tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215023416646096443.post8582664273668610299..comments2018-10-25T23:22:28.229-04:00Comments on Avalanche Updates: Avalanche Triangle & Human FactorsJonathan S. Shefftzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00532156922403744857noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215023416646096443.post-8179630745810867502012-04-11T16:21:12.678-04:002012-04-11T16:21:12.678-04:00We'll have to agree to disagree on direct vs. ...We'll have to agree to disagree on direct vs. indirect in this case. It's probably more a matter of semantically split hairs.<br /><br />And of course terrain capable of producing an avalanche is necessary. I'm perhaps not as certain as you are that I always know terrain, that can be a subtle thing sometimes.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06868987318800225541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215023416646096443.post-31432993262288002972012-04-11T15:02:43.559-04:002012-04-11T15:02:43.559-04:00Me, overthinking something? Nawh, you must have s...Me, overthinking something? Nawh, you must have someone else in mind! (Besides, I've still done less thinking on this than all the discussion we've had on the AIARE DMF graphic in my ITC & IRC's over the years...)<br />As for direct weather factors, all those examples are still just indirect factors, in the sense that they're changing the snowpack, a snowpack that was previously created by previous weather. And the snowpack, in combination with terrain, is what produces an avalanche ... that is, when a trigger changes the tenuous balance. <br />Even a "natural" trigger like rain or new snow, or rapid warming, once again, that's just the snowpack changing -- on account of weather, but still, it's terrain + snowpack = avalanche, with weather acting only indirectly by changing the snowpack.<br />I suppose weather could act as a trigger if lightning struck the slope, but that's kind of a stretch...Jonathan S. Shefftzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532156922403744857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215023416646096443.post-10636009497465609042012-04-11T14:47:38.183-04:002012-04-11T14:47:38.183-04:00First, I think you're overthinking it. :-) I...First, I think you're overthinking it. :-) I'd wager that few folks beyond yourself look at the shape and see an isosceles triangle and equate each side equally. I'm not arguing that the avalanche triangle is sacred, only that it doesn't seem to be as complicated as you make it out to be.<br /><br />Second, there are direct weather factors, particularly with respect to the snow surface: solar, wind, temperature, so we do care about weather in this sense.<br /><br />Third, it's not always possible to know terrain with absolute certainty. Maps and of course seeing it with our own eyes (with snow on it) help a lot and tell us much, but it doesn't tell us what's beneath that snow. We can infer, but there are still traps lurking there.<br /><br />I'd agree that knowing the snow pack is the most uncertain and time-consuming problem.<br /><br />Lastly, while the graphic may imply the human presence as passive, you don't have to describe it like that; you can make it clear that the opposite is more true.<br /><br />All that said, your points are of course valid and make for good discussion.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06868987318800225541noreply@blogger.com