It's not a problem of terminology. Gordon made the silly claim that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects". In a new post he just made hours ago, he still maintains that is correct, which of course it isn't. Or do you agree with him?
Oh please. We know that and have acknowledged it from the start. Windchill is directly related to wind speed. Give me the windchill number and the ambient temp and I can tell you the windspeed.
I made it up as one word?
formatting link
Title of the chart: NWS Windchill Chart.
Good grief.
BTW, thanks for posting this gem:
"Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first
If windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, how exactly did they first measure it via the cooling rate of a bottle of water? And as for it having no effect on whether something freezes, leave a bottle of water that's 70F outside when it's 20F and the windchill is 20F for two hours and it won't freeze solid. Do it when it's 20F but the windchill is -10F and it will freeze solid. Capiche?
Now some pedantic loon will probably say, what size bottle, it can't freeze in that amount of time, what if the temp was 35F, etc, but clearly the effect is there and could be demonstrated. You just need the right size bottle and the right amount of time. Ergo, the reported windchill does have an effect on whether pipes may freeze, depending on where those pipes are located.
That's what you said when I gave you highly credible references like NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, Univ of Ill "For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. "
Now maybe you can explain it to Gordon. And how that effect can sometimes cause pipes in a drafty location or an unheated cabin to freeze overnight with a big windchill factor, while without the windchill, they would not.
You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud.
It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples:
A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it.
Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill.
Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill.
Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without.
It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill.
Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong.
All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else.
Same answer as above.
I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above.
Ditto.
Ditto. You are starting to bore me.
The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists.
Let me try another approach to explain my point of view.
First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say?
Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say?
Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder?
bullshit: Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air.
Which is exactly what windchill is all about. Look at the formula.
Just as dumb as ever.
Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either.
Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either.
The clueless frequently get bored because they can't understand simple science. You can't even address the specifics of the examples.
Of course it exists, I've given it to you about 6 times now, idiot. Windchill has an effect not only on inanimate objects, but any object where it can take heat away, eg pipes or a house. Animate objects are *not* the only things that have heat that can be taken away. The effect of windchill that makes it feel colder with wind than without is due to the wind removing more heat from your body that without it. The exact same effect applies to a brick or a bottle of water. Ask Ed. He even showed you that a warm water bottle placed outside was used to first model and experiment with windchill. Now if windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, it's a very curious thing that scientists used a water bottle to measure it.
Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter.
But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling.
Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects?
It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze.
"Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now.
And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures.
Wrong again. Perception is not required for windchill to have an effect.
From NOAA:
" The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to shorten the amount of time for the object to cool. "
You're a liar. Anyone can see that I've answered two of the three questions in detail. The third, I can't even parse, because it makes no sense. And the other two can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you believe that a 55 galllon drum of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F for an hour is going to freeze in like a tray of ice cubes would.
You just don't like the answers and can't refute the science, so the above pathetic non-response is all you're left with. I also note that you've edited out the questions and my specific answers, obviously because you want to run away from them.
It figures you'd try to drag politics into a discussion where you've lost. There are plenty of Democrats that have a better grasp of science than you do. I did answer your questions, factually and completely. Your questions don't have simple yes or no answers, because you did not define all the conditions. It's like me asking you "Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?", and then insisting on a yes or no answer.
Here's the questions and my answers, again:
Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter.
But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling.
Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects?
It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze.
"Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now.
And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures.
Now I'd like an answer to a simple question. You have a house with a drafty crawlspace. The water pipes have been known to freeze occasionally on cold nights. Two situations:
A - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with no windchill.
B - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with a windchill of 5F.
That is all you're given. Would you be more concerned about the pipe possibly freezing in case A or B or do you think the probability is the same? And note I'm not demanding one word answers, you're free to explain yourself.
No, I just enjoy seeing you continue to run away from any discussion of the science involved.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer with a yes or no only. I answered all your questions, in detail, with the science behind it. I just posed a question to you that goes to the core of the original question and you totally ignored it. So, who again is not being responsive? Idiot.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.