukes at Alta.

I believe that's referred to as the rain shadow effect. Slopes on the
windward side get more precipitation than slopes on the lee side.

And if the
Salt Pond throws so much snow, then why doesn't BCC get more snow than
LCC (being a little closer to the lake), and why doesn't Snowbasin get
more than either? Don't get me wrong, O Cranky One, I'm not saying
the salt lake has no effect, I'm saying that I suspect it's relatively
minor, and that if it weren't there, the difference would not be
particularly significant.

I believe it is because LCC faces a little more NW than BCC and the
geography at the top of LCC holds the storm in better.

I think you make some interesting (if theoretical) points. Where's the
lake effect for Grand Targhee? And where's our meteorologist? I know
one, I'll see if I can ask him...after I ski tomorrow.

I'm skiing again tomorrow too! Where are you going?

bdubya wrote:

Y'see, the average snowfall in the UP would be
vastly less without the lake; in fact, it would more-or-less suck.

Yup. Look at the annual snowfall on the leeside of the lake:

Bohemia 270"
Indainhead 200"
Porkies 211"

While over on the weather side:

Lutsen 114"
Spirit 92"

And they're still close enough to the lake to get a substantial amount
of backwash (or whatever you want to call it). Without the lake, it'd be
more like North Dakota or Western Minnesota with only 20 to 40 inches.
Suck indeed.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

"pigo" wrote in message
...

I'm skiing again tomorrow too! Where are you going?

http://alta.com/Images/alfsfull.jpg

bdubya wrote:
And if the
Salt Pond throws so much snow, then why doesn't BCC get more snow than
LCC (being a little closer to the lake)

They do.

Alta - 364"
http://www.alta.com/Frames/snow_report_report.htm

Snowbird - 317"
Snowbird http://www.snowbird.com/pages/weather/snow_report.php

Brighton - 376"
Brighton http://www.brightonresort.com/snowreport.php

Solitude - 425"
Solitude http://www.skisolitude.com/mountain_report.cfm

But it has been a more southerly year.

-klaus

uglymoney wrote:

Lets compare.

Salt Lake:
1,700 square miles (75x28)
maximum depth 35 feet

[snippage]

Although it's the surface area that generates the lake effect snow, not
the depth -- ONLY 35 feet?

That would mean that if the Moroni klan threw their empty empty Pepsi
cans and bottles in the lake, in 20 years GSL would cease to be.

And it would be replaced by a nice salt-based playa with a seasonable
self-renewing perfectly flat surface, kinda like Bonneville.

Not so good for sailing or skiing, but perfect for launching
high-powered rockets or driving motorcycles at 200 MPH.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:16:11 -0500, Walt
wrote:

bdubya wrote:

Y'see, the average snowfall in the UP would be
vastly less without the lake; in fact, it would more-or-less suck.

Yup. Look at the annual snowfall on the leeside of the lake:

Bohemia 270"
Indainhead 200"
Porkies 211"

While over on the weather side:

Lutsen 114"
Spirit 92"

And they're still close enough to the lake to get a substantial amount
of backwash (or whatever you want to call it). Without the lake, it'd be
more like North Dakota or Western Minnesota with only 20 to 40 inches.
Suck indeed.

Oh, he already went and got the stats.

Amazing.

nate

"Bob Lee" wrote in message
...
pig wrote:


I'm skiing again tomorrow too! Where are you going?

Taos.

That wasn't too hard to figure out. I was asking bfuddld. He mentioned that
he was going.

He got to be thankful they don't get 500". The hill would disappear.