Cali exodus to UT???

[TahoeJ]

You missed my point. Correlation is not causation, and past performance does not dictate future results.

The stats I posted show that UT has less volatility. Sure. But the last several years in CA were merely volatility signals--data points--not future predictors. But the OP is using them as a future predictor, as are you. Based on the onthesnow stats, we could be sitting in May 2011, and UT would still be a better bet in terms of consistency. But by the OP and your logic, he/she should stick with CA because the last 2-3 seasons were huge. And then he/she would've gotten skunked as 2011-2012 was a poor season in CA. Make sense?

If you look at the ENSO forecast, you can stack the odds in your favor. Especially if you can wait another month or two for it to clear up more.

Exactly. It's like blackjack. Just because you've lost 5 straight hands doesn't mean you quadruple your bet on your next hand because you're due (card counting aside). And same deal with winning streaks.

[Bromontana]

It's exactly like blackjack only California got the deck with the jokers.

You missed my point. Correlation is not causation, and past performance does not dictate future results.

Not on a YoY basis, but by using dictate you're trying to wedge the question. It's reasonable to assume ~15yr droughts every X hundred years in Tahoe. Why? Historical record. It's reasonable to assume snowfall >300in as a baseline at Alta. You can't do that in Cali because of the different climate and bigger downside in the spectrum of possible outcomes for any given year.

The stats I posted show that UT has less volatility. Sure.

Right - less volatility in weather for a ski town is a good thing, especially when that low volatility is coupled with average snowfall 50% higher than the area with higher volatility. For UT this year was the worst in 80 years or so of record keeping and Alta's snowfall was still only two standard deviations off the mean (~75inch std. deviation or so for UT snowfall). That is a reasonable factor to use when deciding on a place. Feast or famine or steady Alta?

But the last several years in CA were merely volatility signals--data points--not future predictors. But the OP is using them as a future predictor, as are you. Based on the onthesnow stats, we could be sitting in May 2011, and UT would still be a better bet in terms of consistency. But by the OP and your logic, he/she should stick with CA because the last 2-3 seasons were huge. And then he/she would've gotten skunked as 2011-2012 was a poor season in CA. Make sense?

No dat not wut I sed.

If you look at the ENSO forecast, you can stack the odds in your favor. Especially if you can wait another month or two for it to clear up more.

Any data on ENSO @ X = average of Y"/yr? Imo a hot ENSO at one point in time doesn't override the above issues with Tahoe.

[LightRanger]

^^^ You're still missing the point. I don't disagree with the volatility aspect. I disagree with using last year and the year before as a baseline. And you walked backed that statement by saying, "Not on a YoY basis..." which is an admission that your prior statement (and the OP's premise) is incorrect. But then below that you seem to deny making the following statement with your "No dat not what I sed" comment,:

For a ski bum I think a multi year drought is precisely the type of information you'd want to base next year plans around.

(Bolded for emphasis.)

My point remains: look at the data, not immediate past history. The data points (from a pure snowfall consistency standpoint) toward Utah. But that is coincidental to the OP's premise. (The OP could've been asking about WA or NM and maybe we wouldn't be having this argument.) The current CA drought has nothing to do with the consistency stats (except maybe moving them a bit one way or the other). Paleoclimate records show that the current drought in CA is already the worst in 1200 years. But that has no bearing on whether it continues. That's a logical leap/implication on your part, made by cherrypicking incomplete paleoclimate records to only look at historic megadroughts. Many of those megadroughts afflicted the entire West (which I know you know), but you're leaving out how they may or may not have affected Utah to fit your argument.

[itsnowjoke]

I lived in Tahoe for 25 years through thick and thin. -But not as thin as it's been the last two years, obviously. I've been in the Wasatch 10 years. In my experience, the Sierra got hammered deeper and more consistently. During most winters at Tahoe we'd stop shoveling the path and simply dig a 75 foot long tunnel to the front door. So far I've seen only one season in the Wasatch where that would've been possible. Before anyone points out the obvious fact that I'm in the "dry" side of the Wasatch, I'll point out that I spend a fair amount of time in the Cottonwoods. Chasing the snow could be frustrating. Tahoe could get hammered next season, but who knows?

[Bromontana]

Ahh yeah agreed that statement's not worded very well. I don't (or didn't) mean the last year or two will be repeated in 2016, but that there's a much better chance of Tahoe throwing up a brown Christmas than alta based on physical location and historical record. The last few years are big exclamation points on the downside of relying on tahoe snowpack.

The alta historical record is where that baseline was taken, not 1 or 3 years ago. It just happens that the low baseline is about where we landed this season.

Overall though, is an exodus from CA among avid skiers warranted? Maybe. It might be warranted in UT in 20 years if things keep getting worse. Park City should be without natural snowpack by that time thanks to warmer temps. The climate is warming and the more geographic barriers you have to produce or hold snow, the better off you are. I think Utah's better protected than CA by virtue of being inland and higher elevation, but could be wrong.

[LightRanger]

Fair enough.

On your last point, check this:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci.../snowpack.html

Some areas have seen increases in snowpack, primarily in the southern Sierra Nevada of California.

Now, that's not Tahoe. Tahoe is at 6,200 (lake level). Resorts top out at 8,500-9,900. But the High Sierra is high. A lot of resort skiing in CA is going to be in trouble (more than now). High Sierra BC skiing will remain for the foreseeable future.

Pretty sure UT is only situated somewhat better, for the reasons you mention. Best bets sixty years from now may be CO, Alberta, and, funny enough, the East Coast--with the latter based on projections/current theory that the "North American dipole pattern" (e.g. the RRR in the West and the "polar vortex"/anomalous arctic air in the East) we've seen for the last three years being a continuing trend. The best I can figure that map out is the increases and decreases are correlated with elevation, which is consistent with our understanding of the effects of climate change (warmer, but more water in the atmosphere). Of course, the sample size isn't huge, but it's at least somewhat helpful.

[TahoeJ]

I think most of us are just trying to be patient knowing that the snow will come eventually... and there have definitely been some trips elsewhere in the meantime (including Utah).

Drinking more beer than usual during the winter has also been involved and I hope my mountain bike never gets used that much between December and April ever again.

[Bromontana]

Yeah it's an ugly long term forecast. I noticed the Sonora Pass thread a bit earlier this month and am somewhat versed in the Sierra layout, definitely looks like a pocket of heaven in the southern half.

edit: Sonora's central more than southern. Can't get a damn thing right in this thread

[Nevada29er]

This thread has WAY overcomplicated the matter.

Is snow more consistent and predicable in UT than CA. YES

The only problem with moving to UT, is then you have to live in UT.

So the real question is, can you live in UT?

[old goat]

Long range weather forecasts are like magicians' mind reading, fortune tellers' predictions, and FBI profiles--enough generalized bullshit that after the fact you can always find something in the prediction that seems to fit what actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Best technique to figure out where to ski bum next season--get drunk, put on a blindfold, throw a dart at a map. Congratulations!--you'll be skiing at your best friend's eyeball.

[neckdeep]

J made part of my point. But the larger point was: droughts are retrospective. We have no idea what next winter's going to be like. This time last year NOAA was forecasting a moderate-to-strong El Nino. If that had materialized, the Central Sierra would have done well based on past history. Next winter is an open book. CA had a drought from 2007-2009, and then 2010 and (especially) 2011 were really awesome years. Next year may be too. I'd look at data here to make a more-informed decision: http://bestsnow.net/pwdrpct.htm

And, like I said, the current ENSO forecast looks strongly positive, which has major implications for Western US precip (e.g. lower in Jackson, higher in Mammoth and, say, Taos).

Lower in the Tetons? We just had a terrible year; it doesn't get much lower. But that's ok when a terrible year still gets around 300". That's the thing I think most people overlook whenever this debate gets rehashed. Lots of geographical regions get the big year (yes, Greg, even NE), some more than others. In line with this new awareness of drought, how about looking at the shitty winters instead. How many regions measure drought in terms of receiving only 250-350 inches of powder? Because, from what I've seen over 20 years, a bad year in the rest of the country means almost no ski season and water shortages. For the Tetons, the downside is usually around 300" and an absolute minimum of 4 months of good conditions, year after year. Dry year, wet year, this is still one of the coldest places in the lower 48 and its going to stay consistently more cold than the rest of the lower 48's resort areas. UT has more downside than the Tetons as it's truly bad seasons are noticably shorter, warmer and thinner than the Tetons. It's not unusual at all to see hordes of UT skiers at the Village and Targhee in December because during some dry years UT has very little going on until after the holiday season.

[whyturn]

Well I'm planning my escape after the bills are paid and the pile of money under the mattress is big enough

But it's more of getting away from crowds while still finding good snow

I am seeing more skier traffic and tracks in Utah as well. The 10 minute tracked out phenomenon

But I did have 4 amazing days at Kirkwood three years ago when a whopper shut down the 80

[54-46]

This thread has WAY overcomplicated the matter.

Is snow more consistent and predicable in UT than CA. YES

The only problem with moving to UT, is then you have to live in UT.

So the real question is, can you live in UT?

Well, according to the Hitler Wants to Ski Vail video on YouTube, they do have In n Out and the Mormons aren't so bad.

Double double animal style?

[Tahoe Bromide]

Did someone actually mention grooming in this disussion????
Yeah it sucks here, please leave.

[galibier_numero_un]

Did someone actually mention grooming in this disussion????
Yeah it sucks here, please leave.

I find it reassuring that Killington is both a Jersey babe and a Greg@Alpinezone magnet. If they all went to JH and Montana, I'd really be pissed off. Note - nothing wrong with MRG, Jay Peak, Mt. Mansfield, etc., but Killington? Puh-leaze.

... Thom

[Shredhead]

Thom:
Most guys don't consider more babes a problem.
NTTAWWT.

[FluffyLilKitten]

A few people alluded to the ENSO forecast. Is any long term weather prediction forecast really worth anything? I thought any thing more than 3 days out is just fortune telling let alone years out. Am i wrong?

I'm a professional card counter (blackjack) so I know all about how silly it is basing statistics on a ridiculously small sample but this isn't blackjack, this is weather and geography and the past is not necessarily relevant statistics to use. I mean I've read articles (as I'm sure you have too) that say CA has basically been in the midst of a monsoon the last hundred years and that we are now resorting back to it's common no precipitation desert environment. That is a pretty big concern for a ski bum when it appears to be playing out currently. I love Cali and I'd prefer to be in Cali and I find the vibe in UT to be awkward to say the least, but several straight years of horrible drought combined with at best an uncertain future i think would make many ski bums hop on the bus. I understand families and businesses have to stay where they are but for pure ski bums I would think more would be scattering despite how awesome Cali is with or without snow.

It seems though that the the consensus is that the ski bums in Cali are sticking around hoping for the best and preparing maybe for more BC rather than picking up and moving to more consistent spots.

[Bromontana]

I think long term weather forecasts are a weak indicator. Wouldn't base plans on em.

Sick you're a counter! Don't hear that very often. Messed with it in Wendover in college but moved to poker. More fun but NOT easily scalable.

[FluffyLilKitten]

^^^ Poker is scalable, card counter is not. Poker you CAN make tens of millions but in poker you are more likely to go broke or just eek out a meager existence (even most of those poker "stars" have been broke numerous times). Most pros making money playing poker do so online and not in tournaments or in poker rooms. Card counting blackjack you are pretty much confined to the low six figures unless you want to start investing in Hollywood disguises and even then it is really tough because if you are betting $10k a hand they want to know who the fuck you are, but it is steady predictable income (over the long run) unlike poker where it is fairly risky since you never really know where your skill is at and when you find out your limit you go broke. I can't imagine Wendover is very playable though because i doubt black action is tolerated there well and that really is the minimum to make money.

[Shredhead]

I was really looking forward to the much better vibe and beauty of Cali but there is no point of being a ski bum without snow. Honest curiosity here, not trying to start anything.

Have you considered the casinos in either BlackHawk or Cripple Creek, Colorado?

[whyturn]

^^^ Cali folks stay for work. UT is still 51% Mormon controlled. Plus were stuck in our overpriced houses

[galibier_numero_un]

Thom:
Most guys don't consider more babes a problem.
NTTAWWT.

Jersey babes might test that theory (that more babes is never a problem) Having said that, some of my best friends are from Jersey ... I suppose they're the exception that proves the rule.

Cheers,
Thom

[TahoeJ]

Plus were stuck in our overpriced houses

Not anymore... real estate has gone full bat-shit and returned to 2007 levels. At least in a lot of cities.

[LightRanger]

Not anymore... real estate has gone full bat-shit and returned to 2007 levels. At least in a lot of cities.

Only in the ones around you and I, and Southland coastal cities. The Great Central Valley and The 909 are still far below their peaks. Unequal recovery distribution. And shit.

[Nevada29er]

Wait, did I miss something?

How are you going to make a living card counting in UT, or do you make enough during the off season to ski all winter?

If that's the case, knock yourself out and move to UT or WY. I'm sure rentals are dirt cheap in Sandy.