Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    19,050
    Total Members
    49,013
    Most Online
    Damisa
    Newest Member
    Damisa
    Joined

Ju-ply 2026 Obs and Disco - Kicking it off with heat, humidity, and ... severe?


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just had a quick shower leave 0.04” and then the sun quickly returned… and oh my god it feels like a real life sauna out there.  I’m imagining a PWS with like 80F dews right now after that small amount of moisture.

Your skin just turns immediately damp.

  • Like 1
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

He's got it blasting at 60 degrees with a box fan blowing it out the slider onto the deck so he can enjoy the evening.

The techs were doing something with the AC in the office yesterday and the office temp plummeted to 62 degrees during the evening and overnight. We were taking turns going outside just to warm up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arnold214 said:

The techs were doing something with the AC in the office yesterday and the office temp plummeted to 62 degrees during the evening and overnight. We were taking turns going outside just to warm up.

Tell me you're kidding about going outside to warm up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this post today (screenshot attached).  Posts like this allow us to call out nonsense or hype, or at least question content.  This is a good thing b/c the amount of bad or misleading info out there is high.

So just take 133 heat index reading "as is" -- no critical thinking or independent thought?

133 does not fit surrounding sites.  We all too often assume what all wx sites report are correct.  Untrue, and some networks are worse than others.  You have so many out there, some just use personal wx stations (PWSs), and you know not all of them are sited or calibrated properly.  This same problem exists for some official wx sites as well.

And where did this individual get the information for the record of heat index values in NJ?  Is there even such a list officially?

Also, look carefully.  No info on what this network this is, the name of the location, or what time it is at.  It also does not give any information on where or when the previous heat index record occurred.  This is often done to make it harder to check/validate claims.

In addition, it is mentions the highest actual temp recorded in NJ, yet talks about heat index.  Inconsistent comparison and irrelevant in this case.  And it claims that "much higher humidity" for the heatwave today (compared to the 1936 heat).  Is that really true?  Ppl just say things for a narrative or hype arbitrarily so much on posts like these w/ no hard evidence to support.

Be vague and generic, and hope ppl don't bother checking.  Classic clickbait and hype tactic.

And when doing posts like this, I always take a screenshot and block out the poster's or site's name.  Do not want to make it available for more clicks/likes.  Which brings me to another point.  Some post bad, incorrect, or exaggerated info on purpose b/c it will get more clicks/likes.  It's all about content, facts and accuracy be damned.:(
 

nj.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

Saw this post today (screenshot attached).  Posts like this allow us to call out nonsense or hype, or at least question content.  This is a good thing b/c the amount of bad or misleading info out there is high.

So just take 133 heat index reading "as is" -- no critical thinking or independent thought?

133 does not fit surrounding sites.  We all too often assume what all wx sites report are correct.  Untrue, and some networks are worse than others.  You have so many out there, some just use personal wx stations (PWSs), and you know not all of them are sited or calibrated properly.  This same problem exists for some official wx sites as well.

And where did this individual get the information for the records of heat index values in NJ?  Is there even such a list officially?

Also, look carefully.  No info on what this network this is, the name of the location, or what time it is at.  It also does not give any information on where or when the previous heat index record occurred.  This is often done to make it harder to check/validate claims.

In addition, it is mentions the highest actual temp recorded in NJ, yet talks about heat index.  Inconsistent comparison and irrelevant in this case.  And it claims that "much higher humidity" for the heatwave today (compared to the 1936 heat).  Is that really true?  Ppl just say things for a narrative or hype arbitrarily so much on posts like these w/ no hard evidence to support.

Be vague and generic, and hope ppl don't bother checking.  Classic clickbait and hype tactic.

And when doing posts like this, I always take a screenshot and block out the poster's or site's name.  Do not want to make it available for more clicks/likes.  Which brings me to another point.  Some post bad, incorrect, or exaggerated info on purpose b/c it will get more clicks/likes.  It's all about content, facts and accuracy be damned.:(
 

nj.PNG

Yeah, you’d think if the state’s HI record was 115F, the post would want to focus on all the sites above that level in this image… not the one showing an erroneous 133F.  Numerous sites above that 115F level but they lose the viewer by elevating the highest outlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...