Meteorology/Avalanche Seminar

[Island Bay]

Some assistance from the collective, please:

I've been asked to do a talk at an avalanche seminar at the Queenstown Winter Festival late June. As a meteorologist, I'll be firmly focusing on the weather side of things,
e.g.:

-which synoptic situations bring (heavy) snowfall to NZ - and to which regions/ranges?
-how does weather affect existing snow pack? (for good and bad - and on a regional to local scale)
-how does El Nino/La Nina affect seasonal snowfall in NZ?

In short, learn more about the weather as it affects ski and avalanche conditions.

Disregarding for a moment that this is somewhat NZ specific, what would YOU like to learn more about if you were to attend a talk like this? I'm sure that the audience will range from solidly clued-in backcountry skiers/boarders, with a very good knowledge of meteorology, to those just embarking on the journey towards enlightenment, so please feel free to suggest basic as well as more esoteric topics.

I could talk for bloody ages - and have lots of ideas already sketched in a sprouting PPT document - but would be great to hear from some of you. And if you're in QT at the time, come along, listen and say hello. It's on Thursday 26 June.

Thanks

[neck beard]

I recommend keeping it simple. I see people using complex charts and models to wow the crowd with their guru-like abilities. I then see their followers flailing and lost when using these resources.

In fact I recommend avoiding a forecasting lesson all together, and focus on helping people understand one simple synoptic chart behind the easily digested public weather forecast (either human or computer generated), and what that system brings to the snowpack. Perhaps you were already going this way? If not, IMHO, too often weather courses/lectures quickly turn into a forecasting challenge using raw inputs - possibly due to ego and emotional bias against existing forecasts. This comes at the unfortunate expense of readily available and acceptable quality forecasts that already exist. No need to waste time reinventing the wheel, better to understand the wheel.

In my area we have two distinct synoptic situations and both can have a marked impact on the snowpack in different ways. One brings intense snowfall of a certain crystal type. The other produces less snowfall of a very different crystal. Both play a major role in building the snowpack and avalanche formation [and ski quality]. Perhaps try and identify the two key synoptic precip-players in your area and highlight them both, rather than just the "big precip" player?

[neck beard]

I forgot - what ever you do, relate it back to the avalanche bulletin at the time. You guys in NZ have excellent bulletins, and I believe they are all archived.

1. pick a weather event from last season. Should be easy, it only snowed once!
2. show the public forecast for that period (if you can find it),
3. explain it with the synoptic chart for that period,
4. relate it to the avalanche bulletin for that period.

^ Do that two times, for two distinctly different synoptic situations. And don't even mention vertical thickness vorticity shear

[Island Bay]

Now now, you shifty bastard; it actually snowed at least twice!

And yep, so far I've got:
-Synoptic charts for two significant, yet completely different types of snow events (one warm-advection snow, the other a massive polar air outbreak).
-Zero showing off, no unintelligible NWP guidance, just focusing on synoptic charts and how to recognize typical situations.
-Everyday situations which bring improved conditions without significant snow fall - and ones which raise the avy danger significantly.
-lots more :-)

All done off metservice.com website, meaning easily accessible and non-technical info.

[neck beard]

Yep, you got it. But it is just my opinion, which doesn't automatically mean it is a good one.

warm-advection snow

Even give that a simpler name, like "Northern Front" (that was a hypothetical name for example only). Arctic Outbreak is a great way of describing a system in non-tech terms. It connects geography with the event. In my part of the world I talk about Siberian Highs and Pacific Lows from the south. Both are very different yet have simple synoptic descriptions. To explain either in technical terms is fun, but not required for recreational skiers, who's primary source of planning info should be the avalanche bulletin the and public met service forecast. Anything more technical is a distraction and a disservice to them (let them pursue those details in their own personal time if they are that way inclined).

[Island Bay]

Thanks D - thinking along the same lines.

Apparently a very nerdy colleague of mine who doesn't ski did a talk last year including lots of "Coriolis Force", "shear", "cyclonic vorticity advection" etc, talking right past most punters.
I'm definitely not attempting to show off (except possibly for a few nice photos of snowy mountains).