Current Weather Situation in Seattle? (Issaquah: 2014, homes, heat pump)

[tickyul]

Once it get so hot, all the material in a building will just radiate all that stored heat, especially when it starts cooling down. Large buildings with a lot of metal and concrete seem to be the worst. The
heat-island effect is a very real problem, the more and more things like buildings and roadways in an area, the worse the problem of stored-heat becoming radiated-heat.

Seattle is quite island-like and dense in many areas, this is a formula for heat-island problems. Luckily, the weather in Seattle is mild for the most part.

[GraceKrispy]

It is way too hot for comfort. When it's 90 outside (which it has been for a few days now here), it's closer to 100 inside our apartment, fans and all. Can't wait until Tuesday when it looks like the heat wave will cool down to the mid-high 80s instead

[Nouvelle Paris]

I'm in Gig Harbor, so the weather's a few degrees off here, but oh my goodness. It's been hot as hell for the past week (with yesterday being an exception). Today was much too hot for my taste.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Nouvelle Paris

I'm in Gig Harbor, so the weather's a few degrees off here, but oh my goodness. It's been hot as hell for the past week (with yesterday being an exception). Today was much too hot for my taste.

It looks like today will be slightly hotter yet, mid 90s before cooling off tomorrow. I'm so glad we have the two window AC units, kept the family room/kitchen at 72 and the bedroom at 65 all night. Inside my greenhouse it got up to 107 yesterday.

[Botev1912]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

OK, then. I guess my friend in Sea. is vindicated. That's really tough for people to live through without A/C. He has a basement workshop, and he says it's hot down there, too, at those temps. Just curious, is anyone here running one of those portable indoor A/C units? How well is that working out?

My car was showing 99f yesterday around Bellevue. It has been a historical heat wave not so much due to high temperatures, but due to the duration.

[Botev1912]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Hey, Botev1912, why are you ignoring my explanation for why I was not ignoring you???? Not satisfied? (You called me out twice, after all.)

What are you talking about? I responded to you right after your post.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

What are you talking about? I responded to you right after your post.

You're right, you responded to my post:

They actually said it reads cooler than it should after inspecting it. And this is not something shocking. SeaTac is warmer than a lot of other neighborhoods.

You accused me of not reading the article I posted, twice. Just to set the record straight:

You:

Did you even read that?

You:

"Why did you ignore my question? Or you just didn't care to read it the same way you didn't read the article you posted."

Me:

Not ignoring you - I went to the store. Occasionally, I have the need to go buy some, um, food. Nasty habit, eating...

They updated, corrected, and extensively rewrote the article from when I posted the link to it (10:07 am). Different article, really. Different headline.

Note that the the thermometer was operating "within the tolerances the Weather Services requires" doesn't counter Mass' concern (in the original, but not the revised, article) that temperatures have been trending higher at Sea-Tac, compared to surrounding areas, for local reasons (the third runway replacing a bank of trees, for instance), and might no longer be representative of conditions in Seattle.

This does show that when Cliff Mass speaks, the NWS jumps...

You responded to the second part, but blithely ignored my explanation that I had gone shopping and they'd changed the article in the meantime. Different content, different title. Different article. The section I quoted wasn't even in it anymore. I wasn't ignoring you. I had read the original article that I had linked to.

Now, I was just jibing you and wasn't expecting a mea culpa. A nod of acknowledgement would have been nice, however.

[Botev1912]

I even quoted you which means I acknowledged what happened. Didn't ignore that fact at all. I get it they have revised the article which was deceiving in the first place.

[homesinseattle]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

You're right, you responded to my post:

You accused me of not reading the article I posted, twice. Just to set the record straight:

You:

You:

Me:

You responded to the second part, but blithely ignored my explanation that I had gone shopping and they'd changed the article in the meantime. Different content, different title. Different article. The section I quoted wasn't even in it anymore. I wasn't ignoring you. I had read the original article that I had linked to.

Now, I was just jibing you and wasn't expecting a mea culpa. A nod of acknowledgement would have been nice, however.

Guys, chill. See what the heat is doing to you?

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

I even quoted you which means I acknowledged what happened. Didn't ignore that fact at all. I get it they have revised the article which was deceiving in the first place.

Thanks, I'll take that as your nod.

The article quoted Cliff Mass' speculation that the sensor might be defective (reading too high). Subsequently, the NWS checked it and found that it was measuring a tad low, but still operating within its expected range. The P-I writer then did a somersault that was not entirely justified. The original title might have been "deceiving", but writers often don't write titles.