Talk:Wind chill

message: I've added a sentence to the main article mentioning the use of Wind Chill Factor measured in Watts per square Meter that I remember being used in the 1980s.  (I lived in Saskatoon Canada, so in January & February we would hear reports on the radio of "the wind chill is 2100 today, so bundle up!" If anyone can expand on it in the article, feel free. /  Dzubint 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watts per Square Meter wind chill factor 

message: It would be useful to mention in the article that wind  chill cannot reduce the temperature of an object below the ambient air temperature.(except if there is supercooling due to some evaproative effect)  So if the wind chill is -60 and the coolant in your automobile engine coolant/antifreeze is only rated to -40 your engine block will not freeze as the common misconception. Haans42 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to me that the ice cube would disappear due to friction from the wind as apposed to melting however the friction could cause the melting? Contuka (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inanimate Objects 

message: how can water freeze above 32degs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kclabrat (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another random question

message: I've heard several people refer to wind chill as wind shield. Is this just a case of misheard words or is wind shield a proper term? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.123.175 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misheard words. A windshield (follow the link) is something else. —Lowellian (reply) 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also known as Wind Shield? 

message: Why big chrart at the top in °F not in world standart °C? 89.208.93.236 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduses 

message: I'm no expert on wind chill, but it seems to me that the article lacks precision. There is absolutely no mention of the fact that wind chill is a perceived temperature change, and not an actual temperature change (as I understand it). The section on 'definitions' does not give any definitions. After reading the article 4 or 5 times, I still don't have a clear picture of what is wind chill... To be fair, there are some very interesting and revealing pieces of information. Maybe lacks an 'encyclopedic' touch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.49.53 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacks precision

message: Someone needs to rewire this.  Has the person who wrote this ever opened an Encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.33.195 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Much of this article uses a very unusual writing style for an encyclopedia and reads more like a position paper or essay.  Opinions about how things should be are sprinkled in with factual writing.  The article also seems to have a self-referencing tone, as though it's patting itself on the back for how well it's written or how smart its explanations are.  Very odd.  As soon as I get some time during the hectic holidays, I'll start rewriting this myself, but if anyone gets time before I do, please feel free. --DavidGC (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: No mentioning of the wind grill effect? This isn't to be confused with the heat index related to humidity, but to the fact that the air feels hotter when there's wind if the air temperature is above body temperature (37°C). // Jens Persson (193.10.117.249 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: its the same effect, moving air has a better thermal coupling than still air, so the rate at which something exchanges heat with the atmosphere is the same with a lower temperature difference and still air as higher temperature difference with moving air.  Its the same reason that forced-convection ovens cook at lower air temperatures. ThrustVectoring (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind grill effect

message: Page 113 of this document
:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690003109_1969003109.pdf
suggests that the formula should be a product, not a fraction; that is:
:WCI=(10\sqrt{V}-V+10.5) \cdot (33-T_{a})
::WCI = Wind chill index, kcal/m^2/hr
::V = Wind velocity, m/sec
::T = Air temperature, °C
The text talks about the units being revised to Watts per sq. metre.  That is a rate of heat transfer, an increase in which would be perceived as colder. A colder (lower) air temperature would increase the rate of heat transfer — and the original WCI.
The quantity (33 - T) increases as air temperature decreases. The product in the formula above increases as air temperature decreases. That is consistent with what is suggested by the text.
The formula which was in the text was a fraction with (33 - T) in the denominator. The quotient in that formula decreases as air temperature decreases. That is not consistent with what is suggested by the text. -Ac44ck (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed formula for original model 

message: I have several issues with the addition of this tag:
#The tagger created no section on this talk page to:
##Clarify the tagger's objections, or
##Provide a framework for addressing those objections.
#The edit summary for adding the tag mentions that the section is "biased toward USA". The section mentions North America and Canada; it says nothing about the USA.
#The edit summary makes an appeal for using metric units. Only metric units appear in the section. While kcal/m^2/hr may not be SI, it is metric; and the original formula was what it was — it need not be converted to the latest version of metric when:
##It isn't intended for current use anyway, and
##Bringing attention to "the strange sounding units" seems to be one of the reasons for including the formula.
#The edit was marked as "minor". Help:Minor edit says, "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." It seems that the reasons for dropping the tag were to:
##Call for a review, and 
##Raise disputes over issues that didn't seem to be of concern to anyone else.
The tagger has not made a substantive effort to "discuss and resolve the dispute". I am removing the tag, which seems to be quite erroneous. - Ac44ck (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed NPOV tag 

message: The boundary layer of a fluid is ALWAYS infinitely thick, its merely a question of how far out you have to go in order to be close enough to the ambient condition to approximate it as equal.
Equivalently, the layer of fluid that is still next to a solid object in a moving flow is basically infinitely thin, afterwards you have a continuum of velocities.
So when the article talks about wind 'thinning' the boundary layer of air around the skin, the statement has zero meaning.  Its true that the wind reduces the insulation of the air (equivalently, increases the thermal coupling between the air and the skin), its just that the explanation for it is talking about doing things to pseudosystematic terms which are undefinable.
IMHO wind chill is much better explained by talking about convective heat transfer.  Moving air = faster convective heat transfer out of your body = skin gets colder. ThrustVectoring (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article shouldn't even been written in terms of "boundary layers".  Everyone from Straight Dope to howstuffworks.com talks in terms of evaporative cooling, which is the more fundamental reason (i.e. wind chill would exist even if there was no "boundary layer").  If someone really wants to go this route, you should at least cite SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE.--75.187.32.194 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical inaccuracy re: fluid mechanics 

message: I tried to rewrite the explanation paragraph.  There may be something wrong, or it can be said better.  But I think two things are clear:
# It is more encyclopedic. How much more, I'm not sure.
# And explanation of a cause should be the fundamental reason (a table isn't MERELY hard because wood is hard, there's a more fundamental reason).  Whether or not this "insulating shell" exists is irrelevant to the fundamental explanation of wind chill.  If you completely remove any insulation (like clothes) the phenomenon of wind chill still exists. You still get greater cooling, you still get maintenance of surface temperature, you still get more heat loss due to this maintenance, and you still get a greater risk to frostbite.  Let's put it another way.  Say the wind speed is so amazingly high in that formula that you have no "insulating shell" whatsoever.  Do you still have wind chill?  Of course.  In fact you have so much that you're going to die. It's not the lack of an insulating shell that causes wind chill, but the extra loss of heat, and that's what we should concentrate on.--75.187.32.194 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  partial rewrite of explanation 

message: This article refers only to fahrenheit, shouldn't it be mainly based on Celsius, seeing as that is the worldwide scientific temperature scale, and the majority of the world only uses Celsius  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.163.15 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this, and the main table should have units of Celcius and a fahrenheit table below the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.151.193 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Wind chill calculation has far more troubling issues than that. Where I live I use °C and MPH and always have to convert one or the other to fit. No big deal given that I have to write and check an entire formula too. In a small program, we only have to do this once. 86.179.238.118 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also agree with this, a graph depicting celcius and km/h would be suitable for a larger audience. 174.0.115.228 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I also don't get imperial units, they are meaningless to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.31.245 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celsius/Fahrenheit 

message: "The typical assumption is that the subject is properly dressed and dry." This statement is unsupported. Wind chill is typically described as the apparent temperature on exposed skin. So it would seem that it's used under the assumption that the subject is naked. If the air is very cold, and the subject is properly dressed and dry, then only a small area of skin is exposed, and the relevence of "wind chill" is blown all out of proportion, especially by the TV entertainers claiming to be meteorologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are huge differences (many degrees !) between skin types, and if skin is completely dry or not. So this thema of Wind chill is completely fake and formula is not objective, even if exposed by "scientists and experts". A temperature in degrees is a physical quantity, measured with an instrument, final point. One just has to distinguish between "wet temperature" and "dry temperature": wet temperature is obtained by physically measuring a wet object temperature under strong wind, and is often 5 to 10° lower than dry temperature (depending also of moisture, too). This, is scientific (but less fashion phenomena nor mass medias than "wind chill", limit Wikible). Regards, Jack ma (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject is properly dressed and dry? 

message: I've tried to use Windchill formula for warm temperatures. For example it gives +22°C for all wind speeds at +22°C. It seems irrelevant, because it really gets cold in such conditions (I'm kitesurfing and experience wind a lot).
Are there any alternatives to this Windchill formula? VladGenie (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windchill for warm temperatures? 

message: Are there any formulas for counting experienced temperature in wet conditions? For example, all watersports users (surfing, kitesurfing, diving) understand, that being wet greatly reduces experienced temperature. But to what degree? Any clues? VladGenie (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windchill for wet conditions? (watersports) 

message: I removed the tag about this article not presenting a world-wide view.
If you have information about a Siberian wind chill scale, then by all means include it. A drive-by tagger doesn't motivate me to do that research.
Does the tagger know of other wind chill scales? If not, how do they know there is anything that can be used to "globalize" this article? If they do know of other scales, why didn't they mention them on this talk page?
It annoys me when editors use a tag that says, "discuss the issue on the talk page" but make no effort to start the discussion on said talk page.
This article talks about Antarctica, Canada, Australia, the US, and other planets. That's more than "worldwide," it's other-worldly.
I think the tag, which has been there for more than a year without generating any discussion, is pointless. I see no reason to keep the tag unless the tagger is prepared to mention a specific, glaring omission of some important wind chill scale that hasn't been mentioned. - Ac44ck (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing worlwide view tag 

message: I made a new image with celcius and km/h. For the regions of frostbite times I used the old image and wolframalpha. Would appreciate it if someone touched it up and uploaded it. I realize with 1 decimal place it looks odd but I didn't want to remove it since each block is in 2.5 degrees.
Here is the link: http://i.imgur.com/UjrUp5H.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.133.128 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. For those of us living outside of the USA, the use of scientific units is welcome. Mr Fahrenheit is old and stupid and his dumb-ass scale should be confined to the dustbin. It's like having a unit of distance that starts at minus seventeen. "How far is it to town?" "Minus twelve Blerghs."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.222.101 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: I have not read accurately all the above and possibly I repeat something already stated, but perhaps in a more clear way.
AS DEFINED, the wind chill refers to the energy loss from an object at the given temperature, that therefore is never chilled nor heated because its temperature is constant by definition. It is a parameter to rate the weather conditions, not a quantity referring to a man being killed by the cold, whose body temperature decreases. It has the dimension of the temperature, but by no way may be considered a thermodynamic temperature.
 
Let H(v,T) the heat flux in the given conditions, the WCI (best called WC Equivalent Temperature, of course) is then defined by H(v0,WCI)=H(v,T). To have an insight, let us assume (as in the Siple-Passel model) that H(v,T)=f(v)*(T0-T), where T0 is the skin temperature. Then WCI=T0-[f(v)/f(v0)]*(T0-T). This solves the puzzle for  the ice at 5C, because for ice T0=0 and therefore this WCI is positive. For the man dying by cold, this WCI is time-dependent because his T0 is.
By the way, the 2001 relation may be written as  30.95 - (0.6215+0.4865*v^0.16)*(28.69-T) that suggests a reference temperature of about 30C for the human skin.
I hope to have provided an help for someone, now I make some questions to see if someone may solve my doubts.
The statement that the formula is DEFINED only "below 10 C and above 3mph" does really mean that the formula is accurate within 1C only in this range? The original Siple-Passel formula had troubles at low wind speed, that were fixed by assuming f(v)=f(4) for v<4 mph on the assumption that below this speed the wind has little cooling effect; this produces the desired  WCI(0,T)=T. The hard with the original formula is the steep rise of the 2-root near 0 and the revised one has a far worse 6-root. Has someone suggested a similar fix?21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  additions 

message: I have some issues with the two brief paragraphs describing the 2007 McMillan coefficient and the 2012 Breedlove coefficient. Surely at the very least there should be some reference to the sources of these approximations? But I can't find any sources. Perhaps some other people with better research skills than me might be able to.
The McMillan formula was added to this article at 2013-05-30T17:00:42 by user 98.172.143.148. This user made a handful of contributions to Wikipedia in 2013 and 2014 but every other one has been identified as vandalism and reverted. That leads me to suspect that this one might be vandalism too. But the formula does actually work reasonably well, so I'm open to the possibility that t really is genuine.
The Breedlove formula was added to this article at 2015-06-26T02:53:16 by user 68.99.21.63. It's this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. The formula is nonsensical and I'm convinced the inclusion of this formula was actually vandalism.
I'm going to tag the McMillan formula as needing a citation, and I'm going to delete the paragraph which mentions the Breedlove formula. Happy to discuss. Stewart Robertson (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMillan and Breedlove coefficients? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wind chill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627223738/http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/normals_documentation_e.html to http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/normals_documentation_e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918010232/http://www.weather.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml to http://www.weather.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The wind can still make it fell colder above 10 celsius  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalaa324 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is wind chill only defined below 10 celsius?