Snowmakers Spotted at Killington Resort - Discuss

[spanky]

so why wouldn't they?

Why should they? Any uncertainty about their opening or snowmaking capacity will be cause for doubt for people looking to book the holidays and drive them to look at other mountains.

[rogman]

They are still digging out the silt out of the pond at Bear; however I don't expect this, or problems they had with with the pipe from Woodward, to affect their ability to open. When they get a weather window, and can open with a quality product, they will open.

[newpylong]

I thought temperatures were going up for the next few days.

They are. This is just a PR thing. But it is interesting that they are conveying the message that the guns are in place and ready, that the walkway is there to allow them to open as early as possible and that they are willing to blow snow as soon as temps allow for it. This sounds more like the SR attitude than Powdr's attitude. We shall see.

Who gives a crap about snowmakers being seen? You want to know what a good PR stunt is? Turning the pumps on for an hour like Sunday River did and making snow early one morning...

[jimmywilson69]

Who gives a crap about snowmakers being seen? You want to know what a good PR stunt is? Turning the pumps on for an hour like Sunday River did and making snow early one morning...

This

[Stormchaser]

PWDR has made a sport out of rattling the 'snow guns are in place' mantra in October ever since they got on the scene. Historically, it had nothing to do with the opening date. Remember the year (2 years ago?) they installed the tower mounted fan gun on Mousetrap? The opening was delayed through the first cold snap when they could have otherwise opened and (had the snow for it) because they were still trenching electricity to the fan gun. Then they had to wait until the next cold snap to blow lower bunny to open.

After Irene, the number of issues to resolve prior to opening must make the fan gun look like the good ol' days.

I take this insider post to be a positive sign. Why talk about the guns being in place and snowmakers being ready to make snow as soon as they can and us making turns before we know it if you're not planning to blow snow once temperatures allow for it? If they don't follow up on what they promise this will be another fiasco, and they probably know by now they don't need more drama.

I have this bridge for you to invest in. It has a few demonstrators on it at the moment, but I'll deal with that prior to closing. There is an excellent traffic flow, and you could achieve an excellent return by simple installing tolls. Please contact me at once for this excellent opportunity.

They have the walkway now, so that for me is a new beginning. The top to bottom setup wasn't easy to deal with. The walkway makes things much easier. Last year they were rushing it to completion and didn't know whether opening early would be a good idea. They sold a lot of day tickets and they seemed to be very happy about how things turned out.

With a year with the walkway under their belt and the knowledge that opening early makes money for them, there are good reasons for treating this year differently.

Of course, you may be right, but I hope you're not. And fortunately, as you conceded recently in a different thread, you're often wrong. I hope for all of our sakes that you're wrong about this as well.

I will stake my accuracy rate against WG's accuracy rate at any time.

Touché.

You always keep WG honest. Before the beginning of the season, why don't we come up with an objective way of assessing WG's forecasting performance. How close in terms of inches of snow does the forecast need to be? How close in terms of time period? More points for predicting the event earlier, I assume. Suggestions?

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

[skiersleft]

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

Sounds sensible. Regarding no alteration 48 hours prior to commencement of storm, I agree and will hold myself to that standard.

Regarding predictions being offered before published weather forecasts, makes sense generally. But what if WG has a prediction that is issues after published weather forecasts but departs substantially from published forecasts. Shouldn't this count as well?

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

[Stormchaser]

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

Sounds sensible. Regarding no alteration 48 hours prior to commencement of storm, I agree and will hold myself to that standard.

Regarding predictions being offered before published weather forecasts, makes sense generally. But what if WG has a prediction that is issues after published weather forecasts but departs substantially from published forecasts. Shouldn't this count as well?

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

Predictions not preceding published forecasts will only be accepted under the following conditions.

- WG prediction may not simulate or approximate existing published forecasts
- Deviations from existing public forecasts require accurate explanation (i.e. predictions are for 12" of snow, but WG says 0". 0" because the blocking high will not move out as predicted and all snow will fall either at Rogman's house or over the ocean. Now if we get 1" of snow and 1" of freezing r*in, cuz the warm air aloft didn't move out when the blocking high left, no soup for you...)

[skiersleft]

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

Sounds sensible. Regarding no alteration 48 hours prior to commencement of storm, I agree and will hold myself to that standard.

Regarding predictions being offered before published weather forecasts, makes sense generally. But what if WG has a prediction that is issues after published weather forecasts but departs substantially from published forecasts. Shouldn't this count as well?

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

Predictions not preceding published forecasts will only be accepted under the following conditions.

- WG prediction may not simulate or approximate existing published forecasts
- Deviations from existing public forecasts require accurate explanation (i.e. predictions are for 12" of snow, but WG says 0". 0" because the blocking high will not move out as predicted and all snow will fall either at Rogman's house or over the ocean. Now if we get 1" of snow and 1" of freezing r*in, cuz the warm air aloft didn't move out when the blocking high left, no soup for you...)

Fair enough. How about predictions before published forecasts? TWC, ACCUW, NWS, FIS. Before those. Sounds good?

[Stormchaser]

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

Sounds sensible. Regarding no alteration 48 hours prior to commencement of storm, I agree and will hold myself to that standard.

Regarding predictions being offered before published weather forecasts, makes sense generally. But what if WG has a prediction that is issues after published weather forecasts but departs substantially from published forecasts. Shouldn't this count as well?

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

Predictions not preceding published forecasts will only be accepted under the following conditions.

- WG prediction may not simulate or approximate existing published forecasts
- Deviations from existing public forecasts require accurate explanation (i.e. predictions are for 12" of snow, but WG says 0". 0" because the blocking high will not move out as predicted and all snow will fall either at Rogman's house or over the ocean. Now if we get 1" of snow and 1" of freezing r*in, cuz the warm air aloft didn't move out when the blocking high left, no soup for you...)

Fair enough. How about predictions before published forecasts? TWC, ACCUW, NWS, FIS. Before those. Sounds good?

I'm on board...

[skiersleft]

Predictions must precede published weather forecasts, and must be issued and remain unaltered 48 hours prior to the commencement of the storm.

Sounds sensible. Regarding no alteration 48 hours prior to commencement of storm, I agree and will hold myself to that standard.

Regarding predictions being offered before published weather forecasts, makes sense generally. But what if WG has a prediction that is issues after published weather forecasts but departs substantially from published forecasts. Shouldn't this count as well?

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

Predictions not preceding published forecasts will only be accepted under the following conditions.

- WG prediction may not simulate or approximate existing published forecasts
- Deviations from existing public forecasts require accurate explanation (i.e. predictions are for 12" of snow, but WG says 0". 0" because the blocking high will not move out as predicted and all snow will fall either at Rogman's house or over the ocean. Now if we get 1" of snow and 1" of freezing r*in, cuz the warm air aloft didn't move out when the blocking high left, no soup for you...)

Fair enough. How about predictions before published forecasts? TWC, ACCUW, NWS, FIS. Before those. Sounds good?

I'm on board...

Fantastic. Are you going to be the judge? We need impartiality to make it work. Up for it?

[Stormchaser]

Too much authority for one man to handle...

[rogman]

Predictions not preceding published forecasts will only be accepted under the following conditions.

- WG prediction may not simulate or approximate existing published forecasts
- Deviations from existing public forecasts require accurate explanation (i.e. predictions are for 12" of snow, but WG says 0". 0" because the blocking high will not move out as predicted and all snow will fall either at Rogman's house or over the ocean. Now if we get 1" of snow and 1" of freezing r*in, cuz the warm air aloft didn't move out when the blocking high left, no soup for you...)

W.T.F.???

[Mister Moose]

all snow will fall either at Rogman's house

W.T.F.???

Please cut down those split rail fences by the fire pit so we can take advantage of the max vertical off your deck.

[Mister Moose]

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

So now you're the Weather reGurgitator? If you notice, Lionel Hutz gives credit to all of his sources. He makes clear what is his thinking and what is from other sources. You should do the same.

[skiersleft]

Also, what published forecasts are we talking about? I assume National Weather Service Forecasts, Accuweather Forecasts and The Weather Channel Forecasts. Not included, however, would be forecasts published in blogs and stuff like that (except, perhaps, forecasts published at FIS).

I'm willing to accept the rules, just want to make sure how they will be construed.

So now you're the Weather reGurgitator? If you notice, Lionel Hutz gives credit to all of his sources. He makes clear what is his thinking and what is from other sources. You should do the same.

Was waiting for you to chime in. What took you son long?

Will give credit to my sources. Fair enough. Are you on board with the rules put forth by Stormchaser?

If so, why don't you serve as the impartial magistrate that will judge WG's performance this winter? You're tough but fair, I think.