4 November 2010: More Paradise climax avalanches.

Thanks Andyrew, I don't think you were trying to attack me.

I was concerned that there had been a shift in the discussion, and that I was expected to back up my original statement a second time, when I had already backed it up by citing peer-reviewed research by a recognised subject matter expert.

It's perfectly fair to question the research I cited; I just wanted people to understand that citing research in no way obligates me to explain the research, nor
to defend it from criticism.

***

They show that conditioned on other covariates, aspect does appear to be a predictor of likelihood of avalanche.

I'm sure you're well aware that searching for supportive evidence is a form of bias which, in this case, thoroughly misrepresents the conclusions of the study.

the direction of the wind, the time of the year, the elevation, the lattitude, the nature of the instability in the snowpack

But then we're not talking about aspect as a predictor, are we?

***

I really didn't want to have to slice and dice this, but TrumpetSailer's posts stated outright that it was dangerous for me to post facts backed up by research.

In the absence of all other relevant information, in midwinter, I'd be maximally hesitant to drop in on an NE-facing slope.

Here, your post cites an obvious rule of thumb in support of the argument in favour of aspect being a good indicator of avalanches. Sorry, that's not how science works.

If it were a poor predictor, the "avalanche rose" would have little to no utility.

This post presents opinion as a fact, and it's wrong. The public avalanche bulletin, and any avalanche rose it may contain, does not apply to specific slopes.

Aspect matters a lot to my decision making in the winter. Which aspects are least safe, however, can change in ten minutes.

Hence, the low predictive value of aspect.

Looks like forecasting the directions of daily windloading in the images you've presented isn't easy, but finding the daily aspects that aren't windloaded looks fairly straightforward in the absence of crossloading.

In the face of the graphical evidence I provided with respect to surface winds, your posts go on to say that "if we just ignore cross-loading, we can accurately identify aspects that aren't windloaded". Never mind that cross-loading is predominant in many types of mountain terrain.

Strong absolute statements about anything related to snow science, where, in my experience, the authoritative answer to any specific question is "maybe", get my goat.

Yes TrumpetSailer, but this is reflective of the content in your posts, not mine.

***

Twice in this discussion, your posts say that the research-backed information I posted might be misleading or dangerous.

Using that information to suggest broadly that aspect isn't a useful predictor of instability is a great way to get someone into trouble.

It's misleading to new folks reading this forum to dismiss the importance of aspect entirely because its predictive power isn't simple.

That's really rich coming from a series of posts you wrote that attempt to elevate rule of thumb and opinion to the same level as science.

Cookie Monster:

Just what is your experience and training that qualifies you to lecture us about
avalanche awareness in the mountains.

Bryan

Nice try. You must be in the mood for Ad Hominem?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I post facts and participate in discussions, and I haven't told anyone in this thread how to conduct themselves in the backcountry. This discussion has been solely about the predictive powers of aspect.

My professional qualifications are absolutely no business of yours, and I'm certainly not going to discuss them here.

Anything else you want to know? Visit my blog.

Have a nice day.

[ Edited to keep Marcus happy. ]

I believe the discord here is much ado about nothing more than communicative style; nevertheless it is informative and thought provoking, which is what discord should promote.  Thanks!

p.s.: oh, sorry! What makes me qualified to make the statement above?  I once did a M.S. thesis (approved ) in Psychology about the cognitive (thinking, learning, and communicating) styles of natural science professionals.  :

It's a fair question Cookie, though you're free not to answer it, of course.  You're talking with a lot of authority, so it's natural for folks to want to know its foundation.

This has been a good discussion so far, but it it feels like you and Trumpet aren't likely to come to an agreement (even one to disagree).  


*edited because Cookie beat me to it -- thanks.

BScott posted the question because he doesn't like me. Bscott doesn't like me because I mixed it up with one of his friends last year.

Notice, despite heavy participation and debate from Andyrew and TrumperSailer, including some rather pointed critiques of the model by Andyrew, he only posed the question to me.

So,  it's not actually a fair question, and it was set forth as a personal attack.