4 November 2010: More Paradise climax avalanches.

Booo!

Well I apologise unreservedly for my part.

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.

Here's what I don't understand:

As a meteorologist, you must know that the information I posted in this thread is accurate, including my discussions about the foolishness of modeling windloading using only the prevailing wind direction. You also undoubtedly know that any model which fails to account for cross-loading is worthless, and you also know that cross-loading is predominant in many types of mountain terrain.

You also know that my refusal to chop up McClung's work is responsible behaviour on my part, because otherwise, it would be very easy to draw dangerous conclusions. You certainly must know that my refusal to do this is both ethical and scientifically sound.

***

So.

My qualifications aside, if you already know that the information I've posted in this thread is accurate, why question my qualifications? If you want to boil it down to "question the source", that's fine. I have already cited my sources --- and I'm the only one who has.

Given that you know the information I've posted here is accurate, and given my attempts to adhere to ethical standards such as not chopping up research into dangerous little bites, how do you expect me to perceive pointed questions about my qualifications?

Say I knew that all the information you posted was accurate, but I slagged you for it anyway? Wouldn't you interpret that as a personal attack?

***

My responses in this thread became heated when TrumpetSailer said that the information I was posted was misleading and dangerous - when I was simply posting published research.

Instead, as part of our debate, TrumpetSailer waived his opinion around as if it were fact. Sorry for the way I called him on it.

Yet you'll notice that I at no time questioned his nor Andyrew's qualifications. Not even when Andyrew engaged in some rather pointed analysis of the assumptions made in the sources I cited.

I also haven't questioned your qualifications, just your motives.

***

Please forgive my confusion - I go out of my way to cite facts and back them up --- facts that you know are facts and not opinion --- and it's STILL not enough for you. Would you rather that I waved my opinion around as if it were fact?

Because then, I think you would have a point.

You are welcome to have the last word Cookie Monster. But there is really no need. You have already proved my point which is that there can be no serious discussions with you if continue to be extremely offensive in your postings.

Well, I gave myself a 24 hour embargo on posting in this thread in order to keep things positive, which turned into more like 48 because of the Northwest Snow and Avalanche Summit.

To dispel any mystery about my avalanche education (I agree strongly with CookieMonster that it's not necessary, and don't want anyone to compel him to divulge any more than he wishes):
[size=7pt] I've taken a few introductory avalanche courses from various sources, attended NSAS three out of the past four years, and absorbed knowledge from myriad sources (TAY, presentations, touring partners, NWAC advisories/telemetry each morning, avalanche handbooks, studies, broader knowledge across the web) for the past five to six years. In the last four years, I've put in about 140 days in the backcountry on skis, more than 50 of them alone. Before that, I spent ~20 days on snowshoes in avalanche terrain. I make a point of skiing with experienced partners with grey hair.  I believe experiments and experience are the best teachers, and that considered baby steps are the key to gaining experience without getting the chop. A search for my trip reports on TAY will turn up my backcountry vita.[/size]

Returning to the topic at hand - I agree with CookieMonster and the TAY (Andyrew et.al) consensus that Grimsdottir and McClung's research shows in their complete data set that avalanche likelihood was independent, within uncertainties, of aspect.

I did miss the words "in general" in CookieMonster's original aspect-related post because my eyes were distracted by the asterisks. For that, I apologize. I also think CookieMonster's wind-direction plots and GIS overlays are nifty and useful.

With that said, I must quit this thread permanently (I mean it. I'll give $20 to NWAC for each person who catches me posting in this thread again, up to $3,000.). My original intention was to bring to light some observations which I believe to be true. That has, in my opinion, been more than achieved. I'm happy to let the readers of the thread decide whether I sufficiently backed up my position, and whether I did so with opinion or not. It's up to each of us to make our own independent safety assessments anyway. Our lives depend on it.

When CookieMonster and I meet in the backcountry (eventually, everyone does - I think we may have recently met on Granite Mountain), I want to be able to shake the man's hand and chat about the snow, not grumble about a heated discussion on the Internet.

I'm happy to chat further about this subject elsewhere (like PMs), if need be. I can't afford to post in this thread anymore.

TrumpetSailer, I apologise unreservedly for anything I wrote that was unkind or untoward. I have absolutely NO bad feelings about you whatsoever, and would be more than happy to buy you a beer or lunch or multiple beers or multiple lunches.

And "For that, I apologize. I also think CookieMonster's wind-direction plots and GIS overlays are nifty and useful."

LOL, if only they were useful... but sadly they were useless no matter what we tried... It was a black hole of time, and I barely escaped with my sanity.

Here's the results of a simplistic simulation of wind loading that doesn't properly account for wind-terrain interaction. Might look neat, but it was totally inaccurate and utter garbage. Some folks will recognise this as the upper part of Crystal Mountain, which is correct.



***

Look BScott, I don't want the last word.

I apologised at the top of my post for my part in any hurt feelings, and I did so unreservedly.

My response to you contains a central question:

Why did you engage in a personal attack against me when, as a meteorologist, you almost certainly *knew* that all the information I posted in the thread was accurate?

You are very highly qualified to debunk anything I wrote in the thread, but you choose instead to slag me by openly challenging my qualifications to discuss this, and other, material.

I'm sorry that you don't like me, and I might even deserve it, but that doesn't give you the right to try and harm my credibility.

Especially given the aforementioned.

***

BScott, PM if you'd like to talk further, like TrumpetSailer, I'm out.

Wow.

Glad our snowpack isn't this sensitive.