More climate-resilient than 57% of Eastern & Midwestern resorts · 29% of all North American resorts
#30 of 68 in the East & Midwest · #156 of 220 overall
What goes into it, compared with Eastern & Midwestern resorts:
* A ranking against the North American resorts we rate, not a grade out of 100: 100 = most resilient in the field, 50 = middle of the pack. Higher scores mean the resort's terrain and weather profile are more resilient in preserving winter conditions, both today and in a future of warmer temperatures.
Less rain risk than 58% of Eastern & Midwestern resorts · 37% of all North American resorts
#28 of 68 in the East & Midwest · #138 of 220 overall
About 29.9% of winter precipitation falls as rain today, about 44% at +2°C.
How well Sugarbush's winter precipitation holds up as snow rather than rain. We rebuilt 40 winters of hourly weather at the resort's base, mid-mountain and peak, then estimated whether each hour's precipitation fell as rain or snow from temperature and humidity. To see what warming would do, we re-ran the same winters 1°C and 2°C warmer. The score is a ranking, not a grade: 100 = least rain risk in the field, 50 = middle of the pack.
When might +1°C and +2°C happen?
Roughly +1°C by the mid 2030s and +2°C around 2050 for North American ski country — sooner if emissions keep rising, possibly never if they fall fast. It's already about 0.7°C warmer than the 1986–2026 average these numbers start from.
These are local winter warming above the average of the 1986–2026 winters we rebuilt (centered around 2006), not the global “1.5°C / 2°C above pre-industrial” targets, which start from the 1800s. The world has warmed about 1.37°C since pre-industrial times and is warming about 0.27°C per decade (Indicators of Global Climate Change 2025); North America's land warms roughly 1.5× faster than that, fastest in winter (U.S. National Climate Assessment). A rough guide, not a forecast: real timing depends on future emissions and varies by region and year.
| 1986–2006 | 2006–2026 | +1°C*(mid 2030s) | +2°C*(2050) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4,080' Peak | 13.5% | 15.9% | 18.8% | 23.7% |
| 2,780' Mid | 24.6% | 28.0% | 32.9% | 41.0% |
| 1,480' Base | 39.6% | 42.2% | 49.6% | 57.8% |
The first two columns are the real observed weather record, split into two equal halves. * The +1°C and +2°C columns are stress tests: the full observed record replayed with that much warming added, so they show sensitivity to warming, not a forecast for a specific year. Elevations are rounded to the nearest 10 ft.
Full rain data, season-by-season history & resort comparisons →
How El Niño and La Niña winters affect Sugarbush →
More naturally skiable days than 84% of Eastern & Midwestern resorts · 41% of all North American resorts
#12 of 68 in the East & Midwest · #130 of 220 overall
135 of 181 possible days today (Nov–Apr), about 101 at +2°C.
How many days a season Sugarbush has enough natural snow to ski, November through April. We simulated the snowpack day by day for 40 winters at the base, mid-mountain and peak — snow piling up, melting on warm days, and getting eaten away by rain — then ran the same winters 1°C and 2°C warmer.
When might +1°C and +2°C happen?
Roughly +1°C by the mid 2030s and +2°C around 2050 for North American ski country — sooner if emissions keep rising, possibly never if they fall fast. It's already about 0.7°C warmer than the 1986–2026 average these numbers start from.
These are local winter warming above the average of the 1986–2026 winters we rebuilt (centered around 2006), not the global “1.5°C / 2°C above pre-industrial” targets, which start from the 1800s. The world has warmed about 1.37°C since pre-industrial times and is warming about 0.27°C per decade (Indicators of Global Climate Change 2025); North America's land warms roughly 1.5× faster than that, fastest in winter (U.S. National Climate Assessment). A rough guide, not a forecast: real timing depends on future emissions and varies by region and year.
| Today | +1°C*(mid 2030s) | +2°C*(2050) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4,080' Peak | 158 | 153 | 149 |
| 2,780' Mid | 145 | 133 | 118 |
| 1,480' Base | 114 | 85 | 59 |
Warmer winters don't just turn some snowfall into rain. Rain also eats away the snow that's already on the ground, in four ways:
Our model simulates all four, using a simplified version of the snowmelt model the U.S. National Weather Service uses for river forecasting.
Natural snow only — no snowmaking or grooming, so resorts that make a lot of snow stay open longer than these numbers. “Skiable” means at least 3 inches of snow-water in the snowpack (roughly a 12–18 inch settled base). Snowfall is scaled to match Sugarbush's average snowfall. Melt follows the sun on Sugarbush's actual runs: shady, north-facing slopes hold snow longer than sunny ones. * Stress tests, not forecasts: the same winters replayed warmer. The model was checked against real snowpack measurements at 105 SNOTEL stations in the western U.S.; there are no SNOTEL stations near Sugarbush, so treat these numbers as a rougher estimate.
Terrain holds snow better than 37% of Eastern & Midwestern resorts · 40% of all North American resorts
#42 of 66 in the East & Midwest · #129 of 216 overall
Sugarbush's runs get 13% less winter sun than the same slopes would facing every direction equally. Typical resort: 17% less.
How well Sugarbush's runs are oriented to hold onto snow. North-facing slopes get less direct sun and keep snow longer; south-facing slopes lose it faster. We measured the direction and steepness of 142 mapped runs and compared the sunshine they receive with what the same slopes would get if they faced every direction equally, so this score reflects terrain orientation only, not latitude or elevation (those are covered by the rain score above).
Share of mapped terrain facing each direction. Trail data © OpenStreetMap contributors via OpenSkiMap.