I really appreciate all the input. This has been interesting, especially in contrast with discussions at home .
I agree that it's not possible to claim that climate change as such is the driver of the changes we have seen the last few years, but I'd say that in Norway the last few years have been very different from when I started skiing and freeskiing/touring as such became normal in Norway. The last 5-ish years have had more extreme weather; as in longer dry spells, bigger storms when they come, colder and warmer periods during the winter etc. This leads to more complex layering in the snow, more scarcity and bigger local variations. When this is added to the already somewhat funky geography of Norway, where you can go from a costal climate to a more "continental" climate within an hour, I'm surprised we haven't seen the same tendency as in the Alps regarding avy deaths.
Originally Posted by davidof
I was reading the German (swiss) article you posted in more detail and they seem to highlight problems with interpreting the bulletin when there was old snow situation (no fresh snow for some days) but one which involved a PWL.
"Für die Benutzer des Lawinenbulletins ist es relativ schwierig zu merken, welche Situation gemeint ist"
They suggest making the difference clear in the bulletin. We're assuming the user had gone beyond the headline risk which is frequently 2 in this situation.
The bulletin is also trying to target two kinds of users: backcountry enthusiasts and people concerned with infrastructure, civil defense.
On the left it lists the regions with links to the region forecasts. It then lists the avalanche problems in the regions before the actual danger ratings (In the Indre Sogn region in actually lists a deep persistent weak layer). On some of the ratings you can see an exclamation mark suggestion that there is something specific to be aware of in addition to the normal hazards for a given rating.
Since the munter method is based on statistics, wouldn't statistics need to drive a change to the risk reduction methodology? are the statistics being updated with a goal of updating the method? (apologies if this has already been discussed upthread) Is there quality data from 2 more decades of touring and avi incidents in the sample region that could allow for a meaningful update? Some of the data may be skewed because of the use of the munter method during that timeframe, but I would think that could be accounted for in the number crunching.
the very recent incident in japan with those kids (RIP ) made me wonder if there's a similar risk reduction tool in japan; however, i think it would have been mentioned here if that was the case.