all I am saying is it is not making the snowpack "heavier", perhaps more or less dense based on what I said above, but atmospheric humidity ONLY comes into play in the formation of Surface Hoar,
density: a. The quantity of something per unit measure, especially per unit length, area, or volume.
b. The mass per unit volume of a substance under specified conditions of pressure and temperature
So if one cubic feet of snow weight one pound and the same one cubic feet of snow weight two pounds...that means that you gain one pounds of some think. The density have increase
can it be done by compaction. In that case, you take a box, place the snow in it and close it hermetically. If you take the density of the box today and in a month...it will be the same. The air trap in the snow is going to be at the top and the solid or liquid part at the bottom, but the wieght by one cubif feet box will be the same if they are no entry or leak.
If you take a feet of snow and keep it in the same condition on the top of the slope: it can loss density by melting,by sublimation and by wind
other way, if you keep the temperature at 25 and just change the humidity of the air for three or five hour, without compaction effect, you will notice that condensation occur, not as hoar, which is a kind of precipitation, but by condensation of water vapor into the same volume of snow.
Yes, there is circulation of air in snow as in " snow avalanche case reports have documented the survival of skiers apparently without permanent hypoxic sequelae, after prolonged complete burial
despite there being only a small air pocket on extrication"
In vulgarisation, we lost things. What I am saying is that some people can't make the difference between physical knowledge and vulgarisation. As it is not what you don't know that will kill you...it is what you think that you know
... Those people, with large influence, explained things with a superficial knowledge and make mistake. Mistake that climbers will follow...and they will have an accident.
It take time to understand the theory behind a situation. Some have a pratical understanding of it (climbing bum). Those who survived are the more skill at it and those who didn't climb as much as they said are the worst. As we climb with climbing bum, we gain knowledge that we can explain theorically (they leave by guiding most of the time). That take times and a lot of climbing/reading. After that, those people who explain the theory gave the information to make money (the worse) or to make it accessible for most of us. In doing so, they loose some information. That lost are implify by those who read the book and said I know every thing I can teach you even if I stay in my house at the first sign of snow storm. The results is considerable danger of avalanches with nine inches of snow (every body can see if a place have deep snow or if they saw shrubs between the snow like in huntington ravine)
More than the diference between sport and trad, I think that the interpretation of scientific paper by people without any background is more what will kill our sport. The results is a war of leadership to know who pee father. As the climber climb and the other make public relation...the climber are not there in the important moment, they are in the cliff. So, the mistake done by those who are supposed to be a reference to avalanche are not trustable