PromoTheRobot Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Buffalo has a blizzard once in a while and we get pegged with all the snow jokes. Meanwhile Denver gets buried on a regular basis, so much so that their airport is more like a refugee camp these days, and does anyone equate Denver with Siberia? It ain't fair. PTR
theesir Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Buffalo has a blizzard once in a while and we get pegged with all the snow jokes. Meanwhile Denver gets buried on a regular basis, so much so that their airport is more like a refugee camp these days, and does anyone equate Denver with Siberia? It ain't fair. PTR Funny thing is that I have friends in Denver and their big complaint is that the city doesn't have enough plows to handle this kind of snow. THIS IS DENVER!!!! The rational is that it will warm up in a few days and melt the snow, so we don't need to plow it all. There's nothing more fun than driving around in or better yet having to walk through 8 inches of melting slush.
IDBillzFan Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Just so you're aware, all the ridicule having to do with Buffalo in any way, shape or form is strictly to piss of JoeSixPack.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Buffalo has a blizzard once in a while and we get pegged with all the snow jokes. Meanwhile Denver gets buried on a regular basis, so much so that their airport is more like a refugee camp these days, and does anyone equate Denver with Siberia? It ain't fair. PTR If I had to guess, I'd say you're just being glib...but anyone who considers Buffalo-Denber snow joke imbalance a real problem is leading a very charmed life.
Mikie2times Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Buffalo has a blizzard once in a while and we get pegged with all the snow jokes. Meanwhile Denver gets buried on a regular basis, so much so that their airport is more like a refugee camp these days, and does anyone equate Denver with Siberia? It ain't fair. PTR Beacuse Tim Brown didn't play against Denver in the playoffs when it was -32 wind chill.
bbb Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 I always thought about this with Denver. They get killed with snow - up until this year, I couldn't believe that they actually got that huge MNF snow game in October (now we got one, too).............Nobody ever gives them crap about it, and they seem to get way more than us.
Mikie2times Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 I always thought about this with Denver. They get killed with snow - up until this year, I couldn't believe that they actually got that huge MNF snow game in October (now we got one, too).............Nobody ever gives them crap about it, and they seem to get way more than us. According to sperlings best places to live Denver gets 51.7 inches, Buffalo averages 85.4. I lived in Kalamazoo, MI for about 5 years and thought it snowed a ridiculous amount compared to the eastern part of Michigan. Turns out we got the same as Denver, about 52 inches, while the Detroit area only averages in the low 30's. A little northwest of Kalamazoo is Grand Rapids, MI which is much closer to lake Michigan. They average 64 inches per year. The moral of the story is the Great Lakes are snow creating bastardos, and Lake Erie is the biggest bastard of them all.
I 90 Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 These Denver snow stories are a little bizarre... CNN should maybe find a new hobby. I just got back from Colorado and they seem to like the snow. They do however abandon their towns and cities to the slush along I 70, better to keep the highways clear for recreationalists (and interstate trucking, I would assume). Works for me -- they have their priorities in order. .
buckeyemike Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Part of the reason is Denver has the country's weirdest weather. Next week it will probably be 75 and sunny once the chinook kicks in. Buffalo is an old industrial town that was dying prior to the Blizzard of '77 (wow...30 years ago). Denver is a hip, vibrant city that is growing (the suburbs are anyway) by leaps and bounds. It's a lot easier to pick on a Rust Belt town than a popular one. I should know. Where do I live again?
Gordio Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 I lived in Denver for 2 years right out of college. Very wierd weather. They get alot of their snow in Late fall/early spring. One day it will be 20 degrees & snow & the next day it will be in the upper 60/low 70s. Not at all uncommon to be in the middle of feb there & have the temps hit 70. Also, not uncommon to be as cold as high teens/low 20s in april & october. One last thing, Denver gets more sunny days per year then anywhere in the state of florida. As for Buffalo, I have been back for 9 years now, noone can convince me that our weather is not totally blown out of porportion. It is not that bad. It seems like nowadays also that when it does snow it will melt within a few days. It is going to be around 50 here all weekend. In fact Im going out GOLFING tomorrow at Terry Hills.
Lurker Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Here's the difference in the National Psyche, IMO: Denver = rockies = skiing Buffalo = rustbelt = Stay inside & have a six pack
Kevbeau Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Here's the difference in the National Psyche, IMO: Denver = rockies = skiing Buffalo = rustbelt = Stay in side & have a six pack 6-pack? Better to be overprepared Reminds me of the Molson commercial they show during the Sabres games on Center Ice. Basically a guy walking around w/ a sixer of Canadian while a montage of scenes change around him. Myslef, my brother (visiting me here in Atlanta, still lives in Buffalo) and a buddy are watching the game at my place and my buddy goes "I don't get that commercial." To which my brother replies "Yeah, what kind of an @#$hole only brings a 6-pack to a party?'....Priceless.
Cornerville Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Buffalo has a blizzard once in a while and we get pegged with all the snow jokes. Meanwhile Denver gets buried on a regular basis, so much so that their airport is more like a refugee camp these days, and does anyone equate Denver with Siberia? It ain't fair. PTR Because Denver is ultra liberal and the media does not want to poke fun at its own.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Because Denver is ultra liberal and the media does not want to poke fun at its own. "How come Buffalo gets picked on?" "It's a liberal media conspiracy."
Rubes Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Living in Utah, it's pretty similar...we don't get as much snow in general, but the prevailing sense is that, when it snows a lot, everybody gets really excited. In Buffalo...?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 According to sperlings best places to live Denver gets 51.7 inches, Buffalo averages 85.4. I lived in Kalamazoo, MI for about 5 years and thought it snowed a ridiculous amount compared to the eastern part of Michigan. Turns out we got the same as Denver, about 52 inches, while the Detroit area only averages in the low 30's. A little northwest of Kalamazoo is Grand Rapids, MI which is much closer to lake Michigan. They average 64 inches per year. The moral of the story is the Great Lakes are snow creating bastardos, and Lake Erie is the biggest bastard of them all. True... But you have to qualitate that... And say Great Lakes ALEE of the lake... Here in the ChicagoLand area we get about 30-40... I live on the NW Indiana border and as you go east it (sno amounts) gets progressively greater. No up in the Soo (UP of Michigan) and say the Keweenaw pennisula... They get it from all directions... I think they approach well over +200/300 inches or more... So really, Superior is the cruelist bastardo of them all... Actually, I think the snowiest place in the states (lower 48... Maybe AK) I THINK is in CA???
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Living in Utah, it's pretty similar...we don't get as much snow in general, but the prevailing sense is that, when it snows a lot, everybody gets really excited. In Buffalo...? I was gonna mention SLC and what they get up in the Wasatch (which is remote)... They do get a "lake effect" there right? The thing is metro areas... Buffalo is still one of the biggest metro areas that gets pounded with about 100" annually... Nowhere near the numbers of others... Sure there is Syracuse and Watertown, there is Sault Ste. Marie, South Bend, etc... But those metro and the other "remote" areas are smaller in density... Right? So metro areas are what people really see and look at. The funny thing is that dollar for dollar, BFLO gets a LOT less money per mile of snow removal than the areas that get a LOT LESS snow annually... Say Milwaukee, Chicago and Pittsburgh... BFLO should be proud that they spend (or get) a lot less per mile and make better use of it... I think BFLO only gets about 9 bucks per mile compared to 13 and more for Milwaukee and Pittsburgh... Don't quote me on the hard numbers... See there is something BFLO can do better, cheaper, and not panic about than the rest! Unfortunately, people think it is a negative thing... Kinda funny because if other areas received the snow BFLO gets... I am sure interests would be grabbing at the "governmental tit" for this money far more than BFLO now does...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Part of the reason is Denver has the country's weirdest weather. Next week it will probably be 75 and sunny once the chinook kicks in. Buffalo is an old industrial town that was dying prior to the Blizzard of '77 (wow...30 years ago). Denver is a hip, vibrant city that is growing (the suburbs are anyway) by leaps and bounds. It's a lot easier to pick on a Rust Belt town than a popular one. I should know. Where do I live again? It is all about location, location, and location... There was one reason for BFLO... Terminus of the Erie Canal... And nothing can ever make the location a better spot than just a "dead end" after the fall economically of the EC... Because the area is in a "micro climate"... A rather strong and detrimental "micro climate." Same goes for Cleveland as a mid-lake stop for fueling/ore and other "break-in bulk" commodities... By any stretch, that (BFLO) immediate area would not have been settled with a major amount of people today... There is a reason why some of the vibrant settled areas were a bit farther east of the lake (E. Aurora etc...)... Even by the native population... There is a reason why Chicago is where it is and is still vibrant today... The reason is geogphically AND climate, it is where the I&M (Illinois and Michigan) Canal was placed... You probably never heard of that canal over the Erie Canal, but in its very short history (shorter than the EC) it literally propelled Chicago as a world player!... And don't think they didn't have a choice!... Marquette actually preferred a portage from Lake Michigan to the St. Joseph/Kankakee river... This is much father to the east... Chicago's (and say Detroit's) "tempered" climate gave it a notable advantage... Again, even the Native American's took advantage of that and made their winter homes further down Lake Michigan and into present day Illinois/Indiana and Michigan... I could go on forever... I am just rambling... Just some food fo thought!
Rubes Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 I was gonna mention SLC and what they get up in the Wasatch (which is remote)... They do get a "lake effect" there right? There is some lake effect, but not a lot. It doesn't seem to be the major force behind the snowfall here. The Wasatch isn't really that remote...it's the mountain range right on the edge of the city, where most of the fun canyons are. The Uintas are to the east and are more remote, great place for hiking and camping.
Recommended Posts