| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:04:23 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain? I'll bet recordsI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as if you also had a >>>>>>>> cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell. We did have a cool, wet spring.
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring - that was a record.
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in the office or
school on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with aMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those highs are a
bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan International AirportI also don't pay much attention to the temperature at Logan airport,
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98 degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time since last June.
I
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost never above 100F.
One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being right on the
water, but I don't really know. Airports have a lot of hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30 miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10thWhich story tells a person that Boston just does not get a lot of
longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before >>> this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days
was in the July of 2016."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
hot
weather. I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas, where it really is
hot and humid. I believe their record is over 30 days of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
Something a person could look up, (look up "Celsius" and20C is 68F. 1 degree C is 9/5 degree F.I notice that your 1930s were not record setting as they were in the >>>>>>>> Midwest.
There was some heavy weather the likes of which have not been
seen recently:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/great-1938-hurricane/
Humidity has eased off a bit here, so I'll be cycling early today. >>>>>> High is predicted to be ony 91.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Barely 20 here which I guess would be 50/60 ish for you?
The formula from celcius to farenheit is c*9/5 + 32 = f
"Fahrenheit")
but not that convenient for approximate conversion. For temperatures
near room temperature, remember that 68F = 20C, and adding 9 degrees F
is equivalent to adding 5 degrees C: 77F = 25C, 59F = 15C, 86F = 30C ...
If it's cold, 32F = 0C is a good place to start. If it's wicked
cold,
-40F = -40C.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain? I'll bet recordsI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as if you also had a >>>>>>>>> cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell. We did have a cool, wet spring. >>>>>>>>
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring - that was a record.
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in the office or
school on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with aMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those highs are a >>>>>>>> bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100. >>>> On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on >>>> june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan International AirportI also don't pay much attention to the temperature at Logan airport,
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98 degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time since last June.
I
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost never above 100F.
One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being right on the
water, but I don't really know. Airports have a lot of hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30 miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10thWhich story tells a person that Boston just does not get a lot of
longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before >>>> this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days >>>> was in the July of 2016."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
hot
weather. I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas, where it really is >>> hot and humid. I believe their record is over 30 days of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
Something a person could look up, (look up "Celsius" and20C is 68F. 1 degree C is 9/5 degree F.I notice that your 1930s were not record setting as they were in the >>>>>>>>> Midwest.
There was some heavy weather the likes of which have not been
seen recently:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/great-1938-hurricane/
Humidity has eased off a bit here, so I'll be cycling early today. >>>>>>> High is predicted to be ony 91.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Barely 20 here which I guess would be 50/60 ish for you?
The formula from celcius to farenheit is c*9/5 + 32 = f
"Fahrenheit")
but not that convenient for approximate conversion. For temperatures
near room temperature, remember that 68F = 20C, and adding 9 degrees F
is equivalent to adding 5 degrees C: 77F = 25C, 59F = 15C, 86F = 30C ... >>> If it's cold, 32F = 0C is a good place to start. If it's wicked
cold,
-40F = -40C.
On 8/7/2025 3:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain? I'll bet recordsI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as if you also had a >>>>>>>>>> cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell. We did have a cool, wet spring. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring - that
was a record.
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in the office or
school on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with aMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those highs are a >>>>>>>>> bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100. >>>>> On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on >>>>> june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan International AirportI
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98 degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time since last June. >>>> I also don't pay much attention to the temperature at Logan airport,
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost never above 100F. >>>> One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being right on the
water, but I don't really know. Airports have a lot of hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30 miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10th >>>>> longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before >>>>> this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days >>>>> was in the July of 2016."Which story tells a person that Boston just does not get a lot of
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
hot
weather. I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas, where it really is >>>> hot and humid. I believe their record is over 30 days of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
Something a person could look up, (look up "Celsius" and20C is 68F. 1 degree C is 9/5 degree F.Humidity has eased off a bit here, so I'll be cycling early today. >>>>>>>> High is predicted to be ony 91.I notice that your 1930s were not record setting as they were in the >>>>>>>>>> Midwest.
There was some heavy weather the likes of which have not been >>>>>>>>> seen recently:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/great-1938-hurricane/ >>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Barely 20 here which I guess would be 50/60 ish for you?
The formula from celcius to farenheit is c*9/5 + 32 = f
"Fahrenheit")
but not that convenient for approximate conversion. For temperatures
near room temperature, remember that 68F = 20C, and adding 9 degrees F >>>> is equivalent to adding 5 degrees C: 77F = 25C, 59F = 15C, 86F = 30C ... >>>> If it's cold, 32F = 0C is a good place to start. If it's wicked
cold,
-40F = -40C.
using 100F as an arbitrary marker, yes it happens, just not every year
for people at our latitudes:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/streak-finder?city=madison&type=high>=gte&value=100&units=f
I mentioned earlier that the 1930s were esecially warm in the Midwest.
p.s There are many ways to quantify outliers:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/madison/yearly-days-of-100-degrees
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain? I'll bet recordsI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as if you also had a >>>>>>>>> cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell. We did have a cool, wet spring. >>>>>>>>
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring - that was a record.
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in the office or
school on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with aMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those highs are a >>>>>>>> bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100. >>>> On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on >>>> june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan International AirportI also don't pay much attention to the temperature at Logan airport,
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98 degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time since last June.
I
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost never above 100F.
One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being right on the
water, but I don't really know. Airports have a lot of hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30 miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10thWhich story tells a person that Boston just does not get a lot of
longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before >>>> this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days >>>> was in the July of 2016."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
hot
weather. I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas, where it really is >>> hot and humid. I believe their record is over 30 days of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
Something a person could look up, (look up "Celsius" and20C is 68F. 1 degree C is 9/5 degree F.I notice that your 1930s were not record setting as they were in the >>>>>>>>> Midwest.
There was some heavy weather the likes of which have not been
seen recently:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/great-1938-hurricane/
Humidity has eased off a bit here, so I'll be cycling early today. >>>>>>> High is predicted to be ony 91.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Barely 20 here which I guess would be 50/60 ish for you?
The formula from celcius to farenheit is c*9/5 + 32 = f
"Fahrenheit")
but not that convenient for approximate conversion. For temperatures
near room temperature, remember that 68F = 20C, and adding 9 degrees F
is equivalent to adding 5 degrees C: 77F = 25C, 59F = 15C, 86F = 30C ... >>> If it's cold, 32F = 0C is a good place to start. If it's wicked
cold,
-40F = -40C.
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain?-a I'llI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as
if you also had a
cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell.-a We did have a cool,
wet spring.
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-
states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/
MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring
- that was a record.
bet records
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of
particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather
in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent
weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in
the office or
school-a on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but
generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbersMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those
highs are a
bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the
temperature over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of
108 degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
with a
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the
science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading
the weather
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or
what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan InternationalI also don't pay much attention to the temperature at
Airport
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98
degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time
since last June.
Logan airport,
I
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost
never above 100F.
One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being
right on the
water, but I don't really know.-a Airports have a lot of
hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When
Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30
miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plusWhich story tells a person that Boston just does not get
degrees is the 10th
longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded
history. Before
this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight
90-degree days
was in the July of 2016."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-
hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-
drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
a lot of
hot
weather.-a I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas,
where it really is
hot and humid.-a I believe their record is over 30 days
of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably
sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with
temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a
day, and this
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast
high over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose
above 100F, but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins
any days in new england over 100, including this year. The
forcast you saw includes the heat index, take that out and
the hottest day so far this year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The heat index matters, whether you agree with it, or
understand it, or not.
Something a person could look up, (look up "Celsius" and20C is 68F. 1 degree C is 9/5 degree F.I notice that your 1930s were not record setting
as they were in the
Midwest.
There was some heavy weather the likes of which
have not been
seen recently:
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/great-1938-
hurricane/
Humidity has eased off a bit here, so I'll be
cycling early today.
High is predicted to be ony 91.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Barely 20 here which I guess would be 50/60 ish for you?
The formula from celcius to farenheit is c*9/5 + 32 = f
"Fahrenheit")
but not that convenient for approximate conversion.-a For
temperatures
near room temperature, remember that 68F = 20C, and
adding 9 degrees F
is equivalent to adding 5 degrees C: 77F = 25C, 59F =
15C, 86F = 30C ...
If it's cold, 32F = 0C is a good place to start.-a If
it's wicked
cold,
-40F = -40C.
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/5/2025 11:58 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/3/2025 8:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 21:47:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
Does anyone count consecutive Tuesdays with rain? I'll bet recordsI don't know where you are in MA but it looks as if you also had a >>>>>>>>>> cool spring this year. See last chart on this page:
Middlesex county near Lowell. We did have a cool, wet spring. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.easeweather.com/north-america/united-states/massachusetts/suffolk-county/boston/past
Historical perspective:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/extreme-annual-boston-high-temperature.php
we had 13 consecutive weekends of rain this past spring - that
was a record.
could be found there.
yup, they're called meteorologists. Weekend weather is of particular
interest to the vast majority of people over the weather in a tueday,
given that the vast majority of people count on decent weekend weather
for outdoor activities (such as cycling). When you're in the office or
school on a tuesday the weather may be of interest but generally not
of any consequence (and yes, major storms notwithstanding)
I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with aMy memory is not a reliable guide to climate, those highs are a >>>>>>>>> bit higher
than I would have guessed.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100. >>>>> On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on >>>>> june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well understood...got it.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this"The 100-degree recording at Boston Logan International AirportI
smashed the previous July 24 record-high temp of 98 degrees set in
1933. The Hub reached 100 degrees for the first time since last June. >>>> I also don't pay much attention to the temperature at Logan airport,
care about where I am, and the temperature is almost never above 100F. >>>> One would think Logan would be comparatively cool, being right on the
water, but I don't really know. Airports have a lot of hot tarmac.
yes, it's generally warmer inland in the summer, When Boston measures
100, you can be pretty confident that locations ~ 30 miles inland
(such as you and I both are) will be warmer.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10th >>>>> longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before >>>>> this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days >>>>> was in the July of 2016."Which story tells a person that Boston just does not get a lot of
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/
hot
weather. I spent a number of years in Austin, Texas, where it really is >>>> hot and humid. I believe their record is over 30 days of consecutive
100F+ days, which is pretty warm.
That was all a response to your statement "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over 100F"
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in
new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The heat index matters, whether you agree with it, or understand it,
or not.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weatherI don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature over 100. >>>>>> On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 degrees. on >>>>>> june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
I went down the rathole
last time wind chill temperatures came up, and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice up tv weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an
empirical heat transfer equation. It's for the rubes.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over 100F. >>> That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, but it >>> is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in
new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must),
and faux temperature. I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at actual temperature and dew point.
From the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025. Actual temperature.
The heat index matters, whether you agree with it, or understand it,
or not.
The heat index is bunk. Just look at the dew point.
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weatherI don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature
over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108
degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held (absorbed)
into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air, it makes it
more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the evaporation of
water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning the process
absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW, when its humid,
your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels hotter. This is sometimes
called "real feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels- like-temperature-mean/
I went down the rathole
last time wind chill temperatures came up, and concluded that the only
purpose of that measurement was to spice up tv weather reports.
Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on two
nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different - see
which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me there's no difference.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
Actually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand the laws
of physics.
I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high over
100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F,
but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in
new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must),
and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not, and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/ date/2025-6-25
Shows a high of 92. There may also be Urban Heat Zone influences in the 'extreme' data. Beside that....
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/yearly-days-of-100- degrees
year-a-a-a rank-a-a-a # of days
2025-a-a-a-a 7-a-a-a-a 1
2024-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2023-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2022-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2021-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2020-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2019-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2018-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2017-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2016-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2015-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2014-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2013-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2012-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2011-a-a-a-a 7-a-a-a-a 1
2010-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2009-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2008-a-a-a-a 7-a-a-a-a 1
2007-a-a-a-a 7-a-a-a-a 1
2006-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2005-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2004-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2003-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2002-a-a-a-a 5-a-a-a-a 2
2001-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
2000-a-a-a-a 14-a-a-a-a 0
Rank is the placing with the highest number of days in any given year. Anything with a 0 is tied for 14th place. The complete table shows no
days over 100 before 1948. Since the year 2000, there have been 6 days
in lowell with the temp over 100
6\25*365 = ~.00066 or .066%
I reiterate:-a If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to find any days in new england over 100,
The heat index matters, whether you agree with it, or understand it,
or not.
The heat index is bunk.-a Just look at the dew point.
The dew point is only relevant at the noted temperature. Dew point is
based on relative humidity, with is directly correlated to heat index.
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weatherI don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature
over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108
degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice
up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F,
but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at >>> actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108
degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing "real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or
method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use
their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for
rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice
up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss. Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover? The answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on. It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F. Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute
or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F,
but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at >>>> actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a
well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing
"real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally
consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnAt follow one universal formula or
method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use
their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for >> afeels likeA temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>> up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat
during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid
always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same
conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely
analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover? The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't
there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it
depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on. It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the
building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F. Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute
or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>>> and faux temperature.a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at >>>>> actual temperature and dew point.
aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot-and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:25:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Massively hot and the frustration beforehand would me enough to bag it I
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air, >>>>> it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning >>>>> the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW, >>>>> when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a >>> well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing >>> "real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally >>> consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or >>> method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use >>> their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for
rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up, >>>>>> and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>>> up tv weather reports.Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different >>>>> - see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat
during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid >>> always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same >>> conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made >>> hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even >>> a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near >>> or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely >>> analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover? The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't >>> there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an >>>>>> empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.Actually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to >>>>> transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not >>>>> for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect >>>> airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance >>>
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it >>> depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on. It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the >>> air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the >>> building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance, >>> and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F. Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute >>> or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>>>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/ >>>>> date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not >>> that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in >>> New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot-and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
The heat and the humidity turned me around on my ride today. I was
ready to ride at 0830, but the Catrike wasn't. The left tire went flat sometime between when I put it in the truck yesterday afternoon and
this morning. Turns out the Presta valve insert had to be replaced
before it would hold air... then, out on the trail, I stopped several
times trying to get the new rear shift cable working just right. At
1000, with two bottles of water already gone, I turned around and
headed home. The temperature was 91 F, but the "feels like" temp was
98.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:25:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air, >>>>> it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning >>>>> the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW, >>>>> when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a >>> well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing >>> "real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally >>> consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or >>> method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use >>> their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for
rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up, >>>>>> and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>>> up tv weather reports.Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different >>>>> - see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat
during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid >>> always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same >>> conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made >>> hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even >>> a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near >>> or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely >>> analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover? The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't >>> there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an >>>>>> empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.Actually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to >>>>> transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not >>>>> for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect >>>> airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance >>>
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it >>> depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on. It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the >>> air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the >>> building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance, >>> and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F. Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute >>> or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>>>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/ >>>>> date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not >>> that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in >>> New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot-and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
The heat and the humidity turned me around on my ride today. I was
ready to ride at 0830, but the Catrike wasn't. The left tire went flat sometime between when I put it in the truck yesterday afternoon and
this morning. Turns out the Presta valve insert had to be replaced
before it would hold air... then, out on the trail, I stopped several
times trying to get the new rear shift cable working just right. At
1000, with two bottles of water already gone, I turned around and
headed home. The temperature was 91 F, but the "feels like" temp was
98.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 8/15/2025 1:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:25:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the >>>>>>>>> weatherI don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on >>>>>>>>>> that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>>>> really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air, >>>>>> it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning >>>>>> the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack >>>>>> of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW, >>>>>> when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat.-a My point is that "real feel" is
not a
well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and >>>> just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into
computing
"real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is
dimensionally
consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for >>>> the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature, >>>> or anything useful except this:
-a-a-a-a However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or
-a-a-a-a method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services >>>> use
-a-a-a-a their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast
accuracy for
-a-a-a-a rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all.-a I can read a weather report from 100 or 150 >>>> years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement >>>> were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today. >>>>
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up, >>>>>>> and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>>>> up tv weather reports.Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different >>>>>> - see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat >>>> during hot weather as well.-a Riding your bicycle when it's hot and
humid
always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the
same
conditions.-a People have cooled themselves with fans of various types >>>> since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they
made
hot weather a lot more bearable.-a When outside in hot muggy weather
even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water.-a If the temperature is
near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is
closely
analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow), >>>> and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport.-a So it's not surprising >>>> that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all >>>> day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel.-a Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot >>>> warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade.-a Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover?-a The >>>> answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature.-a Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel"
isn't
there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is >>>> hotter out there than the thermometer claims.-a Spices up those teevee >>>> weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an >>>>>>> empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.Actually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to >>>>>> transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not >>>>>> for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand >>>>>> the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's >>>>> products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case >>>>> it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect >>>>> airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change >>>>> is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and >>>>> the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance >>>>> -a-a (R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the
resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T >>>> and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference.-a The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient.-a h isn't a
constant, it
depends on air flow conditions.-a If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on.-a It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures.-a The temperature of >>>> the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things >>>> we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together.-a For many >>>> practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything >>>> clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity.-a Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside
the
building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being >>>> careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature.-a The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective
resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance.-a Using this model we >>>> can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and >>>> outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature.-a Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F.-a Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to
compute
or explain anything that way.-a Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not, >>>>>> andI typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and >>>>>>>>> this
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high >>>>>>>>> over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any >>>>>>>> days in
new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw >>>>>>>> includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so >>>>>>>> far this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you >>>>>>> must),
and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I >>>>>>> look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-a -aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/ >>>>>> date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/
date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:" >>>> right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown.-a Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts.-a This is >>>> not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are
rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one.-a Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass.-a Still can't figure out >>>> what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot-
and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
The heat and the humidity turned me around on my ride today. I was
ready to ride at 0830, but the Catrike wasn't. The left tire went flat
sometime between when I put it in the truck yesterday afternoon and
this morning. Turns out the Presta valve insert had to be replaced
before it would hold air...-a then, out on the trail, I stopped several
times trying to get the new rear shift cable working just right. At
1000, with two bottles of water already gone, I turned around and
headed home. The temperature was 91 F, but the "feels like" temp was
98.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
My ride today was quite pleasant again just after dawn. This year has
been just wonderful after our pathetic chilly spring.
Right now it's 84 here, 58% Rel Hum and with both doors open to an 8mph breeze, quite nice. I've been wetsanding with interruptions for bicycle repair and not hot at all.
Nearby in Madison, which is a swamp, people are carping about the
ambient unpleasantness and in Chicago, which is a big swamp, moreso.
On 8/15/2025 1:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:25:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air, >>>>>> it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning >>>>>> the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack >>>>>> of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.a IOW, >>>>>> when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a >>>> well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and >>>> just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing >>>> "real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally >>>> consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for >>>> the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature, >>>> or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnAt follow one universal formula or >>>> method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use >>>> their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for
afeels likeA temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement >>>> were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today. >>>>
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up, >>>>>>> and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>>>> up tv weather reports.Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different >>>>>> - see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat >>>> during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid >>>> always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same >>>> conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made >>>> hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even >>>> a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near >>>> or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely >>>> analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow), >>>> and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising >>>> that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all >>>> day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover? The >>>> answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't >>>> there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is >>>> hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T >>>> and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing an >>>>>>> empirical heat transfer equation.a It's for the rubes.Actually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to >>>>>> transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not >>>>>> for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand >>>>>> the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's >>>>> products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case >>>>> it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect >>>>> airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change >>>>> is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and >>>>> the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance >>>>> (R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance >>>>
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it >>>> depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on. It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the >>>> air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things >>>> we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything >>>> clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the >>>> building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being >>>> careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance, >>>> and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we >>>> can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and >>>> outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F. Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute >>>> or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not, >>>>>> andI typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high >>>>>>>>> over 100F.
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw >>>>>>>> includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must),
and faux temperature.a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at
actual temperature and dew point.
aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.a Actual temperature.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/ >>>>>> date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:" >>>> right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not >>>> that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in >>>> New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out >>>> what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot-and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
The heat and the humidity turned me around on my ride today. I was
ready to ride at 0830, but the Catrike wasn't. The left tire went flat
sometime between when I put it in the truck yesterday afternoon and
this morning. Turns out the Presta valve insert had to be replaced
before it would hold air... then, out on the trail, I stopped several
times trying to get the new rear shift cable working just right. At
1000, with two bottles of water already gone, I turned around and
headed home. The temperature was 91 F, but the "feels like" temp was
98.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
My ride today was quite pleasant again just after dawn. This
year has been just wonderful after our pathetic chilly spring.
Right now it's 84 here, 58% Rel Hum and with both doors open
to an 8mph breeze, quite nice. I've been wetsanding with
interruptions for bicycle repair and not hot at all.
Nearby in Madison, which is a swamp, people are carping
about the ambient unpleasantness and in Chicago, which is a
big swamp, moreso.
On 8/15/2025 1:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/15/2025 1:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:How far do your ride Andrew? My guess is you are quite sane
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:25:21 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousandI don't care much about the heat index, I prefer
We typically have a few days each summer with
the temperature
over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat
index of 108
degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
numbers with a
well understood physical meaning.
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest
the science on that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
reading the weather
report has any idea how heat index might be
calculated, or what it
really means.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't
well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
moisture held
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of
moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to
evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction
(endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as
well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as
heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it
feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity
doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat.-a My point is that
"real feel" is not a
well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or
understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually
go into computing
"real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it
is dimensionally
consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are
necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real
feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
-a-a-a-a However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one
universal formula or
-a-a-a-a method. Rather, weather forecasting and
meteorological services use
-a-a-a-a their own approach, creating some discrepancies in
forecast accuracy for
-a-a-a-a rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all.-a I can read a weather report
from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint
or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and
methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing
the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to
measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have
no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chillRight, because wind chill and heat index are the same
temperatures came up,
and concluded that the only purpose of that
measurement was to spice
up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside
with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is
quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back
and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference
in perceived heat
during hot weather as well.-a Riding your bicycle when
it's hot and humid
always feels cooler than doing the same work on a
trainer under the same
conditions.-a People have cooled themselves with fans of
various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became
available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable.-a When outside in hot
muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we
reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water.-a If the
temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal
gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor
can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water
through air) is closely
analogous to transport of heat, or transport of
momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same
empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport.-a So it's
not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly
better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are
not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also
has a large
effect on how hot you feel.-a Being outdoors in direct
sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade.-a Of
course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or
cloud cover?-a The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than
the actual
temperature.-a Not for any physical reason, but because
"real feel" isn't
there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes
that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims.-a Spices
up those teevee
weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal methodActually it is. There is a direct correlation between
of developing an
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
the ability to
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air
flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire
to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One
of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a
thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current
creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage
since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to
heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One
application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow,
the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the
resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the
measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain
CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a
variable resistance
-a-a (R), the voltage will change in direct correlation
to the resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a
body temperature T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q
away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference.
The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient.-a h
isn't a constant, it
depends on air flow conditions.-a If you have laminar
air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent
flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product
depens on.-a It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures.-a The
temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to
simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures
together.-a For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely
bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just
wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation
in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal
resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity.-a Heat
transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R
times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the
other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we
again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the
wall or inside the
building, we lump the inside temperatures together,
and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like
the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature.-a The overall
resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive
resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the
convective resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to
temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient
temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance.
Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat
loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and
compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like"
outside ambient
temperature.-a Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's
0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated
house would be
35F.-a Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person
would try to compute
or explain anything that way.-a Except teevee weather
presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dryI typically check the weather forecast several
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
times a day, and this
year was the first time that I have ever seen a
forecast high
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never
rose above 100F,
but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed
to fins any days in
new england over 100, including this year. The
forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the
hottest day so far this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature
(dry bulb if you must),
and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux
temperature, I look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-a -aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/
year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
bulb or not,
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/
lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-
andover/KBED/ date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/
KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully
says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not
shown.-a Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates
weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more
localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local
forecasts.-a This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple
times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and
above are rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the
first time I could
recall experiencing one.-a Which is one of the reasons I
claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass.-a Still
can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-
especially-hot- and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-
metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
The heat and the humidity turned me around on my ride
today. I was
ready to ride at 0830, but the Catrike wasn't. The left
tire went flat
sometime between when I put it in the truck yesterday
afternoon and
this morning. Turns out the Presta valve insert had to be
replaced
before it would hold air...-a then, out on the trail, I
stopped several
times trying to get the new rear shift cable working just
right. At
1000, with two bottles of water already gone, I turned
around and
headed home. The temperature was 91 F, but the "feels
like" temp was
98.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
My ride today was quite pleasant again just after dawn.
This year has been just wonderful after our pathetic
chilly spring.
Right now it's 84 here, 58% Rel Hum and with both doors
open to an 8mph breeze, quite nice. I've been wetsanding
with interruptions for bicycle repair and not hot at all.
Nearby in Madison, which is a swamp, people are carping
about the ambient unpleasantness and in Chicago, which is
a big swamp, moreso.
about distance.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108
degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing "real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or
method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use
their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for
rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice
up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss. Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover?
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on.
It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F.
Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute
or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F,
but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at >>>> actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
On 8/14/2025 3:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on >>>>>>>> that has
been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
stress or the perception of heat.-a My point is that "real feel" is not a
well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into computing
"real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally
consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
-a-a-a However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula or >> -a-a-a method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use >> -a-a-a their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast
accuracy for
-a-a-a rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all.-a I can read a weather report from 100 or 150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
I went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>> up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceived heat
during hot weather as well.-a Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid
always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same
conditions.-a People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable.-a When outside in hot muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water.-a If the temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is closely
analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport.-a So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel.-a Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade.-a Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover?-a The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature.-a Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't
there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims.-a Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
-a (R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference.-a The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient.-a h isn't a constant, it
depends on air flow conditions.-a If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on.-a It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures.-a The temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together.-a For many
practical applications this approach works well.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity.-a Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the
building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature.-a The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance.-a Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature.-a Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F.-a Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute
or explain anything that way.-a Except teevee weather presenters.
first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any
days in
new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far >>>>>> this
year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you
must),
and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I
look at
actual temperature and dew point.
-a-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
See the previous day:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/
date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says "Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown.-a Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts.-a This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one.-a Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass.-a Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Thanks for that; a good overview.
This from today's paper:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/meteorology/feeling-especially-hot- and-sticky-this-summer-now-there-s-a-metric-for-that/ar-AA1Kw8Nv
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather: <https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index" <https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index" <https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index" <https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather: <https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index " <https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index " <https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index " <https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >those patents?
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing
those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
Incidentally, when I look at the NWS forecast for my area, I have it
plot temperature and heat index (among other things). For example: <https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=hi&w3u=1&w6=rh&w10u=1&w11u=1&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=37.0813&textField2=-122.093&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=>
The red line is the temperature. The brown line is the heat index.
You'll need to look at the graph carefully to see any difference
between the two lines. For tomorrows temperature peak at about 2pm,
the difference between temperature and heat index is about 1F. Unless
we get some really radical weather, it's like that for most of the
year.
Accuweather knows that temperature and heat index are mostly
identical.
forecasts. For example: <https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/ben-lomond/95005/hourly-weather-forecast/2154513>
Notice that each days forecast only shows RealFeel and sometimes
RealFeel Shade (yet another registered trademark).
Apparently RealFeel has worked well enough that Accuweather decided to contrive some additional weather related metrics. <https://www.accuweather.com/en/press/accuweather-introduces-first-of-its-kind-brightness-index/1594355>
Seems like turning science back into witchcraft. That's what happened
to pro-audio when companies began to invent new ways to measure audio characteristics. While in college, I invented a device that would
measure "ambience" and "presence" which are two such bogus
measurements. I got as far as getting a product release published in
one of the trade journals. For many years, I received mail asking for information about my bogus device.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing
those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
Incidentally, when I look at the NWS forecast for my area, I have it
plot temperature and heat index (among other things). For example: <https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=hi&w3u=1&w6=rh&w10u=1&w11u=1&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=37.0813&textField2=-122.093&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=>
The red line is the temperature. The brown line is the heat index.
You'll need to look at the graph carefully to see any difference
between the two lines. For tomorrows temperature peak at about 2pm,
the difference between temperature and heat index is about 1F. Unless
we get some really radical weather, it's like that for most of the
year.
Accuweather knows that temperature and heat index are mostly
identical. That allows them to offer only RealFeel on their weather forecasts. For example: <https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/ben-lomond/95005/hourly-weather-forecast/2154513>
Notice that each days forecast only shows RealFeel and sometimes
RealFeel Shade (yet another registered trademark).
Apparently RealFeel has worked well enough that Accuweather decided to contrive some additional weather related metrics. <https://www.accuweather.com/en/press/accuweather-introduces-first-of-its-kind-brightness-index/1594355>
Seems like turning science back into witchcraft. That's what happened
to pro-audio when companies began to invent new ways to measure audio characteristics. While in college, I invented a device that would
measure "ambience" and "presence" which are two such bogus
measurements. I got as far as getting a product release published in
one of the trade journals. For many years, I received mail asking for information about my bogus device.
On 8/19/2025 12:07 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day >>>> also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >>> those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical
consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
Incidentally, when I look at the NWS forecast for my area, I have it
plot temperature and heat index (among other things). For example:
<https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=hi&w3u=1&w6=rh&w10u=1&w11u=1&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=37.0813&textField2=-122.093&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=>
The red line is the temperature. The brown line is the heat index.
You'll need to look at the graph carefully to see any difference
between the two lines. For tomorrows temperature peak at about 2pm,
the difference between temperature and heat index is about 1F. Unless
we get some really radical weather, it's like that for most of the
year.
That's because the dry-bulb temp and RH aren't high enough to affect the >heat index in your area.>
Accuweather knows that temperature and heat index are mostly
identical.
For you... Try Houston: >https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=29.7608&lon=-95.3695&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical
That allows them to offer only RealFeel on their weather--
forecasts. For example:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/ben-lomond/95005/hourly-weather-forecast/2154513>
Notice that each days forecast only shows RealFeel and sometimes
RealFeel Shade (yet another registered trademark).
Apparently RealFeel has worked well enough that Accuweather decided to
contrive some additional weather related metrics.
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/press/accuweather-introduces-first-of-its-kind-brightness-index/1594355>
Seems like turning science back into witchcraft. That's what happened
to pro-audio when companies began to invent new ways to measure audio
characteristics. While in college, I invented a device that would
measure "ambience" and "presence" which are two such bogus
measurements. I got as far as getting a product release published in
one of the trade journals. For many years, I received mail asking for
information about my bogus device.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 07:17:15 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 12:07 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of >>>>> how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a >>>>> large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day >>>>> also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >>>> those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical
consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
Incidentally, when I look at the NWS forecast for my area, I have it
plot temperature and heat index (among other things). For example:
<https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=hi&w3u=1&w6=rh&w10u=1&w11u=1&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=37.0813&textField2=-122.093&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=>
The red line is the temperature. The brown line is the heat index.
You'll need to look at the graph carefully to see any difference
between the two lines. For tomorrows temperature peak at about 2pm,
the difference between temperature and heat index is about 1F. Unless
we get some really radical weather, it's like that for most of the
year.
That's because the dry-bulb temp and RH aren't high enough to affect the
heat index in your area.>
True. That's also why I like it here on the US left coast. Since I
don't want to see a mass migration to my area, please don't tell
anyone I mentioned that.
I stand corrected. I've never lived in a high humidity area, where
the heat index would be important. (Yes, I'm spoiled).
If I did, it
probably would make sense to have some type of "comfort" index. I
still attribute the multitude of such indexes as product
differentiation. However, I have a potential solution. Instead of
all the various "comfort indexes", I propose they are replaced by a
single, standardized and hopefully easily computed "misery index", so
that there's no doubt what the index is actually measuring. Patent
pending.
Accuweather knows that temperature and heat index are mostly
identical.
For you... Try Houston:
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=29.7608&lon=-95.3695&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical
Do people really live in an area where it is simultaneously very hot,
very humid, drizzling, and the sky is thundering and possibly throwing lightning bolts? Going forward 6 days, Houston seems to like that
every day. Ok, I'm convinced.
That allows them to offer only RealFeel on their weather
forecasts. For example:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/ben-lomond/95005/hourly-weather-forecast/2154513>
Notice that each days forecast only shows RealFeel and sometimes
RealFeel Shade (yet another registered trademark).
Apparently RealFeel has worked well enough that Accuweather decided to
contrive some additional weather related metrics.
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/press/accuweather-introduces-first-of-its-kind-brightness-index/1594355>
Seems like turning science back into witchcraft. That's what happened
to pro-audio when companies began to invent new ways to measure audio
characteristics. While in college, I invented a device that would
measure "ambience" and "presence" which are two such bogus
measurements. I got as far as getting a product release published in
one of the trade journals. For many years, I received mail asking for
information about my bogus device.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 07:17:15 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 12:07 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of >>>>> how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a >>>>> large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day >>>>> also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >>>> those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical
consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
Incidentally, when I look at the NWS forecast for my area, I have it
plot temperature and heat index (among other things). For example:
<https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=hi&w3u=1&w6=rh&w10u=1&w11u=1&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=37.0813&textField2=-122.093&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=>
The red line is the temperature. The brown line is the heat index.
You'll need to look at the graph carefully to see any difference
between the two lines. For tomorrows temperature peak at about 2pm,
the difference between temperature and heat index is about 1F. Unless
we get some really radical weather, it's like that for most of the
year.
That's because the dry-bulb temp and RH aren't high enough to affect the
heat index in your area.>
True. That's also why I like it here on the US left coast. Since I
don't want to see a mass migration to my area, please don't tell
anyone I mentioned that.
I stand corrected. I've never lived in a high humidity area, where
the heat index would be important. (Yes, I'm spoiled). If I did, it probably would make sense to have some type of "comfort" index. I
still attribute the multitude of such indexes as product
differentiation. However, I have a potential solution. Instead of
all the various "comfort indexes", I propose they are replaced by a
single, standardized and hopefully easily computed "misery index", so
that there's no doubt what the index is actually measuring. Patent
pending.
Accuweather knows that temperature and heat index are mostly
identical.
For you... Try Houston:
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=29.7608&lon=-95.3695&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical
Do people really live in an area where it is simultaneously very hot,
very humid, drizzling, and the sky is thundering and possibly throwing lightning bolts? Going forward 6 days, Houston seems to like that
every day. Ok, I'm convinced.
That allows them to offer only RealFeel on their weather
forecasts. For example:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/ben-lomond/95005/hourly-weather-forecast/2154513>
Notice that each days forecast only shows RealFeel and sometimes
RealFeel Shade (yet another registered trademark).
Apparently RealFeel has worked well enough that Accuweather decided to
contrive some additional weather related metrics.
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/press/accuweather-introduces-first-of-its-kind-brightness-index/1594355>
Seems like turning science back into witchcraft. That's what happened
to pro-audio when companies began to invent new ways to measure audio
characteristics. While in college, I invented a device that would
measure "ambience" and "presence" which are two such bogus
measurements. I got as far as getting a product release published in
one of the trade journals. For many years, I received mail asking for
information about my bogus device.
That's been done, sorta:
https://www.wunderground.com/article/storms/winter/news/2025-01-24-winter-misery-index-extreme-winter-season-2025
is an attempt to put numbers on a subjective evaluation for
winter weather.
"This is determined by three main factors: the intensity and
persistence of cold weather, the frequency and amount of
snowfall and the amount and persistence of snow on the
ground. The index uses five categories u mild, moderate,
average, severe and extreme u to rate the severity of winter
weather in cities across the U.S. over an entire cold
season. The higher the index, the more persistent snow
and/or cold you've experienced."
Then again this oddly dated (34 December, 1956? really?) item:
https://www.worldgreenbridge.org/page61.html
makes another attempt, "This shows what the air temperature
"feels like" by combining the heat index and wind chill on
one map. "
On 8/14/2025 4:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
On 8/13/2025 6:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:Neither I nor anyone here has said that humidity doesn't affect heat
On 8/11/2025 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:Sure. The heat index is based on the amount of moisture held
On 8/7/2025 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
I doubt that more than 1 person in ten thousand reading the weather >>>>>>> report has any idea how heat index might be calculated, or what it >>>>>>> really means.I don't care much about the heat index, I prefer numbers with a >>>>>>>>> well understood physical meaning.
We typically have a few days each summer with the temperature >>>>>>>>>> over 100.
On June 19, 2024, Boston recorded a high heat index of 108 >>>>>>>>>> degrees. on
june 24 of 2023 it hit 102. Then in 2022:
Heat index is not well-understood? I'd suggest the science on that has >>>>>>>> been pretty well settled for some time now.
Ah, so that you don't understand it means it isn't well
understood...got it.
Perhaps you would like to explain it for us?
(absorbed) into the air. When there is a lot of moisture in the air,
it makes it more difficult for your sweat to evaporate. Since the
evaporation of water is an endothermic reaction (endothermic meaning
the process absorbs heat), your body doesn't cool as well. The lack
of endothermic process is directly quantifiable as heat index.-a IOW,
when its humid, your sweat doesn't evaporate, so it feels
hotter. This is sometimes called "real
feel". https://tempest.earth/resources/what-does-feels-
like-temperature-mean/
stress or the perception of heat. My point is that "real feel" is not a
well-defined quantity, does not aid communication or understanding, and
just makes everyone that uses it a little bit dumber.
Your site does not explain what physical data actually go into
computing
"real feel", or the form of the computation, whether it is dimensionally
consistent, or, what hypothetical conditions are necessary in order for
the actual temperature to really feel like the "real feel" temperature,
or anything useful except this:
However, this measurement doesnrCOt follow one universal formula
or
method. Rather, weather forecasting and meteorological services use
their own approach, creating some discrepancies in forecast accuracy for >> rCyfeels likerCO temp.
Pretty much says it all. I can read a weather report from 100 or
150
years ago, and know that when temperature or dewpoint or barometric
pressure is reported that, although instruments and methods may be a
little different from modern practice, the people doing the measurement
were trying to measure exactly the same thing we try to measure today.
If I read a "real feel" report from last week I'll have no
confidence
that I understand what the person reporting it means.
ok, so let's glom onto "real feel" instead of heat index (yes, I
brought it up as an example of an application of the heat index
calculation - a quantifiable metric. No,it wasn't intended to be an
example of a quantifiable metric in and of itself).
Funny thing is that wind speed makes a big difference in perceivedI went down the rathole last time wind chill temperatures came up,Right, because wind chill and heat index are the same
and concluded that the only purpose of that measurement was to spice >>>>> up tv weather reports.
thing....<eyeroll>. This winter try going outside with no coat on
two nights when the temp is the same but the wind is quite different
- see which one you last longer at, then report back and tell me
there's no difference.
heat
during hot weather as well. Riding your bicycle when it's hot and humid
always feels cooler than doing the same work on a trainer under the same
conditions. People have cooled themselves with fans of various types
since time immemorial, and when electric fans became available they made
hot weather a lot more bearable. When outside in hot muggy weather even
a slight breeze makes a person feel cooler.
The reason is simple -- in hot weather, as you say, we reject heat
almost entirely by the evaporation of water. If the temperature is near
or above 37C then heat convection gives a net thermal gain, not loss.
Evaporation is limited by the rate at which water vapor can be
transported away from the body.
Under forced convection transport of mass (water through air) is
closely
analogous to transport of heat, or transport of momentum (fluid flow),
and all three can sometimes be covered using the same empirical
correlations developed for momentum transport. So it's not surprising
that increased wind speed results in significantly better cooling.
If you have ever spent any time out where the skies are not cloudy
all
day, you'll know that heat transport by radiation also has a large
effect on how hot you feel. Being outdoors in direct sun feels a lot
warmer than being under a cloud, or in the shade. Of course this is
true in the winter as well.
So, why doesn't "real feel" correct for wind speed or cloud cover?
It actually does, and I regularly hear meterologists make reference to
solar warming and wind cooling (e.g. "cooler at the coast with the seabreeze")
The
answer is simple -- "real feel" has to be higher than the actual
temperature. Not for any physical reason, but because "real feel" isn't
there to inform, it's there to tell the weather rubes that it really is
hotter out there than the thermometer claims. Spices up those teevee
weather reports.
*Newton's law of cooling, q = h * (T - Ta): Given a body temperature"Adjusting" the temperature is not a normal method of developing anActually it is. There is a direct correlation between the ability to
empirical heat transfer equation.-a It's for the rubes.
transfer heat based on both relative humidity and air flow. It's not
for rubes, it's for people that have an actual desire to understand
the laws of physics.
I'll give a real-world quantifiable application - One of my company's
products is a sensor that is little more than a thermistor which is
driven by a pulsed current source. This pulsed current creates some
self-heating which is measurable in terms of voltage since the
resistance of a thermistor changes with respect to heat* (in out case
it's a negative temperature coefficient). One application is to detect
airflow in HVAC systems. When there is enough airflow, the heat
generated by the thermistor is dissipated such the resistance change
is reduced below the hysteresis point of the measurement circuit, and
the system interprets this as airflow above a certain CFM. This is
real-world quantifiable wind chill.
*Ohms law, V=IR: given a steady current (I) and a variable resistance
(R), the voltage will change in direct correlation to the resistance
T
and a far-field ambient temperature Ta the heat flux q away from the
body is proportional to the temperature difference. The factor h is
called the convective heat transfer coefficient. h isn't a constant, it
depends on air flow conditions. If you have laminar air flow it's
roughly proportional to velocity, if you have turbulent flow it's
roughly proportional to the square of velocity.
true, but irrelevant to the conversation. FWIW, the test fixture for
that sensor uses a delamination segment (which I would have mentioned
if it were relevant).
This is the heat transfer relation that your product depens on.
No, really?
It
does have some slightly fictitions temperatures. The temperature of the
air and of the body actually vary with position, but to simplify things
we average or "lump" all the related temperatures together. For many
practical applications this approach works well.
Placement of the sensor in the duct work to avoid laminar flow issues
is well documented in the product literature, thank you.
There isn't anything like a "real feel" completely bogus temperature
anywhere in the thermal model, because that just wouldn't make anything
clearer or simpler or more accurate.
yes, there is, it's called heat index, a quantifiable metric,
translated for general consumption as 'real feel'.
To give another example of a thermal model: insulation in a
building.
This is specified in terms of R value, R is thermal resistance or
insulation thickness divided by conductivity. Heat transfer by
conduction through a wall is roughly proportional to R times the
temperature difference from one side of the wall to the other.
In order to apply this model to an entire building we again have to
neglect temperature variation with position along the wall or inside the
building, we lump the inside temperatures together, and, if we're being
careful, apply a a convective heat transfer model like the one above
using the lumped ambient air temperature. The overall resistance is
just the sum of the convective and conductive resistances in series.
If we're not being so careful we just neglect the convective
resistance,
and assume that heat loss is proportional to temperature difference
between the building interior and the outside ambient temperatur, and
inversely proportional to the thermal resistance. Using this model we
can say that doubling the R value should halve heat loss, if inside and
outs temperatures remain the same.
Thanks for fundamental shallow dive into thermodynamics, but again, irrelevent.
What we *don't* do is define a "standard house", and compare it to a
house with doubled R-value by defining a "feels like" outside ambient
temperature. Suppose inside it's 70F and outside it's 0F, then the
"real feel" outside temperatue for the well-insulated house would be
35F.
nice straw man ya got there....
Obviously that's nonsense, and no sane person would try to compute
or explain anything that way. Except teevee weather presenters.
oh, right, I hear meteorologists saying "but if your house has R33 it
will only feel like 35 instead of 0" all the time.
<eyeroll>
wow.
See the previous day:first off, that site doesn't say whether that was dry bulb or not,I typically check the weather forecast several times a day, and this >>>>>>> year was the first time that I have ever seen a forecast high
We usually get at least one day every year over 100.
over 100F.
That does not mean that actual temperature never rose above 100F, >>>>>>> but it
is an indication that it seldom does.
If you ignore the heat index you'd be hard pressed to fins any days in >>>>>> new england over 100, including this year. The forcast you saw
includes the heat index, take that out and the hottest day so far this >>>>>> year was 97 (aka dry bulb).
The forecast I check has both actual temperature (dry bulb if you must), >>>>> and faux temperature.-a I pay no attention to faux temperature, I look at >>>>> actual temperature and dew point.
-aFrom the site Mr. Muzi recently cited:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/lowell/year-2025
103F on 25 June 2025.-a Actual temperature.
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/lowell/KMALOWEL100/
date/2025-6-25
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ma/north-andover/KBED/date/2025-6-24
It clearly shows a max temperature of 100F.
Here is the month of forecasts for Hanscom Field:
https://www.wunderground.com/calendar/us/ma/bedford/KBED/date/2025-6
The forecast high for 24 June is 100F, and it helpfully says
"Actual:"
right above.
I recalled a forecast high above 100F, which is not shown. Probably
wunderground.com somehow interpolates/extrapolates weather service
forecasts like the one for Hanscom field to get more localized
forecasts, but does not archive all of the local forecasts. This is not
that surprising, the forecasts are changed multiple times per day,
almost surely automatically.
I agree that days with actual temperatures of 100F and above are
rare in
New England, in fact I said that this year was the first time I could
recall experiencing one. Which is one of the reasons I claimed that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass. Still can't figure out
what you find to disagree with in that statement.
Your claim that I took issue with was "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over
100F", which is demonstrably false. If you have written "that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass" at any point up until
now in this exchange, i've missed it.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day
also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >>those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
Your claim that I took issue with was "I'm reasonably sure this
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over
100F", which is demonstrably false. If you have written "that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass" at any point up until
now in this exchange, i've missed it.
Can't recall what was said in a conversation where you are by far the
loudest one?
That must be kinda scary.
Look on the bright side, you
probably just reflexively disagreed without reading.
I said initially, during a discussion of this summer's weather around
the northern hemisphere, that this summer *was* unusually hot and muggy
in Mass.
When you disagred with that, I said this was the first year in a quarter century spent in Yankee-land that I had seen a forecast of a high over
100F.
The statement was one of what I had seen, I did not claim that
the actual temperature over the last 25 years had never been above 100F;
I really don't know.
At that point you said that Boston Logan had quite a number of high temperatures over 100F recently. I found that quite surprising, and
doubted my memory. Eventually, after much huffing and squawking it
developed that you meant that Boston Logan had quite a number of
*RealFeel* temperatures over 100F, and said that it hardly ever got to
100F in New England, and that I must have been reading RealFeel instead.
I think that by now we have agreed that a temperature of 100F was
reached this summer at Hanscom Field. That seems to have been much more difficult than it should have been. In my opinion it just goes to show
that RealFeel is not useful; it interferes with communication, it clouds understanding, and it has no redeeming features. In sum, it stands in relation to temperature as yellowed trans fatty acids stand to pure
creamery butter. It is much better avoided.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:15:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:35:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(chomp)
oh, gee, a quantifiable metric for real feel? who woulda thunk it?
RealFeel is patented by Accuweather:
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-the-accuweather-realfeel-temperature/156655>
<https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-we-calculate-real-feel-temperatures/189005>
"The RealFeel Temperature is protected by two patents which ensure
that no other index can include temperature and more than one other
factor, it is the only index which can provide an accurate measure of
how the weather really feels."
"Some of the components that are used in the equation are humidity,
cloud cover, winds, sun intensity and angle of the sun. Humidity is a
large contributor to determining the RealFeel, but the time of the day >>>> also is important, due to the angle of the sun."
Accuweather realfeel patents:
"Determining a REALFEEL seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402541B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US11397281B2/en>
"Determining a realfeel seasonal index "
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200333507A1/en>
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor"
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US6768945B2/en> (expired)
"Method, system, and software for calculating a multi factor
temperature index"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US7251579B2/en> (expired)
Note that the calculations are different between Summer and Winter.
Thanks for looking that up. I wonder if anyone has considered licensing >>>those patents?
I doubt that anyone would license it. It's much easier to invent a
new and unique way to measure temperature.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_temperature>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort>
The real question is what problem are they trying to solve by
inventing yet another (secret) standard for measuring comfort instead
of temperature? I suspect it provides "product differentiation".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation>
Apparent temperatures, calculated by different algorithms, do not need
to be superior, more accurate or more useful than other methods. They
only need to be different so that companies can attach their
trademarks to the measurement, measuring device, advertising, etc.
This works very well for producing sales, especially when the typical
consumer has no idea what they're actually getting along with the
impressive sounding technology and buzzwords.
That's a reasonable question. I have lived in muggy, humid conditions
and in dry deserts. In either case it wasn't that hard to connect >temperature to how hot it felt, although the correlation was a bit
different for the two. If you live in Houston, you can be fairly sure
that 100F yesterday will feel a lot like 100F today, RealFeel or no.
Maybe it's intended for those who live in El Paso, might run over to
Houston for the weekend, and need to know whether or not to pack the
tweeds? Or maybe it's for those who live in Salt Lake City, and are
watching the forecasts because they're thinking of moving to Houston and
want to know how hot it really is?
In actual fact humid, muggy heat does not feel like dry, dehydrating
heat at any set of corresponding temperatures. If you were dropped >blindfolded into either summertime Houston or El Paso you would have no >trouble telling the difference, even if the RealFeels happened to be the >same.
We live in a wonderful time, when a few dollars will buy anyone an
accurate thermometer, and a few dollars more will buy a home weather
station that will tell you the temperature, humidity, barometric
pressure, wind speed, and phase of the moon. But it can't tell you
RealFeel, because that's patented, and a license fee of more than $0.01
per unit would be completely untenable. Actually, of course, one can't >patent a mathematical expression or an arithmetic computation, but one
can patent any device that uses a particular computation for a set of >specified purposes.
So RealFeel is something you can get from a weather report, but not from
a device you can run. I guess you could look up the patent disclosures
and compute it yourself, but who would do that? It also allows people
in Houston to feel a bit superior to those in El Paso, because their
RealFeel is higher, even if their temperature is not.
On 8/22/2025 3:58 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
Your claim that I took issue with was "I'm reasonably sure thisCan't recall what was said in a conversation where you are by far
year is the first one I have seen in Mass with temperatures over
100F", which is demonstrably false. If you have written "that
this year was unusually hot and muggy in Mass" at any point up until
now in this exchange, i've missed it.
the
loudest one?
IOW - you can't be bothered to read back what you wrote, you simply
took issue with someone who disagreed with you...got it.
That must be kinda scary.
Pointing out someones mistake is scary to you?
Look on the bright side, you
probably just reflexively disagreed without reading.
Sure, that's why I copy pasted exactly what you wrote that was wrong
and responded to it.
I said initially, during a discussion of this summer's weather
around
the northern hemisphere, that this summer *was* unusually hot and muggy
in Mass.
When you disagred with that, I said this was the first year in a
quarter
century spent in Yankee-land that I had seen a forecast of a high over
100F.
You have that exactly backwards. The internet never forgets, go do
your own homework if you don't believe me.
The statement was one of what I had seen, I did not claim that
the actual temperature over the last 25 years had never been above 100F;
True, and I merely pointed out that there _were_ 100 degree days in
the past 25 years.
I really don't know.
You do now.
The heat wave of six consecutive days of 90-plus degrees is the 10th
longest stretch of 90-degree days in BostonrCOs recorded history. Before
this last week, the most recent stretch of six straight 90-degree days
was in the July of 2016."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/07/24/boston-hits-100-degrees-smashes-record-high-as-heat-wave-drags-on-severe-weather-threat-on-tap/