On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:14:51 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/5/2014 9:24 AM, wrote:





Nonsense. Why would windchill only remove heat from things that are alive?

Good grief.



I think we are confusing definitions. When the weatherman give wind

chill or "real feel" temperatures he is talking about how exposed human

flesh feels the temperature. Think evaporative cooling.



First, it's not based on "evaporative cooling", at least in the USA.
If it were, then it would need to have a component to reflect
the moisture in the air. Dry air removes more heat than high
humidity air. But windchill here is based on a formula that uses wind
speed and temp alone. Hence, that reported windchill index affects inanimate
objects too. The question was asked in the following context:

"Tonight in NYS supposed to be 0F, and wind
chill -10 or so. Which number is the one
which concerns water pipes freezing? "

The answer is both of them. At 0F, it's cold enough to freeze
pipes. And depending on where the pipes are, they can be
affected by the windchill. Again, just two examples:

A - Pipes are in a cabin with no heat. Do you think the cabin
inside temp will be the same overnight as the temp drops without
regard to what the windchill is? If the reported windchill was
large, would you not agree that the pipes are going to be
more likely to freeze?

B - Pipes in a drafty crawlspace.





Drop the word "chill" and I think we can all agree that wind removes

heat faster. There is no evaporative cooling, but faster movement of

heat energy from the object.



Then why won't Gordon just admit he's wrong, even after his
own reference from NOAA says that inanimate objects can be affected
by windchill?



No matter how you term things, it does not change the laws of physics. .

Again, tell that to Gordon. He's the one that said windchill had
absolutely no effect on inanimate objects and won't just admit that
he's wrong. Apparently you agree he's wrong too.