But it's a dry heat....

[Casey Wilson]

KIYK, Inyokern, California

Geophysics Operations Section China Lake(521410D)

Persistent heat over the desert southwest will continue to prevail
over our region into Thursday as a strong and broad upper level ridge
centered over southern Nevada remains nearly stationary. Light to moderate
afternoon and early evening thermal breezes can be expected daily through
the outlook period. Hurricane Emily is currently exiting the northern
Yucatan of Mexico this morning. Emily is anticipated to make a second
landfall along the northeast Mexican coast and/or south corner of Texas near
vicinity of Brownsville sometime late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning.
The northern periphery of Emily's remnant moisture is expected to become
entrained into a developing southeast monsoonal flow over New Mexico/Arizona
near mid week. Some of this moisture is likely to be transported into
southeastern California by Friday. This will likely bring a significant
increase in local mountain thunderstorm activity, mainly in the eastern and
southern portions of our area over the weekend. With a high temperature
reading recorded at Armitage Field yesterday of 114F, we fell short by 1
degree Fahrenheit of the all time record high for the date. The record is
115F, which was set back on July 17th of 1988. However we can take some
solace fore, Furnace Creek at Death Valley, registered a reading of 132F on
the 14th of this month, ( this past Thursday), and 129F on Saturday.


48 HOUR FORECAST / EXTENDED OUTLOOK COMMENCING MONDAY, 18 JULY 2005

Today: Clear skies this morning followed by mostly clear skies this
afternoon and early evening, (FEW110-150) in some widely scattered Sierra
crest mountain cumulus. Winds light and variable becoming
south-southwesterly at 06 to 12 knots with brief gusts to 18 knots near 1300
into mid afternoon. Winds by late afternoon veer to southwest at 12 to 16
knots with occasional gusts to 24 knots into early/mid evening. Winds then
diminishing and becoming light and variable near late evening. High
temperatures from 114 to 117F with overnight lows in the mid 70s.

Tomorrow: Mostly clear to clear skies with a repeat of widely scattered
afternoon and early evening mountain cumulus, (FEW110-160). Winds light and
variable becoming southerly at 08 to 12 knots with gusts at times to 18
knots near early afternoon in mid afternoon. Winds veering to southwesterly
and increasing to 13 to 17 knots with gusts at times to 26 knots near 1600
into mid evening. Winds then begin diminishing becoming light and variable
by midnight. High temperatures from 113 to 116F with overnight lows in the
mid 70s.

Outlook: Daytime temperatures to begin a gradual downward trend beginning
Thursday followed be a gradual increase in humidity levels by weeks end.
Remnant moisture from Hurricane Emily is expected to bring increased local
mountain thunderstorm activity beginning Friday. High temperatures will
range from 113 to 116F Wednesday, 111 to 114F Thursday, and lowering to 106
to 109 on Friday. Morning low temperature to remain in the mid 70s through
the outlook period.

[Doug]

Yeah, that's hot. But remember, it's not the humidity, it's the HEAT!!

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah, that's hot. But remember, it's not the humidity, it's the HEAT!!

Wrong!

It's funny, though -- two months ago we would have thought 88 degrees was
HOT.

Today it was 88 degrees, the humidity was down, and people were commenting
how cool and comfortable it was!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p5TCe.5970$N91.3013@trnddc08...
> KIYK, Inyokern, California
>
> Geophysics Operations Section China Lake(521410D)
>

Ah, kiss by sweaty behind!! :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:PGZCe.186228$xm3.160651@attbi_s21...
> > Yeah, that's hot. But remember, it's not the humidity, it's the HEAT!!
>
> Wrong!
>
> It's funny, though -- two months ago we would have thought 88 degrees was
> HOT.
>
> Today it was 88 degrees, the humidity was down, and people were commenting
> how cool and comfortable it was!

Quite!

Several years ago, on the day it hit 120 in Phoenix, one person died, The
same day it hit 104 in Chicago and something like 115 people died. In
Phoenix, the humidity was 6 percent; in Chicago it was 90+/- percent.

In high heat/low humidity you mainly stay out of the sun; high humidity you
can't hide from.

A few years ago in August, I had to travel from Houston (90 degrees) to
Bakersfield (110): I was sooooo glad to get to Bakersfield!! :~)

[Dan Luke]

"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/general/psychometric_chart.htm

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"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/general/psychometric_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]

"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/general/psychometric_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...
>

[Matt Barrow]

> > "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/general/psychometric_chart.htm


Ever hear of "Heat Index"?

[Dan Luke]

"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/general/psychometric_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

[Jay Honeck]

> A few years ago in August, I had to travel from Houston (90 degrees) to
> Bakersfield (110): I was sooooo glad to get to Bakersfield!! :~)

True. I have stood on the Strip in Las Vegas when it was 116 degrees. No
one was venturing outside.

While it was truly impressive heat -- and not something I would care to
sleep outside in -- it was *nothing* compared to 95 degrees on a humid day
here in Iowa. Stepping into the shade in Vegas resulted in immediate (if
relative) comfort -- there is NO relief from humidity, other than air
conditioning.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ken W]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:


>Ever hear of "Heat Index"?

Matt,

What the poster rather rudely objected to was your quoted RH of 90%
and temp of 104 F. The dew points during the 1995 Chicago heat wave
(which I'll assume you were referring to) were in the upper 70s
(degrees F) and lower 80s, which translate to a RH of about 50% during
the peak temps of the day. Of course, the RH would shoot up to over
90% as the temperatures dropped during the night so your quote of 90%
RH wasn't entirely incorrect. You remain correct in the thrust of
your argument: The heat index in Chicago (temp: 104 F, DP: 80 F) was
127 F and the heat index for your Phoenix example (temp: 120 F, RH:
6%) was 111 F. As for that rude poster, it is indeed unfortunate that
some people in usenet seek to bolster their weak egos by rudely trying
to instigate a ****ing contest when a simple polite correction would
suffice. The poster in this case took a friendly thread and turned it
ugly with a single post. Congrats, "Dan Luke", do you feel better
about yourself now?

- Ken -

[Dan Luke]

"Ken W" wrote:
>
> The poster in this case took a friendly thread and turned it
> ugly with a single post.

Matt and I don't tread too lightly on each other's feelings. The last thing
he told me in another thread was "kiss my bass." It's not meant with ill
will.

> Congrats, "Dan Luke", do you feel better about yourself now?

Certainly!

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Doug Semler]

"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/general/psychometric_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!

[John T]

I have a whole house dehumidifier in my basement...and very thick stone
walls. Humidity used to be a problem that would cause my tools to rust,
and make it unbearable to work down there, even though it was cooler.

Now, its something like 80 degrees down there, and around 50%
humidity...man, that feels GREAT, and I can work without working up a
sweat down there.

[Matt Barrow]

"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/general/psychometric_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.

[Doug Semler]

Why can't my buttons work right.


mea culpa. That should be 37.4 % RH.

Grrrr.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:tj7De.166364$_o.80724@attbi_s71...
> > A few years ago in August, I had to travel from Houston (90 degrees) to
> > Bakersfield (110): I was sooooo glad to get to Bakersfield!! :~)
>
> True. I have stood on the Strip in Las Vegas when it was 116 degrees. No
> one was venturing outside.

No one sane, anyways.

> While it was truly impressive heat -- and not something I would care to
> sleep outside in -- it was *nothing* compared to 95 degrees on a humid day
> here in Iowa.

One thing I like out here in the west is that it can be 100 during the day,
but you have to close the windows at night for it being too cool in the
middle of the night. Today is 98, last night was 57.

> Stepping into the shade in Vegas resulted in immediate (if
> relative) comfort -- there is NO relief from humidity, other than air
> conditioning.

Yup...the humidity follows you around (chases you, actually).


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Ken W" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>
> >Ever hear of "Heat Index"?
>
> Matt,
>
> What the poster rather rudely objected to was your quoted RH of 90%
> and temp of 104 F. The dew points during the 1995 Chicago heat wave
> (which I'll assume you were referring to) were in the upper 70s
> (degrees F) and lower 80s, which translate to a RH of about 50% during
> the peak temps of the day.

I was actually referring to the heat around June 22, 1990. At that time
Phoenix hit 122, and Chicago hit 104 or 105. I have several relatives in
Chicago and in Phoenix that gave us the low down. I also recall watching the
TV news about Chicago's heat related deaths.

Sorry if my memory isn' that sharp after 15 years. :~)

Also, I was equating "comfort index", which I would guess can get to a
lethal level at high enough humidity. As mentioned, I had to fly from
Houston to Bakersfield and was happy to get to Bakersfield (once I got into
the shade) after that sauna in Houston.

>Of course, the RH would shoot up to over
> 90% as the temperatures dropped during the night so your quote of 90%
> RH wasn't entirely incorrect. You remain correct in the thrust of
> your argument: The heat index in Chicago (temp: 104 F, DP: 80 F) was
> 127 F and the heat index for your Phoenix example (temp: 120 F, RH:
> 6%) was 111 F.

Again, I don't recall the exact numbers, but IIRC, Chicago lost nearly 100
people during that heat spell, while Phoenix (which dropped to something
like 85 at night) lost maybe a handful.

> As for that rude poster, it is indeed unfortunate that
> some people in usenet seek to bolster their weak egos by rudely trying
> to instigate a ****ing contest when a simple polite correction would
> suffice. The poster in this case took a friendly thread and turned it
> ugly with a single post.

Understanding the context (as your data showed) would have been sufficient.

I'm known for a hot temper, but I usually try to make a subtle correction
first.

I suspect Dan and I are similar that way.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken W" wrote:
> >
> > The poster in this case took a friendly thread and turned it
> > ugly with a single post.
>
> Matt and I don't tread too lightly on each other's feelings. The last
thing
> he told me in another thread was "kiss my bass." It's not meant with ill
> will.

I also told you to quit carping.

This board could put together a World Championship team for "Triva Pursuit".
Unfortunately, many of us have the sensitivity (not to mention _tact_) of a
Abrams tank with a stuck cruise control.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"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/general/psychometric_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]

Or even 46.9% .....First I don't hit the exp(8), and then I fudge up
and forget to convert to deg C the second time around...

My brain is fried today. Must be the humidity....Too bad it's so humid
out that I don't feel like taking the rest of the day off and
golfing... <g>

[Doug Semler]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> 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.

Of course. And of course, I was talking about for *me*. I have lived
in the desert, where the temperatures routinely rose above 100 in the
summer. However the humidity was low enough that air conditioning was
not required (well, for ME at least). Then one July 4th, there was a
95 degree day with something like a HI of 105...That was one of the
worst days...I did run the AC that day. Not so much because it felt
like it was 105, but because if you didn't, you would lose 5 pounds in
sweat.

There's a wikepedia article on the July 1995 chicago heat wave that
reads, in part:

<quote>
Because of the nature of the disaster, and the slow response of
authorities to recognise it, no official "death toll" has been
determined. However, figures show that 739 additional people died in
that particular week above the usual weekly average. Further
statistical analysis analyzed by Eric Klinenberg (author of Heat Wave:
A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago) showed that blacks were more
likely to die than whites, and that Hispanics had an unusually low
death rate. This has been explained by the fact that many blacks at the
time lived in areas of sub-standard housing and were quite dispersed,
while Hispanics at the time lived in places with higher population
density. Thus demographics, rather than ethnic values, were shown to be
the reason for this disparity in deaths.
</quote>

Note that I take wikepedia articles with a grain of salt; I don't know
the reference for the "figures" regarding the death toll, but it is
probably from the same book mentioned.

[Matt Barrow]

"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> There's a wikepedia article on the July 1995 chicago heat wave that
> reads, in part:
>
> <quote>
....
> </quote>
>
> Note that I take wikepedia articles with a grain of salt; I don't know
> the reference for the "figures" regarding the death toll, but it is
> probably from the same book mentioned.

Some here would be REALLY UPSET that you didn't check it against
SNOPES.COM!!

Others want long, detailed notes...and then disappear without a word. :~(

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>> 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.

I meant the part about 90% RH. If you look, you'll see that's off the chart
at 104 deg. F.

>> 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.

No, my point is that 90% RH at 104 deg. F. is not a set of conditions one
will find in the surface atmosphere. People often assume that the humidity
is much higher than it actually is when the weather is warm. At 104 deg. F.,
50% RH would be awfully uncomfortable; 90% RH would be, if not impossible,
damned near it.

Relative humidity is the humidity you feel. Given constant absolute humidity
(no front, rainstorm), the highest relative humidity occurs at the coolest
part of the day, usually around dawn.

> 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.

The heat holds because of the high dewpoint. The dewpoint acts as a low
limit to temperature fall because of the heat of condensation--as atmospheric
water condenses it gives up heat and warms the air. The higher the dewpoint,
the higher the overnight low. Cloud cover can also affect this by slowing
radiaton cooling.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"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]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>> Matt and I don't tread too lightly on each other's feelings. The last
> thing
>> he told me in another thread was "kiss my bass." It's not meant with ill
>> will.
>
> I also told you to quit carping.

Are you trying to drum up another pun cascade?

> This board could put together a World Championship team for "Triva
> Pursuit".
> Unfortunately, many of us have the sensitivity (not to mention _tact_) of a
> Abrams tank with a stuck cruise control.

Yes, but we're lovable, anyway.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> No, my point is that 90% RH at 104 deg. F. is not a set of conditions one
> will find in the surface atmosphere. People often assume that the
humidity
> is much higher than it actually is when the weather is warm.

Which is probably how the folks in Chicago were describing it to us. Having
been there in the summer just a few times, I do know you just get wringing
wet just standing outside.

On the other end, I also recall a few episodes of shoveling snow, here in
Colorado, wearing only a light jacket. And, no, it wasn't that the exercise
was keeping me warm. We get nice fluffy powder, the easterners/northerners
get slush.

> At 104 deg. F.,
> 50% RH would be awfully uncomfortable; 90% RH would be, if not impossible,
> damned near it.

Sometimes, the "near impossible" happens :~)

My in-laws live in Scottsdale, and I've been there a few times during the
summer (dragged kicking and screaming). It's so amazing to be in such heat
and your shirt is bone dry, contrasted with the wringing wet mentioned
earlier, in the high 80's, low-mid 90's.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
> >> Matt and I don't tread too lightly on each other's feelings. The last
> > thing
> >> he told me in another thread was "kiss my bass." It's not meant with
ill
> >> will.
> >
> > I also told you to quit carping.
>
> Are you trying to drum up another pun cascade?

Well, we can roll with that.

>
> > This board could put together a World Championship team for "Triva
> > Pursuit".
> > Unfortunately, many of us have the sensitivity (not to mention _tact_)
of a
> > Abrams tank with a stuck cruise control.
>
> Yes, but we're lovable, anyway.

All warm and fuzzy we are.


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

[Doug Semler]

Dan Luke wrote:
> I wrote:
>> 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,

(Note it should be +Td and not -Td...That's a typo)

>> where T = observed temperature and Td = dew point temperature, I get a
>> relative humidity of 88.32%.

> We must be looking at different charts.

Noooo....I foolishly did not check my work. Mea Culpa. I did the
math in a calculator (using the relative humidity formula above) and
what happened was
1) I did not convert to Celsius (duh)
and 2) I did not raise the (112 - .1T + Td)/(112 + .9T) portion to the
eighth power. Unfortunately, that portion of the formula happens to be
..882, sooooo it comes sufficiently close to 90% that I thought I had
hit the right answer :-/

BTW, taking it one step further, to have a RH of ~.90 in 104 degrees F
(~40 degrees C), you would have a dew point temp of ~ 38 degrees C
which is ~100 degrees F

[Ray]

> Yeah, that's hot. But remember, it's not the humidity, it's the HEAT!!
>

I knew someone who was fond of saying (often very loudly in public
places) "Remember, it's not the heat, it's the stupidity!"

[Rich Lemert]

Ray wrote:
>> Yeah, that's hot. But remember, it's not the humidity, it's the HEAT!!
>>
>
> I knew someone who was fond of saying (often very loudly in public
> places) "Remember, it's not the heat, it's the stupidity!"
>

I have a college friend that's currently living in Phoenix, AZ. When I
tell him "it's not the heat - it's the humidity," his response is "when
it's 115 degrees, you don't need no stinkin' humidity!"