Tubby Beaver 209 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Just reading the Myoko Now pages, it seems the writer is in awe of the snowfall this year, with Seki Onsen reaching 6 metres. I was wondering then, is this record or much larger than usual snowfall for this area? Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It always gets tons at Seki Onsen, but there is a lot this year. Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://www.snowjapan.com/e/daily/A_TO_Z_ResortsSnowDepth.php Quite amusing how Hokkaido resorts DONT even rank in the top 20 ...They barely make the top 30 Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The list tells me that Japan gets tons of snow, but they may not be that good at measuring it. The Hakuba resorts are all over the list, with Happo WAY down around 40 or so, but Cortina near the top. Chalk it all up to wind, I suppose? Link to post Share on other sites
wattiewatson 0 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 well a good few of those top ranked resorts are in the same area. One of the resorts i ride at gets tons of snow yet 10km down the road there is relatively little. You can visually see the difference. There is no dramatic change in altitude. There are some really funny mirco climates. I hope to check out seki onsen in the next couple of weeks. Matt Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 over-reporting, under reporting, no reporting, it's all very confusing. That's why I look at the webcams when I can. Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Right, but you can't see the depth. Wouldn't it bother you to ski on 3 meters of snow, knowing you could be skiing on 6 meters of snow? You'd only have half as much fun. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 so true, that's why I've subscribed to spy satellite doplar imaging. Everytime I want to know the snow dept, I re-task the satellite from its spying mission on Korea. Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally Posted By: ger Right, but you can't see the depth. Wouldn't it bother you to ski on 3 meters of snow, knowing you could be skiing on 6 meters of snow? You'd only have half as much fun. I play with what's near the surface not what's 2-3m below me Link to post Share on other sites
quattro 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally Posted By: thursday. so true, that's why I've subscribed to spy satellite doplar imaging. Everytime I want to know the snow dept, I re-task the satellite from its spying mission on Korea. Now what would Dear Leader think! Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally Posted By: MikePow Originally Posted By: ger Right, but you can't see the depth. Wouldn't it bother you to ski on 3 meters of snow, knowing you could be skiing on 6 meters of snow? You'd only have half as much fun. I play with what's near the surface not what's 2-3m below me sounds like the people who have been getting 400, 500, and 600 would be getting more powpow too Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Not necessarily, as we found out this past week. Bags of new snow, and increased depth and all rock solid courtesy of the wind. And pow with a higher water content typically results in a greater snow pack depth. Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 All good points, yes... Link to post Share on other sites
snowdude 44 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Not being funny but I find whether you got 2 metres or 6 metres of snow, if the condition of the snow is the same the skiing is the same. The only advantage I see of more snow is the fact that the season can last longer. Of course I like to see loads of snow, but I don't actually care whether I ski on top of 2 metres of snow or 10 metres, after all the top is the same no matter how deep, right? Anyone else think the same. And by the way guys and gals, did I not say that this year would be a cold one with plenty of snow? Link to post Share on other sites
gogalago 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Quote: The only advantage I see of more snow is the fact that the season can last longer. Inbounds maybe so.... a few more advantages for those going beyond: 1) More snow covers more things - a) some drops with rocky bottoms become doable some rivers get better cover/snow bridges meaning they are easier crossed. c) smaller vegetation gets covered, so fewer face scratches and random whippings. 2) The weight of a lot of snow pushes smaller trees flat, meaning lines that were doable two years ago, but were filled with trees last year are once again fair game. 3) Having a massive thermal sink below means fresh snow stays fresh longer on the top - works for inbounds too that. (1b) can work as a disadvantage too - some hazards that are usually easily noticeable are slyly disguised. The other disadvantages of having places made inaccessible or features completely covered are solved simply by waiting for a bit of a melt, so I vote always for too much snow rather than the many cons of a weeny depth. Link to post Share on other sites
arcadia 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Shallow snowpacks tend to have greater temperature differences within the snowpack (temperature gradient) which leads to faceting and more avalanches. Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 great points gogalago and arcadia. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 yep..makes sense. the thicker the snow pack, the greater the thermal mass, keeping the top layer colder for longer. Link to post Share on other sites
snowdude 44 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Ic good points, never thought about the snow in that way before, but yes that is true the more snow the more stable the snow I guess. Isn't it good how between everyone here we all have answers to all different things. Really great! Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 Shit, hope you aren't away to start chanting Snowdude!! Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Sorry I can't help with snow, but I am remarkably accurate at earthquake prediction. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts