4 November 2010: More Paradise climax avalanches.

When I was a boy I used to delight in annoying my twin brother( I know..... there's TWO of us. HA! ) by saying.

"Pray desist the extraction of mucus egesta from your proboscis via the function of digital manipulation"

I thought the use of big words made me clever. Now I understand that the cleverness is in making something complex, simple and easy to understand.

I see this sort of intellectual dick waving on a daily basis with the structural engineers I deal with.
I usually have to listen to their arguments for 20mins and it ends up with " so it will break eh?"

I'd like to hear an answer to bscott's question, too.

I don't know bscott or CM, nor do I have an axe to grind with either.

I'd like to hear an answer to bscott's question, too.

I don't know bscott or CM, nor do I have an axe to grind with either.

BScott has already cracked the "axe grinding" egg very nicely, and here you go cracking it again by requesting "references" from me but no one else.

So let me make this very absolutely perfectly clear Eric: I don't answer to BScott, and I don't answer to you either. If you don't like what I post, you're perfectly free to ignore it, or post a rebuttal.

You are also welcome to visit my blog and read the short bio on the "About Me" page. But that's all the information you're going to get.

Have a nice day.

Cookie monster is correct. Aspect is in general a very poor predictor of avalanches. However if you substitute the word, “temperature”, or “wind speed”, or “wind direction”, or “precipitation type” for the word “aspect” you would also be correct. But why deliberately misrepresent the issue of when avalanche activity is likely? Clearly the snow stability of a slope is related to the aspect of that slope with respect to the past, current, and future weather conditions. Enough of this foolishness.

Avalanche forecasting is not a science. It is an art and a skill, which is developed after many years of exposure to all the elements that result in hazard evaluation and avalanche activity. If an individual on this site wants to present himself as a respected authority on avalanches, then it seems to me there should be some valid credentials to support their expertise. If you requested some evidence of this expertise and the response to that request was met with some vitriol about how you don’t like that individual, wouldn’t you question why that individual should expect either respect, or acceptance of his expertise? After all, you don’t even know this individual. How could you know whether you like him or not? What I do dislike is rude, condescending or sarcastic remarks to others responding to posts. Dismissing other’s opinions as a joke, implying that your professional background makes your opinion more valid than that of others, or dismissing other evidence in opposition to your opinion certainly brings into question your judgment and more importantly your expertise. Yes, this is Ad Hominem. If we are to have a serious discussion about avalanches we don’t need a bully in the room.

I think I've just been censored.

SWEET!

Yup. There's enough going on in here without the peanut gallery making it more difficult.