Dear WAB!
If I understand everything correctly, then first two schemes either do not contain any disinformation, or the main disinformers is you and Alekseenkov, and I am just a minor accomplice here.
Dear Par torg !
You have an amazing ability to understand everything not as it really is, but as you yourself have invented....
And with complete unwillingness to find out what is wrong. Usually, decent people figure it out before throwing accusations....
I was replying to both of your posts at once, and I forgot that you can't do that on this forum. I had to split the posts, and since I have very little time for all this writing, I left it at that.
Therefore, my rejoinder about misinformation was made, mainly about the caption to the very bottom picture. And don't make excuses that it was someone else who misinformed, if you use information, you should be responsible for it yourself.
Now about the rest of the pictures. Shura did it all completely, quite competently, except for snow deposition. I have my own measurements and analysis, but if Shura published something worthy, why do I need to repeat myself?
On snow deposition, he and I have serious disagreements. We graduated from the same university, only Shura is a radio engineer and I am an airplane engineer, so I know such things as aerodynamics as well as he does.
The diagram of the sequence of filling the ravine with snow (done, if I’m not mistaken, by the user “KVN” from “Pass 59”), of course, is of a speculative nature, but it is based on long-known patterns of deposition of snow blows, and looks, IMHO, very plausible.
1. Vladimir Nikolayevich has nothing to do with it.
2. Please share information: who is the author of this multi-year research? And where can I read the results of these studies? I don't need to refer to Shura, I know what he did and how he did it, that's why I write that it may “look plausible”, but not as it happens in practice.
For the formation of a cornice, it is not so much the wind speed that is important as the inflection of the blown surface. The ideal condition is a gentle windward slope and a steep (≥ 30°) leeward slope. If it is the other way around or the slopes are symmetrical, cornices do not appear.
I am extremely grateful to you for this unnecessary лекбез (lecture), but you shouldn't say platitudes as well as misinformation about 30 degrees. There's no such thing as “degrees.” Besides, you need a sharp bend for a cornice, and the slope there is a smooth curve.
If you have not seen this place yourself, then do not show your illiteracy in understanding the conditions.
The leeward, left slope of the ravine fully meets this condition.
It doesn't. See text above.
Even now, when less snow falls into the ravine than in 1959 due to the growing forest, the photos and videos show rather steep slopes of snowdrifts on its leeward sides. Wind speed has a greater effect on the density of sediment.
Again you write something you have no idea about. We get a lot more snow now than we did in 1959 and the winters are much warmer.
I made a large comparison table for 1959 and 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2019 for the surrounding area. It clearly shows that there is on average 2.5 times more snow if you compare February to February and even more if you compare February to March.
And tell me in detail what “ precipitation density” means? I don't know such a term, and neither do climate scientists.
As for the time of filling the Ravine, firstly, I was not talking about February 1, but about the beginning of March.
I was talking about the same thing, and I noticed that the channel wasn't filled in almost completely until early May....
There was considerably less snow there in March.
According to the recollections of some search engines (Sakhnin, for example), in March the ravine was leveled with snow and 2-meter probes did not reach the bottom there. But in any case, this circumstance does not affect anything.
You have a traditional way of argumentation for those who in our country are called “дятловеды” (this is our ironic and disparaging term): without naming specifically the time, place (what enemy was being talked about? I read it carefully and realized that it was the ravine of the second creek in late March), you make truly “global conclusions”. So on the second creek the valley is twice as deep and the west side is steeper. Have you observed it for a long time?
If it “doesn't affect anything,” then why bring it up as an argument?
The preamble to the longitudinal section of Helga is not mine - the author's. I was just too lazy to crop the screen properly
It's already been said, if you use someone else's information, verify its validity and be responsible for your words. The excuse is not in your favor.