turtlespeed 212 #51 February 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, Coreece said: Hopefully you know this, but just to clarify, I honestly didn't mean that to sound as personal as it does. I really was speaking generally, but should have phrased it differently. I guess that's just how I talk. I remember way back in Desert Storm - we were TAD in Saudi. The heat index was 180 F. It didn't last all day, and was relatively pleasant at night. We were still outside playing volleyball in the sun, on our off times. We drank a lot of water. Noone even complained about the heat as much as they do in Arizona. We had a shelter to go back to that was conditioned, though. What it was NOT like, was being in a 180 Degree Sauna. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #52 February 25, 2020 18 hours ago, Coreece said: That's the point, you won't typically die pretty quickly at 108F at 75% humidity regardless of your theoretical bullshit. From Wikipedia: ================================= Living organisms can survive only within a certain temperature range. When the ambient temperature is excessive, humans and many animals cool themselves below ambient by evaporative cooling (sweat in humans and horses, saliva and water in dogs and other mammals); this helps to prevent potentially fatal hyperthermia due to heat stress. The effectiveness of evaporative cooling depends upon humidity; wet-bulb temperature, or more complex calculated quantities such as Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) which also takes account of solar radiation, give a useful indication of the degree of heat stress, and are used by several agencies as the basis for heat stress prevention guidelines. A sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it. Thus 35 °C (95 °F) is the threshold beyond which the body is no longer able to adequately cool itself. A study by NOAA from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labor capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios. =================================== (108F and 75% RH is a wet bulb temp of 100F.) Quote That's why NOAA says that those levels are meaningless and won't even list them in their chart. If you honestly think that a theoretical heat index of 195F is like living in an environment that is actually 195F, then you are either a fucking idiot, or an alarmist trying to scare the shit out of other idiots. I am quite happy to be thought of as a fucking idiot by you. It would be like Harvey Weinstein calling me disrespectful to women; I'd take that as a compliment. Quote I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, just not 195F dangerous. OK. It's "kill you" dangerous. (Or is that not politically correct enough? Perhaps we should call it "life-disadvantaged dangerous.") Quote BTW do you remember all those pics I posted of families with their kids at the beach enjoying the "Quick and the Deadly "165F" Heat Index?" Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timski 80 #53 February 25, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 10:11 PM, billvon said: The fire took place during a Red Flag condition, which is a condition (taking into account winds, temperatures, humidity and fuel load) that means it's very likely to result in a fire. Temperatures at the nearest official weather station were in the mid 70's - where the fire actually started, miles away, there were easterly winds with a much higher temperature. In fact, PG+E started warning people two days before the actual fire because winds and temperatures were forecast to be high. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the topic: ===================================== Conditions immediately leading up to and during the fire combined to create a highly combustible fuel load: Heavy grass cover due to a wet spring An unusually dry fall Decreased humidity due to several recent wind events (23% dropping to 10%) Unusually dry fuel (5% 1,000-hr. moisture level) Hot, dry, sustained and gusting high winds (25-35 mph), including a Red Flag Warning on the day of the fire, similar to the Diablo wind or the Santa Ana winds of the California Coast Ranges. The day of the fire, the fuel energy release component was above the historic record for November 8; the first fall rain is normally before November 1. . . .Combined, the conditions formed a recipe for a firestorm. ========================================= So yes, the higher temperatures brought about by AGW absolutely played a role - no matter how much pro-fossil fuel types try to deny it. From Quartz: ======================================== Camp Fire, the devastating blaze raging across the Sierra Nevada foothills, has become the most destructive wildfire in California’s history. By the evening of Nov. 10, it had scorched 105,000 acres of land and killed 23 people, with more than 100 people still unaccounted for. . . . In all likelihood, it’s a scenario that climate change helped to create, according to Daniel Swain, a researcher at University of California-Los Angeles’ Center for Climate Science. . Swain walked through the conditions that contributed to the fires now burning across the state, and the research showing how climate change made them possible. ==================================== OR, break it down even further: A fragile eco system that can't continue to support the volume of dumb asses that inhabit the region. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #54 February 25, 2020 30 minutes ago, timski said: OR, break it down even further: A fragile eco system that can't continue to support the volume of dumb asses that inhabit the region. That's a big part of it. We talk about the problems of AGW (caused by too many people emitting too much CO2) or wilderness-boundary risks (caused by too many people wanting to live "in touch with nature") or accidental fire starts (caused by too many careless people in a wilderness area) - but the common denominator is "too many people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #55 February 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, billvon said: - but the common denominator is "too many people." Well, then, COVID-19 is a good thing. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #56 February 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Well, then, COVID-19 is a good thing. From some perspectives perhaps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #57 February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, billvon said: am quite happy to be thought of as a fucking idiot by you. It would be like Harvey Weinstein calling me disrespectful to women; I'd take that as a compliment. See, I just clarified in a previous post about how I wasn't personally calling you a fucking idiot, but you still went out of your way to take a cheap shot, and a lame one at that. 1 hour ago, billvon said: Quote I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, just not 195F dangerous. OK. It's "kill you" dangerous. (Or is that not politically correct enough? Perhaps we should call it "life-disadvantaged dangerous.") The point is that a heat index of 120F might actually feel like 120F. A heat index of 195F isn't actually going to feel like 195F, c'mon dude. That's why the NOAA says that it gets to a point where theses indexes are meaningless in that regard, so they just say that any heat index over 125F is simply extremely dangerous. To say that a heat index of 195F actually feels like 195F is just dishonest. 2 hours ago, turtlespeed said: I remember way back in Desert Storm - we were TAD in Saudi. The heat index was 180 F. It didn't last all day, and was relatively pleasant at night. We were still outside playing volleyball in the sun, on our off times. We drank a lot of water. Noone even complained about the heat as much as they do in Arizona. We had a shelter to go back to that was conditioned, though. What it was NOT like, was being in a 180 Degree Sauna. Well some people don't really know what those heat indexes really feel like. The just hear about a string of people dying and see scary temps like 195F and think that you have to spend your day sitting naked in the shade in front of a fan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #58 February 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, Coreece said: See, I just clarified in a previous post about how I wasn't personally calling you a fucking idiot, but you still went out of your way to take a cheap shot, and a lame one at that. Should I apologize for your namecalling? That would be odd. But I do appreciate that later you said you didn't mean me personally. Quote The point is that a heat index of 120F might actually feel like 120F. A heat index of 195F isn't actually going to feel like 195F, c'mon dude. I didn't say that it would "feel like 195F" - just that it would kill you. Quote Well some people don't really know what those heat indexes really feel like. The just hear about a string of people dying and see scary temps like 195F and think that you have to spend your day sitting naked in the shade in front of a fan. What would that do? It would still kill you. At wet bulb temps above 95F there's no amount of wind or shade in the world that would keep you alive. In fact, a fan would kill you faster because it would transfer heat into you faster. That's one of the problems with dewpoints like that; your usual intuitions on what to do don't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #59 February 25, 2020 10 minutes ago, billvon said: Should I apologize for your namecalling? That would be odd. But I do appreciate that later you said you didn't mean me personally. I didn't say that it would "feel like 195F" - just that it would kill you. What would that do? It would still kill you. At wet bulb temps above 95F there's no amount of wind or shade in the world that would keep you alive. In fact, a fan would kill you faster because it would transfer heat into you faster. That's one of the problems with dewpoints like that; your usual intuitions on what to do don't work. I'm sorry, but people have been living, and dying in that environment for thousands of years. It is alarmist thinking that "just now" it is an issue. The issue may have been exacerbated, but not by much in the grand scheme of things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #60 February 25, 2020 Just now, turtlespeed said: I'm sorry, but people have been living, and dying in that environment for thousands of years. In the desert when it's hot? Definitely. At wet bulb temps above 95F? Definitely not. Those are new, and no one has ever lived in them before. (And have never happened on Earth before; they are hitting 92F now, but no higher.) Note that even today heat waves kill tens of thousands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #61 February 25, 2020 1 minute ago, billvon said: In the desert when it's hot? Definitely. At wet bulb temps above 95F? Definitely not. Those are new, and no one has ever lived in them before. (And have never happened on Earth before; they are hitting 92F now, but no higher.) Note that even today heat waves kill tens of thousands. Heat waves are killing 10s of 1000s because of ignorance, and not being prepared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,297 #62 February 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Heat waves are killing 10s of 1000s because of ignorance, and not being prepared. Turtle, you nailed it again. I am so f'n tired of those ridiculous Bangladeshi's and Somalians who are just too cheap to pull out their Chase Sapphire Cards and sky off on the next Emirates A380 to someplace pleasant while the earth heals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #63 February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, turtlespeed said: Heat waves are killing 10s of 1000s because of ignorance, and not being prepared. Agreed. Unfortunately, the preparation for them is expensive (and is going to get much more so in the future.) And what about the people who simply can't afford to prepare? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #64 February 26, 2020 2 hours ago, billvon said: Quote The point is that a heat index of 120F might actually feel like 120F. A heat index of 195F isn't actually going to feel like 195F, c'mon dude. I didn't say that it would "feel like 195F" But isn't that the whole point of the heat index, to say that that's "what it feels like?" But whatever, apparently it's also used to gauge the level of danger - and while I still think it's misleading say that it "feels like" 195F, I suppose that saying 108F at 75% humidity doesn't covey the sense of urgency it requires, so they just use the the 195F number to get people's attention. 2 hours ago, billvon said: I didn't say that it would "feel like 195F" - just that it would kill you. Well, it could kill you - similar to even lower heat indexes. Most people survived that day back in 2003. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #65 February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Coreece said: But isn't that the whole point of the heat index, to say that that's "what it feels like?" ?? No. Take a look at the chart. The NOAA chart says "likelihood of heat disorders with prolonged exposure." Everyone interprets it as "how hot it really feels" but that's not why NOAA has that chart; it's for safety purposes. Quote But whatever, apparently it's also used to gauge the level of danger - and while I still think it's misleading say that it "feels like" 195F, I suppose that saying 108F at 75% humidity doesn't covey the sense of urgency it requires, so they just use the the 195F number to get people's attention. The most accurate number to use is the wet bulb temp, because that conveys the actual physics of what's happening. But use that number and you get people like Turtle saying "ah it was hotter than that when I was in the desert and we were FINE!" So heat index is more often used, because it conveys a number people are better equipped to understand when it comes to their risk. (BTW 108F at 75% relative humidity is a heat index of 125F, not 195F.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #66 February 26, 2020 6 hours ago, billvon said: 11 hours ago, Coreece said: But isn't that the whole point of the heat index, to say that that's "what it feels like?" ?? No. Take a look at the chart. The NOAA chart says "likelihood of heat disorders with prolonged exposure." I agree, but if you look at the explanation in the paragragh below that chart, it also says "The Heat Index is a measure of how hot it really feels. . ." Also, in this post you quoted an article saying "The combination of heat and humidity, measured by the dew point, is what makes the heat index — or what the temperature actually feels like outside." So that's why I said that - but to be fair, in the past you also said that the heat index measures the relative danger as well. 7 hours ago, billvon said: BTW 108F at 75% relative humidity is a heat index of 125F, not 195F. Ok, but again, in this post you quoted an article saying that it was 176F, which is what other news outlets were reporting as well: "The absolute highest dew point recorded in the region and therefore the world (of which I am aware) was 95° at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia at 3 p.m. on July 8, 2003. The dry bulb temperature stood at 108° at the time, so theoretically the heat index was 176°." Also look at the chart, 108F at 75% is nowhere near 125F: And also, if you use the calculator that you linked to, you actually get 193F if you use the the relative humidity, or 178F if you use the dew point of 95 that you referenced. So for that specific day in Dhahran, you have made reference to three different Heat index temps, 176F, 193F and 125F - which one is it? And again, my point about NOAA not even listing those higher temps still stands, because it would be misleading to do so, especially when the public perception is that the heat index measures how it actually feels. They'll list lower numbers because yeah, a heat index of 120F probably feels like 120F. Theoretical temps like 170F-195F and beyond, no so much - but some alarmists don't really care about accuracy or being misleading as long as they can further their cause by any bullshit means necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #67 February 26, 2020 3 hours ago, Coreece said: They'll list lower numbers because yeah, a heat index of 120F probably feels like 120F. Theoretical temps like 170F-195F and beyond, no so much - but some alarmists don't really care about accuracy or being misleading as long as they can further their cause by any bullshit means necessary. Saying that a heat index of 195F will kill you doesn't seem that alarmist, since it will. Does it feel the same as being in a 195F oven? I have no idea, since I have never experienced a heat index of 195F (or been in a 195F oven.) But since I have stuck my arm into a 350F oven for a few seconds without major trauma it would not surprise me that it _could_ feel that hot. Is telling people not to drink methanol because you will go blind "alarmist?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #68 February 26, 2020 31 minutes ago, billvon said: Saying that a heat index of 195F will kill you doesn't seem that alarmist, since it will. Again, it could kill you, just like a heat index of 125F or even lower. And you still haven't answered the question. You said the heat index was 125F, while others said it was 176F, while the NOAA calculator says 178F and 193F - which one is it? (third time I'm asking) I mean if alarmists can't even get their shit together about the past dangers of one single day way back in 2003, what does that say about the reliability of their predictions of future dangers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #69 February 26, 2020 45 minutes ago, Coreeece said: Again, it could kill you, just like a heat index of 125F or even lower. WILL kill you. Your body temperature will continue to increase until you suffer heatstroke and die. Again, it's not that it's really hot and you will sweat a lot and then you'll be OK when it cools down at night. It is because at wet bulb 95F your body cannot cool itself - and any breeze will kill you faster since you will gain heat more rapidly. Quote And you still haven't answered the question. You said the heat index was 125F, while others said it was 176F, while the NOAA calculator says 178F and 193F - which one is it? (third time I'm asking) My bad. I used the wrong calculator. It's 193F. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #70 February 26, 2020 18 hours ago, billvon said: Agreed. Unfortunately, the preparation for them is expensive (and is going to get much more so in the future.) And what about the people who simply can't afford to prepare? Considering the speed at which this is happening, we should send Sally Struthers over to get donations to help them relocate, until more can be done. That's the immediate fix. Here's a thought: Lets have the billions that are being spent on this election campaign shipped over with a competent managerial crew, and relocate them that way. Yes, I know it is over simplified, but it's a start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,051 #71 February 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, billvon said: Again, it's not that it's really hot and you will sweat a lot and then you'll be OK when it cools down at night. It is because at wet bulb 95F your body cannot cool itself - and any breeze will kill you faster since you will gain heat more rapidly. You're a survivalist. Who'da thunk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #72 February 26, 2020 15 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Here's a thought: Lets have the billions that are being spent on this election campaign shipped over with a competent managerial crew, and relocate them that way. In this political climate, any billions we free up that way will be used to build a wall to keep them there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #73 February 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, billvon said: In this political climate, any billions we free up that way will be used to build a wall to keep them there. That is only funny because it has a grain of truth. The money would likely be rerouted somehow. It makes it SOOO much harder when done by the guy that actually HAS the money and is spending it, though. Bloomberg is wasting his money. He might as well put it to good use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #74 February 26, 2020 54 minutes ago, billvon said: 1 hour ago, Coreeece said: Again, it could kill you, just like a heat index of 125F or even lower. WILL kill you. Your body temperature will continue to increase until you suffer heatstroke and die. . .because at wet bulb 95F your body cannot cool itself - and any breeze will kill you faster since you will gain heat more rapidly. I agree. I suppose I was coming from a more practical and realistic stance in that most people will have access to water or some other way to cool themselves, just as they did in 2003. But yes, without water you're a goner regardless, albeit a bit slower. My point still is that higher heat indexes don't mean that it actually feels like those temps, or that it is even as dangerous as those temps. For example: A typical steam room will be set at 110F at 100% humidity with a heat index of 278F, yet it's pretty tolerable for quite some time, even therapeutic - you should try it sometime. Compare that to a sauna. In 2010 two guys competing in the sauna championships went into a sauna with an actual temp of 230F. They both passed out within 6 minutes with 3rd degree burns - one guy died. So for the last time, a heat index of 120F is probably very similar to an actual temp of 120F. A heat index of 193F is probably very different from an actual temp of 193F, which is exactly why the NOAA doesn't list those temps in their chart, because it would be misleading to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #75 February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Coreece said: A heat index of 193F is probably very different from an actual temp of 193F, which is exactly why the NOAA doesn't list those temps in their chart, because it would be misleading to do so. From the point of view of how it feels - probably true. From the point of view of what it does to you physically - not so much. Quote A typical steam room will be set at 110F at 100% humidity with a heat index of 278F, yet it's pretty tolerable for quite some time, even therapeutic. No doubt. But being in a steam room for 20 minutes is quite different from being in that environment all day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites