"The sweltering heat could creep close to the world’s record highest temperature of 134 degrees marked at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley on July 10, 1913, according to the National Weather Service office in Las Vegas."
The image in the picture says 130F is 59C, which is of course wrong, the image must have two broken segments and be showing 138F (which is 59C), but that’s beyond the official record, so who knows what the point in that thermometer is
“134F” on its own would at best mean somewhere between 133.5F and 134.5F, so having 5 significant figures on your translation is wrong as it’s implying a precision which simply isnt there.
> so having 5 significant figures on your translation is wrong
Probably, I just copied and pasted straight from google.
Edit: thinking more about this, I would throw it back at you - what would you write for converting the Fahrenheit value to Celsius? It’s one thing to say I’m wrong, which is fine, but you offer no alternative.
As the other poster mentioned, going to thousands of a °C implies precision that simply isn't there. The math conversion between °F and °C gives repeating decimals, so you were already rounding. The other poster was simply pointing out that your choice of rounding was implying precision that was unwarranted. Rounding to 56.7°C would have been plenty enough to make sense (reverses back to 134.06).
I tried finding information on the precision of the DV record and couldn't, but I personally doubt it was more that hundredths of a °F. I'd love for someone to provide data on the instruments used to record that record though, for my own edification.
Long story short… both the precision and accuracy are very questionable, but not due to the instrumentation. The observer at that station during that time period was not doing a very good job.
As far as precision specifically, During the period that observer was recording the station:
> When rain fell at the ranch, recorded amounts were almost invariably in the amounts of 0.01”, 0.10”, 0.20”, and 0.30”.
Whatever the instruments did (and that article makes a pretty conclusive case for them not having hit 134F), the observer recording them seems to have often filled in values that “felt right”, carried over previous days readings when he missed one, and just kind of eyeballed the actual measurements.
Not sure if this is useful, but here is a bash function I found a while back that comes in handy for me from time to time. This is just a snippet I found. It could be improved upon in a few ways.
function temp()
{
# Shell script to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius Temperature or Celsius
# to Fahrenheit Temperature
# -------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Copyright (c) 2005 nixCraft project <http://cyberciti.biz/fb/>
# This script is licensed under GNU GPL version 2.0 or above
# -------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This script is part of nixCraft shell script collection (NSSC)
# Visit http://bash.cyberciti.biz/ for more information.
# -------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fahrenheit and Celsius Temperature Scales more info:
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_conversion_formulas
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
echo "*** Converting between the different temperature scales ***"
echo "1. Convert Celsius temperature into Fahrenheit"
echo "2. Convert Fahrenheit temperatures into Celsius"
echo -n "Select your choice (1-2) : "
read choice
if [ $choice -eq 1 ]
then
echo -n "Enter temperature (C) : "
read tc
# formula Tf=(9/5)*Tc+32
tf=$(echo "scale=2;((9/5) * $tc) + 32" |bc)
echo "$tc C = $tf F"
elif [ $choice -eq 2 ]
then
echo -n "Enter temperature (F) : "
read tf
# formula Tc=(5/9)*(Tf-32)
tc=$(echo "scale=2;(5/9)*($tf-32)"|bc)
echo "$tf = $tc"
else
echo "Please select 1 or 2 only"
exit 1
fi
}
I warn that the following comment may amplify confusion because I don't understand how to think about this topic.
The OP comment edit asking for an alternative got me going:
//Edit: thinking more about this, I would throw it back at you - what would you write for converting the Fahrenheit value to Celsius? It’s one thing to say I’m wrong, which is fine, but you offer no alternative.//
Translation manufactures a false precision, i.e.:
Units translation seems to be a slippery slope: to maintain accuracy in translation context imbues the data with precision that may not exist in the original samples.
134F -> 56.67C
So a report with a precision of +/– 0.5 becomes precision +/– 0.005 via translation.
This seems like a hazard to chain of custody in any translated reports.
As to how important this is, this is open to consideration.
Discounting the contrived precision in context converges uncertainty at the scale of the least precise unit:
There seems to be no alternative to maintaining precision in context than to imbue the data with false precision; the precision is required to avoid creeping noise.
Consider additional pitfalls in report hygiene, such as idiomatically omitting the full precision in context for a measurement that falls on a unit interval. Consider 134.000F recorded as 134F, then decontextualized to +/– 0.5.
It seems any chain of custody includes an implicit hazard of well-meaning custodians.
When does engineering goe wonky merely by being translated?
This might seem obsessive, but
being open-minded about what it means to "translate" leads to more questions:
Consider precision regarding inter-disciplinary transposition of data where the context shifts from a relatively narrow scope of scientific research, say collection of temperature trends from ice cores, that's translated into very broad scope state policy, say a schedule of global average temperature change. For example consider an emissions policy based on a target of +1.5C over a 50 year window. You never see this policy written in precision corresponding to the basis of data collected— e.g., written as 1.500C— even though the geological basis intervals range from order 1000–1000000 years.
To me a policy target of order 1.5C seems fishy based merely on the precision of its presentation in scientific context. Shouldn't it be order more like 1.5000C?
I'm curious about inherent distortions that may attend any analytic approach to policy as data are moved been domains of reference.
The OP question surprised me; it seems to be a true conundrum, beyond the reach of any simple "alternative" in context.
There are other photos of that same sign with correct conversions, so it likely was showing 138ºF (with two broken segments) with a correct conversion to 59ºC. But it's probably not set up properly to be considered for official record purposes, it's just something for people to stand next to and have their photos taken.
Using significant figures to carry the information of both an estimate and confidence simply does not commute with unit conversions. It's a nice hack, but its not principled.
The Furnace Creek Visitor's thermometer is simply a tourist attraction.
Due to the sensor being too close to radiant heat from some metal posts, it reads several degrees hotter than the official NWS one. The display also glitches when it gets too hot.
Is it that they can't fly at all or is it just dangerous to do it?
The article says they can't lift off but I don't think that's correct. In the case of airplanes they just need more runway, helis should just need more power?
Power is also limited by air density (the degree of this limitation depends on the engines for the particular aircraft). So it's a double-whammy. Hot/thin air raises the power required while reducing the power the system is able to produce. This might be offset by shedding weight (reducing the power needed since you're lifting less), but there are limits there as well since a lot of things are either bolted on or necessary for the mission.
Question: Is it that the helicopters truly can't fly as in not enough lift? That seems strange because hot air in Death Valley is still thicker than cooler air in the mountains.
Or is this an FAA problem? Aircraft are not allowed to operate outside their published performance tables. Phoenix has been hit by that more than once--lots of tables top out at 120F and it becomes illegal to operate the aircraft if it reaches 121F.
It gets so hot in Death Valley, that helicopters can’t fly on some summer days.
“Helicopters cannot get enough lift to take off at extreme temperatures,” said Death Valley National Park ranger Elyscia Letterman. “The local air ambulance service determines if they can safely respond on a case-by-case basis, depending on temperature and the capabilities of each helicopter. However, they typically deem it unsafe to fly to Death Valley in temperatures above 120°F (49°C).”
Yeah, I read that--doesn't mean the ranger is right.
Look at the next comment--the tables for the helicopters don't go above 120F. That *will* ground them for legal reasons at 121F no matter what the actual aerodynamic situation is.
Cold air is more dense than hot air which counteracts the effects somewhat. 130 degree heat is roughly the equivalent of being at 5000’ at 60 degrees if I’m using the air density calculator right.
It's most likely the FAA problem: the official Pilot Operating Handbook for their helicopters top out at 120F and they cannot legally operate them. As tstrimple points out in a sister comment, Death Valley (elevation below sea level) at 130F is like 5,000' ASL at 60F, well within most ambulance helicopters operating range.
I imagine if we could make helicopters fly on mars and gas giant's moons, I wonder if we could tune a chopper's blades to work in extreme heat (I'm guessing a lot more of them and wider surface area). This is of course excluding the economics of such a thing
my understanding is that:
a) the quad design works better at small scales
b) it's naturally unstable and will fall out of the sky catastrophically if the computer fails. Standard helicopters can auto-rotate and land without power. We prefer this sort of safer design for passenger vehicles.
Actual experts please feel free to improve my answer.
39 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 84.5 ms ] thread“134F” on its own would at best mean somewhere between 133.5F and 134.5F, so having 5 significant figures on your translation is wrong as it’s implying a precision which simply isnt there.
Probably, I just copied and pasted straight from google.
Edit: thinking more about this, I would throw it back at you - what would you write for converting the Fahrenheit value to Celsius? It’s one thing to say I’m wrong, which is fine, but you offer no alternative.
I tried finding information on the precision of the DV record and couldn't, but I personally doubt it was more that hundredths of a °F. I'd love for someone to provide data on the instruments used to record that record though, for my own edification.
> your choice of rounding
Just a reminder that none of it was my choice, it was straight from google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=134+fahrenheit+to+celsius&ie...
More than you could possible want to know, but: https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-invest...
Long story short… both the precision and accuracy are very questionable, but not due to the instrumentation. The observer at that station during that time period was not doing a very good job.
As far as precision specifically, During the period that observer was recording the station:
> When rain fell at the ranch, recorded amounts were almost invariably in the amounts of 0.01”, 0.10”, 0.20”, and 0.30”.
Whatever the instruments did (and that article makes a pretty conclusive case for them not having hit 134F), the observer recording them seems to have often filled in values that “felt right”, carried over previous days readings when he missed one, and just kind of eyeballed the actual measurements.
This provides a “summary” of the five part series: https://stormbruiser.com/chase/2020/11/11/death-valleys-impr...
This also works in the search box on iOS.
Other conversions work as well. The one I use most often is kmh to mph, e.g., "220kmh to mph".
The OP comment edit asking for an alternative got me going:
//Edit: thinking more about this, I would throw it back at you - what would you write for converting the Fahrenheit value to Celsius? It’s one thing to say I’m wrong, which is fine, but you offer no alternative.//
Translation manufactures a false precision, i.e.:
Units translation seems to be a slippery slope: to maintain accuracy in translation context imbues the data with precision that may not exist in the original samples.
134F -> 56.67C
So a report with a precision of +/– 0.5 becomes precision +/– 0.005 via translation.
This seems like a hazard to chain of custody in any translated reports.
As to how important this is, this is open to consideration.
Discounting the contrived precision in context converges uncertainty at the scale of the least precise unit:
56.67C rounded to 57C = 134.6F -> 135F -> 57.222C -> 57C
And when further reported... +/– 0.5
There seems to be no alternative to maintaining precision in context than to imbue the data with false precision; the precision is required to avoid creeping noise.
Consider additional pitfalls in report hygiene, such as idiomatically omitting the full precision in context for a measurement that falls on a unit interval. Consider 134.000F recorded as 134F, then decontextualized to +/– 0.5.
It seems any chain of custody includes an implicit hazard of well-meaning custodians.
When does engineering goe wonky merely by being translated?
This might seem obsessive, but being open-minded about what it means to "translate" leads to more questions:
Consider precision regarding inter-disciplinary transposition of data where the context shifts from a relatively narrow scope of scientific research, say collection of temperature trends from ice cores, that's translated into very broad scope state policy, say a schedule of global average temperature change. For example consider an emissions policy based on a target of +1.5C over a 50 year window. You never see this policy written in precision corresponding to the basis of data collected— e.g., written as 1.500C— even though the geological basis intervals range from order 1000–1000000 years.
To me a policy target of order 1.5C seems fishy based merely on the precision of its presentation in scientific context. Shouldn't it be order more like 1.5000C?
I'm curious about inherent distortions that may attend any analytic approach to policy as data are moved been domains of reference.
The OP question surprised me; it seems to be a true conundrum, beyond the reach of any simple "alternative" in context.
(I ask seriously, only remembering about precision in astrophysics)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
Due to the sensor being too close to radiant heat from some metal posts, it reads several degrees hotter than the official NWS one. The display also glitches when it gets too hot.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-invest...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN1C1TlkclQ
The article says they can't lift off but I don't think that's correct. In the case of airplanes they just need more runway, helis should just need more power?
Desert operations happen with various weather.
"just"
Or is this an FAA problem? Aircraft are not allowed to operate outside their published performance tables. Phoenix has been hit by that more than once--lots of tables top out at 120F and it becomes illegal to operate the aircraft if it reaches 121F.
“Helicopters cannot get enough lift to take off at extreme temperatures,” said Death Valley National Park ranger Elyscia Letterman. “The local air ambulance service determines if they can safely respond on a case-by-case basis, depending on temperature and the capabilities of each helicopter. However, they typically deem it unsafe to fly to Death Valley in temperatures above 120°F (49°C).”
Look at the next comment--the tables for the helicopters don't go above 120F. That *will* ground them for legal reasons at 121F no matter what the actual aerodynamic situation is.
https://e6bx.com/density-altitude/
However I'm sure the manufacturers will compensate for this new climate reality in their new models.
Actual experts please feel free to improve my answer.