Talk:Wet-bulb temperature - Wikipedia
Is it the same as dew point temperature. Is it the same as dewpont temperature User:Tikai At the very least, wet-bulb temperature and dew point seem to be related terms. to % relative humidity, and then all 3 temperatures (dry-, wet-, dew-) . I deleted the potentially offensive cross link to global_warming. The rate of evaporation from the wet bandage on the bulb, and the temperature difference between the dry bulb and wet bulb, depends on the humidity of the air. Heat index · Sat. vap. density · Mixing ratio · Water activity · H. indicator · card · Hygrometer; Dry/Wet-bulb temperature · v · t · e. The dry-bulb temperature (DBT) is the temperature of air measured by a thermometer freely.
The gravimetric method, while the most accurate, is very cumbersome. For fast and very accurate measurement the chilled mirror method is effective. These are cheap, simple, generally accurate and relatively robust. All humidity sensors face problems in measuring dust-laden gas, such as exhaust streams from dryers.
Heat index - Wikipedia
Humidity is also measured on a global scale using remotely placed satellites. These satellites are able to detect the concentration of water in the troposphere at altitudes between 4 and 12 kilometres. Satellites that can measure water vapor have sensors that are sensitive to infrared radiation. Water vapor specifically absorbs and re-radiates radiation in this spectral band.
Satellite water vapor imagery plays an important role in monitoring climate conditions like the formation of thunderstorms and in the development of weather forecasts. Climate[ edit ] This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
September See also: Precipitation meteorology and Humid subtropical climate While humidity itself is a climate variable, it also overpowers other climate variables. The humidity is affected by winds and by rainfall. The most humid cities on earth are generally located closer to the equator, near coastal regions. Cities in South and Southeast Asia are among the most humid. Kuala LumpurManilaJakartaand Singapore have very high humidity all year round because of their proximity to water bodies and the equator and often overcast weather.
Some places experience extreme humidity during their rainy seasons combined with warmth giving the feel of a lukewarm sauna, such as KolkataChennai and Cochin in Indiaand Lahore in Pakistan.
Darwin, Australia experiences an extremely humid wet season from December to April. Shanghai and Hong Kong also have an extreme humid period in their summer months. During the South-west and North-east Monsoon seasons respectively, late May to September and November to Marchexpect heavy rains and a relatively high humidity post-rainfall. Outside the monsoon seasons, humidity is high in comparison to countries North of the Equatorbut completely sunny days abound.
In cooler places such as Northern Tasmania, Australia, high humidity is experienced all year due to the ocean between mainland Australia and Tasmania. United States[ edit ] In the United States the most humid cities, strictly in terms of relative humidityare Forks and Olympia, Washington.
This is not necessarily true at temperatures and pressures that deviate significantly from ordinary atmospheric conditions, or for other gas—vapor mixtures.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. August Learn how and when to remove this template message A Wet Dry Hygrometer featuring a wet-bulb thermometer A sling psychrometer.
The sock is wet with distilled water and whirled around for a minute or more before taking the readings. Wet-bulb temperature is measured using a thermometer that has its bulb wrapped in cloth—called a sock—that is kept wet with distilled water via wicking action.
Such an instrument is called a wet-bulb thermometer. A widely used device for measuring wet and dry bulb temperature is a sling psychrometer, which consists of a pair of mercury bulb thermometers, one with a wet "sock" to measure the wet-bulb temperature and the other with the bulb exposed and dry for the dry-bulb temperature. The thermometers are attached to a swivelling handle which allows them to be whirled around so that water evaporates from the sock and cools the wet bulb until it reaches thermal equilibrium.
An actual wet-bulb thermometer reads a temperature that is slightly different from the thermodynamic wet-bulb temperature, but they are very close in value. This is due to a coincidence: To understand why this is so, first consider the calculation of the thermodynamic wet-bulb temperature.
Experiment 1 In this case, a stream of unsaturated air is cooled. AC44CK first pounds the table by smearing me personally.
Wet-bulb globe temperature
Next he tries to argue the law. An example of wikilawyering is when one individual suppresses information by a ignoring WP: Scope to unilaterally demarcate an article's scope and then b hyping WP: If one wants to look at article history to see about the scope, not so long ago AC was advocating this subsection include a discussion of heat stress and steam rooms.
Because there are several explicit references to meteorological concerns in this article and its annotations and even more implicit ones the suggestion that the scope excludes meteorological wet bulb temp falls a bit short.
Contrary to AC's suggestion, there are four not one carefully cited sources in this subsection.
Each supports precisely what I wrote in the text. AC's POV challenge is premised on a false characterization of the current text. AC believes "a naked person resting in gale force winds" is a novel and unrealistic criterion.
First, that's not my creation but instead the scenario at the heart of Sherwood's paper. Second, I view the colorful language as the scientists' attempt to make the concept of wet bulb temperature and human health instantly accessible to a lay audience. They set out to contemplate the absolute worst circumstances, and then calculate what humans can survive.
AC may not like this paper, however see WP: AC may want to undercut Sherwood's methodology by saying its pure speculation as opposed to a plausible scientific quantification but without some verifiable citations isn't that a POV on his part? Finally, and this is the most ironic of all, articles can overlap.
This articles overlap with wet bulb globe temperature was created because NewsAndEventsGuy made a good faith effort to accommodate one of AC's earlier objections! If the Sherwood paper had referenced wet bulb globe temperature instead, the information could go on that page. Seems like this is one time that overlap is a necessary evil to clearly explain that line of reasoning, and again, it arose as part of a good faith response to some of AC's earlier criticism. Thanks for not just deleting it this time.
On that we agree. In what way do you disagree with the characterization that this article is about a thermodynamic property? Someone whose recent edit history deals overwhelmingly with climate-change related issues and describes himself as a "a climate science friendly guy" dropped the "we're all gonna die" party line in an article that is about a thermodynamic property.
I suppose one might argue that there is "balance" because the reference cited talks about only half the population dying. The hype "half of us are gonna die a century hence if I did not say this article "excludes meteorological wet bulb temp. Mine was an accurate statement. Your characterization my statement was not. I suggested other areas where wet-bulb temp is an issue steam rooms, etc.
I tried to suggest balance, for which I am now criticized. So the references are "carefully cited. A cite for the purpose of POV-pushing remains such even if it is done with precise, artistic flair in calligraphy.
I didn't say there was only one cite. Who created a novel criterion is unimportant. The facts are that no one else uses it, and people who are naked in gale-force winds have more immediate problems than "half of us are gonna die a century hence. To decide what should be in it purely on the basis of what is merely popular or interesting to whatever small group of editors happens to be around at the time that a discussion is had, is to head down the road towards chaos and confusion. Based on the multitude of climate-science related edits by NewsAndEventsGuy in recent weeks, it would seem that "I just like it" is apropos.
The "we're all gonna die" hype is "climate science friendly" POV pushing in an otherwise unrelated article. Did you read the WP: Scope essay you invoked? While it is not a policy, as implied by your invocation of it, the lead of that essay supports my view: The scope of an article is a description of the article subject which identifies the range of material that belongs in the article, and thus also determines what does not belong i.
The lead, ideally the introductory sentence or at least introductory paragraph, of an article, should make clear what the scope of the article is.
Do you disagree that it is possible that a "peer reviewed" statement "does not belong" here no matter how "carefully cited" it might be? The lead of this Wet-bulb temperature says it is about a measurement, not prognostication.
A speculation of the "we're all gonna die a century hence" variety is something that "does not belong" here. We agree that the article's scope does include some meteorlogical aspects of wet bulb temperature after all. I don't know about you, but I haven't spent much time in the poorest, hottest, and most humid places in the world. Nonetheless, I am aware that a great many people do live there without air conditioning, and for them, whether they know how scientists do this measurement or not, its role in the weather that rules their daily lives is a major issue.
Therefore, the safety margin we humans enjoy is a relevant meteorlogical reason as to why anyone should care about this measurement. Applying your reasoning to the article on penicillin, we should purge that article of any discussion how we use that drug or why care about it. I doubt most folks would agree.
To accomodate your global warming skepticism, the article now makes zero mention wether we're warming, cooling, or staying the same. It simply reports the safety margin these researchers quantified. Would that research be more palatable if it had come from some meteorlogical journal, with no mention of global warming and the "spin" that there is a large safety margin?
If a given reader thinks we're warming a great deal they can extrapolate that there's a reason to be concerned. If they think we're cooling, they can feel reassured that this really isn't a problem.
It couldn't be more neutral, not even if its deleted, because the deletion proposal is driven by your own POV.