There's nothing like waking up in the morning, turning on your computer and surfing to Environment Canada's website to discover the magic words "Wind Chill Warning" and discovering the temperature is -30 with a wind chill of -52. That makes you want to stagger out of the apartment in the morning.
It didn't get much better for the rest of the day. I think the high with wind chill was around -48. As I type this it has dipped back down to -51.
If this wasn't bad enough, there were reports on the local radio station that the wind chill was actually around -62. Which lead me to wonder what was going on. There were two possibilities. First, that someone in town has better weather instruments than Environment Canada. Not beyond the realm of possibility, by the way. Forecasts in town are predicted out of Edmonton, and I don't care how good your instruments are, getting accurate readings sitting at a desk staring at a computer in Edmonton doesn't quite cut it.
The more likely option is that the radio was using the old method of measuring wind chill. And yes, there is more than one way.
Why stick with the old way? Well, it tended to exaggerate the level of cold and there does come a point where you like to brag to people about the level of cold you're enduring. I don't know why. I think -52 is a pretty damn impressive level of cold, but hey, if you want to make it sound even more bitter, then go crazy.
But while poking around I found this article in Slate magazine which also explains wind chill and suggests that it ought to be eliminated because it's impossible to measure accurately and tends to be used as a scary number. It doesn't really mean anything.
I'm not sure I agree. Maybe -52 isn't a completely accurate number. Maybe it's actually -55. Maybe it's actually -45. I just know I've been out in -30 without wind and -30 with wind. And let me tell you, today felt a goddamn bit colder than -30. And it's nice to have a ballpark idea of exactly how bitter it is before I go outside.
Anyway, more of this tomorrow. I know I said I'd prefer to freeze than shovel, but many more days in a row like this and I might have to reconsider.
One last thing, I stepped on the scales again this evening. 233.6 pounds, which means I'm down 0.8 pounds. Hey, it's down, that's what matters.
3 comments:
Forecasts in town are predicted out of Edmonton, and I don't care how good your instruments are, getting accurate readings sitting at a desk staring at a computer in Edmonton doesn't quite cut it.
What difference does your location make?
The instruments in Iqaluit are read hourly by an observer, who submits hourly (and, as needed, special) obs into the Environment Canada system. They, in turn, share the data worldwide.
If you ask the observer in Iqaluit, a forecaster in Edmonton, or someone in a basement in Longueuil, what the last hourly wind and temperature reading was in Iqaluit, their answers will be exactly the same.
Well, except during the brief delay between the observer making and recording the observation, and it being compiled into the system.
Didn't enviro-can re-open a weather station in NF after having closed it (to save money one would assume) and relied on the station in NS for NF weather? Wasn't it re-opened because there had been dangerous storms sailors hadn't been warned about out of the NS station and this sort of thing didn't happen (or happened a lot less) when the station in NF was open. We live in a fucking big country with an enormous amount of physical variability...I think few experiences teach you that as well as moving from the south to the far north. Technology only goes so far, a human being still needs to read and interpret - and weather forecasting is essentially a really good and educated guess.
M.
this sort of thing didn't happen (or happened a lot less) when the station in NF was open.
This sort of thing happened before the weather forecasting office moved from Gander to Halifax.
It will happen again now that it's reopened.
We live in a fucking big country with an enormous amount of physical variability...
The same is true of the planet. Yet the US military issues its forecast to ships, planes, and ground forces, on every ocean and most, if not all, the continents... from a base in south Florida.
Observation is dependent on location.
Forecasting is not.
Technology only goes so far, a human being still needs to read and interpret
And the humans who do the "reading", that is, the obs, haven't gone anywhere.
The interpretation can be done by anyone with the requisite knowledge, anywhere in the world that you have access to the data and imagery... which is anywhere.
and weather forecasting is essentially a really good and educated guess.
Yes, and it doesn't get better or worse depending on your location.
If it did, if Halifax was too far from Newfoundland to forecast Newfoundland's weather... then guess what?
Gander is also too far from Labrador.
But you never hear Newfoundlanders make that "point" for some strange reason....
Post a Comment