Brrr!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    So the Globe claims that the "temperature" is -20 today!http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/02/bitter_winds_pu.htmlWow!� That's cold!� And it's totally untrue!� While the "Wind Chill" (a fairly bogus concept to begin with) may be -20 briefly at some locations, the actual temperature is a "balmy" +15 in Boston as we speak.� Are the Globe's copy writers actually so stupid as to not understand the difference between wind chill and temperature? Or are they cynically trying to hype a completely bogus number in order to work the gullible into a lather? Or am I just being a curmudgeon?� Regardless, to me it's just another sign of the decline in quality and general lack of principle reflected in the current state of print journalism.�

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from heynow98. Show heynow98's posts

    Brrr!

    Correct....cold weather is caused by global warming.�� Any idiot knows that.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    Wow...they fixed the article already.� That was quick.� I feel so all-powerful!Now my Globe minions...Fire Shaughnessy! Now!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    Sorry Anesidora, but no, it was never anywhere close to 20 below zero (actual temperature) in the greater Boston area at anytime between last night and 9:42 am this morning.� Again, it goes to the Globe apparently not knowing (or caring about) the difference between "wind chill" and "temperature".� At least not until they were called out about it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    The problem with Wind Chill is that it is intended to give you an approximation of what the temperature combined with the blowing wind "feels like" on exposed skin.� So, unless you like to go outside naked in the middle of winter, it really is a pretty meaningless number.� But meteorologists love it because it makes everything sound oh-so-dramatic.My only beef with the Globe article from this morning (as it was originally written) was that they mixed up temperature and wind chill.� Sloppy work.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    Interesting.� The original article said it was written by "Globe Staff".� Did the Herald thing say it was a staff article? Or did they credit it as a wire piece?� Globe caught pulling another "Barnicle"?�

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from morecowbell. Show morecowbell's posts

    Brrr!

    All true.� Wind chill results from the wind "peeling away" the thermal boundary layer near the skin that would keep you naturally warmer if standing in cold air on a perfectly calm day.� Nonetheless, the effect is certainly muted significantly by wearing well-insulated winter clothing, which shields that thermal boundary layer from the wind.� You're right that the wind would eventually accelerate the rate at which your winter clothes cool, and thus in turn result in you being colder than if it were calm, it's certainly more of a problem for exposed skin than covered, no?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share