But it's a dry heat....

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm

I guess all those people didn't really die, huh?

Same thing when that heat wave hit France a couple years ago.

First, it was mainly elderly people and secondly, they don't have A/C.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm

I guess all those people didn't really die, huh?

Same thing when that heat wave hit France a couple years ago.

First, it was mainly elderly people and secondly, they don't have A/C.

So, yes, you're right in that respect...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm


Ever hear of "Heat Index"?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm


Ever hear of "Heat Index"?

Yes.

What's that got to do with your made-up statement that the temperature was
104 F. and the humidity was 90%?

Did you attempt to understand the chart?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" spewed this drivel:
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.
Baloney.
Look at a psychometric chart:
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm
Ever hear of "Heat Index"?
Yes.

What's that got to do with your made-up statement that the temperature was
104 F. and the humidity was 90%?

Did you attempt to understand the chart?

First off, it's psychRometric.

Do you understand relative humidity?

According to NOAA, July of 1995 (about which I presume Matt is talking)
had the following (from
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/science/jul1395/jul1395.htm)
quote
In the immediate Chicago region, surface dew points held in the upper
70s to near 80 however the temperature exceeded 100 degF for several
hours. Heat Index values were greater than 115 degrees for much of the
midday and afternoon hours...reaching 125 degrees for the 2145UTC
observation from Midway (MDW). In fact, the mercury remained at or
above 100 degF at MDW for seven hours, from 13/1800UTC to 14/0100UTC.
This extraordinary length may be partially due to the more urban
location of the field.
/quote

Now, I am going to use the following readings:
104 degrees F for the temperature (the "official" high)
80 degrees F for the dew point.

According to the formula RH =~ 100((112 - .1T - Td)/(112 + .9T))^8,
where T = observed temperature and Td = dew point temperature, I get a
relative humidity of 88.32%.

P.S. A heat index of 125!?!? That's definitely "stay at home and hope
the AC doesn't go out on me" weather!

Why can't my buttons work right.


mea culpa. That should be 37.4 % RH.

Grrrr.

Still, a heat index of 125 is insane....:-/

"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Dan Luke" spewed this drivel:
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.
Baloney.
Look at a psychometric chart:
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm
Ever hear of "Heat Index"?
Yes.

What's that got to do with your made-up statement that the temperature
was
104 F. and the humidity was 90%?

Did you attempt to understand the chart?

First off, it's psychRometric.

Do you understand relative humidity?

According to NOAA, July of 1995 (about which I presume Matt is talking)
had the following (from
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/science/jul1395/jul1395.htm)
quote
In the immediate Chicago region, surface dew points held in the upper
70s to near 80 however the temperature exceeded 100 degF for several
hours. Heat Index values were greater than 115 degrees for much of the
midday and afternoon hours...reaching 125 degrees for the 2145UTC
observation from Midway (MDW). In fact, the mercury remained at or
above 100 degF at MDW for seven hours, from 13/1800UTC to 14/0100UTC.
This extraordinary length may be partially due to the more urban
location of the field.
/quote

Now, I am going to use the following readings:
104 degrees F for the temperature (the "official" high)
80 degrees F for the dew point.

According to the formula RH =~ 100((112 - .1T - Td)/(112 + .9T))^8,
where T = observed temperature and Td = dew point temperature, I get a
relative humidity of 88.32%.

P.S. A heat index of 125!?!? That's definitely "stay at home and hope
the AC doesn't go out on me" weather!

One aspect is that for people outdoors (homeless, for example) cannot get
out of the heat during the day (shade doesn't work) nor at night (temps stay
high). I suspect that can add to a death toll.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Doug Semler" wrote:

First off, it's psychRometric.

Do you understand relative humidity?

I thought so, but I foolishly trusted the spelling in the url.

Now, I am going to use the following readings:
104 degrees F for the temperature (the "official" high)
80 degrees F for the dew point.

According to the formula RH =~ 100((112 - .1T - Td)/(112 + .9T))^8,
where T = observed temperature and Td = dew point temperature, I get a
relative humidity of 88.32%.

We must be looking at different charts.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
The same day it hit 104 in Chicago and ...the humidity was 90+/-
percent.

Baloney.

Look at a psychometric chart:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen...tric_chart.htm


Ever hear of "Heat Index"?

Yes.

What's that got to do with your made-up statement that the temperature was
104 F. and the humidity was 90%?

How was that made up? Check the weather records from June, 1990. Do a google
search on heat related deaths in Chicago.

Did you attempt to understand the chart?


Yes, and I understand your point, thank you. I assume your point is that one
would perspire more at 120 than at 104. If so, that wasn't my point.

One thing...When the desert gets how it still cools substantially during the
evening and night. When humid air gets hot (like the 104-105 that Chicago
had, the heat effect holds. I suspect that a couple days of this is what
kills so many and did back in 1990.