TELL MY WY NAKISKA ONLY GETS 90 INCHES OF SNOW PER YEAR

@

@LANTASKI

Member
Why is this? Its in Canada, its cold, seems hard to believe they get the same amount of snow as my home mountain in NC.
 
It's because they're on the east side of the Rockies and as a result suffer from being in the rain shadow, where most of the humidity is dumped on the west side as the air mass is pushed to higher altitudes leaving less humidity and less precip on the east side of the range.
 
but they still get a decent amount. 100 inches a year is still more than most places in the east.
 
Yes they are in rain shadow, but not a 90 inch a year rain shadow. Im assuming you went on their snow report and saw the 93 YTD number. That means year to date, and means they have 93 inches so far. Fairly certain they get closer to 200-225 inches a year. And its more than just rain shadows, Lake Lousie gets around 150 a year, while nearby Sunshine Village pulls around 350. Valley shapes and wind patterns can be a much bigger factor than a simple rain shadow.
 
WIKIPEDIA AND ON THE SNOW CITE THAT THEY ONLY GET 90 INCHES PER ANNUM

AND LAKE LOUISE WTF.... WHY DO PEOPLE TRAVEL FROM TEXAS TO SKI THERE? WEST VIRGINIA GETS MORE SNOW THAN THEY DO

CANADIAN ROCKIES(OVERRATED??)
 
no they arent, its where you go. And damn, i guess they just hit their average early. People go to Louise for the same reason Texans go to Sun Valley or Summit County, its a social status and tradition. "I just spent the weekend at Lake Louise" sounds a lot more impressive to your golf buddies who know jack shit about skiing, than "I just spent the weekend skiing blower in Revelstoke."

Places worth visiting in the canadian rockies

Sunshine Village - 350in a year, also gnarly as fuck

Fernie - 350-375 a year, gnarlier

Kicking horse - 275-300 a year, less snow, imo even gnarlier

Castle Mountain - 450 a year, not as gnar, usually deeper

places that are kind of in the Canadian Rockies

Revelstoke 450-500 a year, you will jizz

Whitewater - 475 a year, no Revy but still jizz worthy

And if Lake Louise has a good base its a great place, just don't go there expecting anything other than groomers
 
I have nothing to do right now so I went way into this.

Ok. So most of the time the weather for southwestern Canada comes from the Pacific - around the area of Hawaii. The warm, wet system from Hawaii meets up with colder air coming down the coast from Alaska and they converge offshore. When they meet they head straight inland with a lot of moisture.

681579.jpeg

When the storm hits land it has to go over both the Vancouver Island Ranges and the Coast Mountains, which the system usually hits straight on. By the time the storm makes it up and over these ranges it runs out of a lot of steam, creating a rain shadow on the east side of the Coast/Cascade Mountains (so much so that on the east side of the Coast/Cascades down by the border with America it is classified a desert.

The next mountain range is the Columbia Mountains. The southern end of the Columbia's run north/south, have move valleys going through them and aren't as tall of mountains as the north Columbia's, which means that the storm can snake through the mountains, as well as make it easier for the storm to go over. Where, if you go up towards Revelstoke the Columbia's change their angle, the mountains get bigger, and there aren't as many valley's intersecting them. Just south of Revelstoke there is a zone where anywhere south gets less snow than north.

Finally, the storm hits the Rockies, where Nakiska sits. Nakiska is on the east side of the Rockies. By the time the storm gets up and over the spine of the Rockies the system has had to cross 4 major mountain ranges and hits the cold arctic air that sits over central Canada for most of the winter (look at average winter temperatures of Winnipeg for an example of how cold this air can be). An exhausted system meeting really cold air doesn't allow for much for accumulation.

681578.jpeg
 
I WENT TO LAKE LOUISE AND SUNSHINE WHEN I WAS 12... I REMEMBER SKIING ALOT OF GROOMERS AT LAKE LOUISE .. SUNSHINE VILLAGE WAS RAD.. MANDATORY GONDOLA TO THE MTN WAS COOL
 
Also - Lake Louise is big. Plenty of lifts, plenty of really plenty of nice long groomers, and possibly the best views from a ski resort outside of the Alps (hell, including the Alps).

Tourists for the most part choose their ski resorts for amenities like fast lifts, nice groomers, nice lodges, nice views, and sunny weather. Lake Louise has all of this covered and isn't too far from an international airport/major city.

There is some pretty sweet steeps at Lake Louise and on a good day it is really, really fun on a pow day. That being said - they're called the Rockies for a reason, they're rocky.

Canadian Rockies are no more overrated than Summit County which is probably the most overrated place in the world if what you consider 'good' skiing is big dumps and steep terrain.
 
Sunshine is kind of shitty actually, I would definitely advise against traveling any significant distance to ski there. Fernie is awesome but I wouldn't call it gnarly as fuck, unless you want to hike there basically isn't any alpine. And Castle isn't usually deeper. They get snow but it tends to blow away pretty easily.
 
As just mentioned by JD:

Sunshine isn't gnarly except for some small zones,

Fernie isn't gnarly, it gets snow, but inbounds it's lacking in good cliffs and pillow zones... nothin' but open bowls and mellow trees.

Kicking Horse isn't even in the Rockies, it's in the Purcells (part of the Columbia Mountains)

Castle isn't really 'deep'. It gets some storms yes, but it's super windy (being in the front range and all) so the chutes will fill in from wind, but Fernie is way more consistent for 'deepness'.

And Whitewater and Revelstoke are not even close to the Rockies.
 
lol those small zones are gnarly as fuck. And Fernie is all about sidecountry. Kicking Horse brands itself in the rockies, and geologically the Purcells are somewhere in between an offshoot of the Rockies and their own range. Think Tetons. Castle has been deep as fuck when ive been there, both times were during a record season so maybe my perception is off. As for Whitewater and Revelstoke, both lie in the Selkirks which geologically are considered a foothill range to the Rockies. They are seen as more independent than the Purcells, but are still part of the same fault blocking that created the Rockies. In fact most of the Interior ranges are seen this way, the Selkirks, the Purcells, the Cabinets, the Monashees. They are not the Rockies proper, but are still considered part of the system. The Wasatch in Utah are still considered Rockies, even if they are far off from the main lift in Colorado.
 
Please stop. The Purcells are grouped with the Selkirks, but both are their own unique sub range of the Columbia Mountains. The Purcells, Selkirks, Monashee's and Caribou are part of the Columbia Mountains. They formed at a different time and in a very, very different way than the Rockies formed.

The Rockies is the very edge of the ancient North American Plate. The Columbia Mountains were a series of island groups off the old continent that eventually built up into the mountains they are today when the North American Plate pushed over the Juan de Fuca plate. Completely different ranges.

 
If, by 'system' you are referring to the North American Cordillera... the North American Cordillera is the entire group of mountain ranges in Western North America. The Rockies are not the same range as the Columbia's. The Coast Mountains are not the same as the Cascades.

You don't know what you are talking about and I advise you just give up now because I am the last person you want to spit falsities about geology of British Columbia to. Besides skiing, my next biggest nerdism is geology. I know what I am talking about.

If you would like I could point you in the right direction to get educated on the geological make up of the mountain ranges in western North America for future conversations.
 
i actually would like that, what i said is what ive been told. I'm a geo major but ive never been taught anything more than that when it comes to interior BC, most of our time has been spent studying the Cascades and Rockies of Montana. Interior BC facinates me and if I can get more edurmurcated id be happy
 
Lake Louise has the best park by a mile, hehe

Also Jasper gets hardly any snow, drive an hour down the road to valemount and there is a shit ton more snow, kinda weird
 
I'm in Nelson right now as I type this, first time seeing whitewater was this week. This place is so overlooked, especially if you love lift rides and ridge top skinning.
 
Because Nakiska is a horrible hill compared to the nearby hills in that area. Cant remember the last time I went there and it wasnt icey af
 
Lake Louise is sick, if you know it well enough. Loadsa steeps and the snow on the backside is usually sick. And if your not afraid of a hike and side/slack country then you'll have a tonnes of fun.
 
I was just at Red for a week with a family friend. Wish I coulda explored a little more north but I couldnt take the car :(
 
I'm also pretty sure your east of the Continental Divide at Nakiska, since most storms are coming in from the west they loose there last dose or moisture often coming over the divide. I can literally be in Lake Louise with 5cm or less, and drive under 15minutes west and find 30cms.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top