17% RH, I can picture it, where you maybe get all this crackly staticky sparks flying when you pull off a sweater and your hair stands on end.

https://www.calculator.net/dew-point-calculator.html?airtemperature=20&airtemperatureunit=celsius&humidity=17&dewpoint=&dewpointunit=celsius&x=Calculate

I just fiddled around with this calculator. I'm in Germany, but I know the feeling. I guess it is usually in late winter or spring, perhaps very dry easterly winds from as far away as Central Asia, but relatively warm daytime temps as the sun is getting stronger. Something like temp 20  dp -6 might get you an extremely low rh of 17%.

 

Edit:

On Tuesday afternoon at 12 UTC on June 20, 2017, the temperature at Safi-Abad Dezful, Iran hit 115.7°F (46.5°C) with a -27.8°F (-33.2°C) dewpoint, giving this city of 420,000 in western Iran a ridiculously low relative humidity of 0.36%. At that level of atmospheric moisture, the temperature would have had to plunge 143°F (80°C) in order for the moisture to condense out and form ground-level clouds. If one were to cry in joy (or more likely) in despair at the heat, I doubt those tears would reach your lips!

From:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/world-record-low-humidity-116f-036-humidity-iran

Wow! Talk about extremely dry!

I'm more of a tropical rainforest type person. I like frequent thundershowers and sitting outside in shorts late at night listening to chirping insects.

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2025Jun 28 by Antipodeslonghaul
Stumbled upon more info

17 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

What I’m curious to know is how much the temperature has risen through naturally occurring events * and how much is created by humans.

There is evidence supporting both causes, yet you only hear about "human-caused" warming due to increased CO2 emissions.

Billions of dollars have been poured into research which supports the human-induced warming theory in order to bolster and publicize that narrative, whereas any research which indicates natural causes is ridiculed, omitted, downplayed, or outright censored.

There now exists an entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to and dependent upon a climate theory.  It is comprised of thousands of researchers with a vested interest in promoting this particular theory as their jobs depend on it, as well as "green" energy companies which now employ tens of thousands of people.  We just had another solar boondoggle, the Ivanpah solar plant in California, go belly up, more billions of dollars of "investment" down the drain.  Add to this the billions of dollars pumped into promotional advertising, "education", and search engine manipulation where searches heavily favor links to certain websites, and the promoters of all this have literally created a worldwide movement akin to a religion. 

There is no guarantee that eliminating CO2 emissions will reverse the warming effect.  This notion is based on a particular theory supported by some evidence, but not by any means "settled", otherwise it would be scientific law by now as we're going on nearly 50 years since the theory gained acceptance.  The climate is extremely complex and not well understood even today, hence the frequent inaccurate weather and climate forecasts based on flawed models and lack of complete understanding.

Unrealistic net-zero goals translated into bad policy will damage economic growth and hurt ordinary folks.  Gradually moving toward more viable, practical, and proven forms of renewable energy is a wise policy, but it has to be done the right way over 50 years or so, not by silly deadlines like 2040 or 2050.  Not so long ago the goal was 2030 or 2035, but even diehard supporters have backed off those time frames as they are not achievable or realistic.

That's my 2c (or 2p for some).  No endless debates, I promise.

Dave

 

3 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

17% RH, I can picture it, where you maybe get all this crackly staticky sparks flying when you pull off a sweater and your hair stands on end.

Something like temp 20  dp -6 might get you an extremely low rh of 17%.

The max was 18.5°C, min was -0.2°C. Wind from NE. Max DP was 1.9°C. Rare indeed for England.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

There is evidence supporting both causes, yet you only hear about "human-caused" warming due to increased CO2 emissions.

That’s why I’m not happy about this constant ear-bashing. When several heads of state don’t turn up to a Climate Change Conference I wonder why. If they don’t take it seriously why should I?

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

There is evidence supporting both causes

 

Well, yes, of course there is. Random global and local, short term,  temp and climate fluctuations are obviously a thing. Due to all manner of natural events. The issue, though, is global average tempreture increase over the long term. And none of the causal factors that could increase long term (since the industrial revolution) global tempreture are present now. What is present is our CO2 emmisions. And we know it's our additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to its isotopic signature. Rapidity is another line of evidence. Natural global average temp increases occur relatively slowly, not as quick as 150 years or so.

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

whereas any research which indicates natural causes is ridiculed

 

Only if it's badly conducted research by less than qualified individuals with an agenda. In fact, if you are a climatologist that wants worldwide fame, then the way to do it is to prove we aren't responsible. Or, if you want big money, go and work for the oil industry.

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The climate is extremely complex and not well understood

 

 

Complex, yes, but things like the greenhouse effect and the water vapour positive feedback loop are pretty basic stuff. In fact it was back in the 1800s that Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel Prize winner, calculated what would happen if we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. He was correct. We are seeing what he predicted. And Svantee wasn't part of your modern conspiracy theory.

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

There is no guarantee that eliminating CO2 emissions will reverse the warming effect.

 

It won't. Nobody thinks it will. Best we can do is mitigate the impact. At least it won't for a very long time. Atmospheric inertia is a thing. But we absolutely should stop making the impact worse. 

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

based on flawed models 

 

Not factually correct. Certain groups like to claim models are flawed but even early models were pretty accurate. 

 

"Climate models have generally been successful in predicting global warming trends, with many models accurately capturing historical warming patterns and showing reasonable agreement with observed temperature changes, especially when considering factors like changes in CO2 and other climate drivers. However, there are also limitations and areas where models still need improvement, such as accurately simulating regional climate patterns and specific extreme weather events. "

 

Edited June 28, 2025Jun 28 by martin-w

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If they don’t take it seriously why should I?

 

That's an easy one. You should know why some don't. 

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s why I’m not happy about this constant ear-bashing. When several heads of state don’t turn up to a Climate Change Conference I wonder why. If they don’t take it seriously why should I?

Have you ever heard of a guy called John Hill, Ray?

He was an American PR genius. He founded a public relations company called Hill and Knowle. 

In the early nineteen fifties the medical evidence that smoking was linked to lung cancer started to become overwhelming. Much of the evidence was based on the tobacco industry's own research. The tobacco industry hired Hill and Knowle to run a campaign refuting this research.

John Hill's strategy was based on not opposing the research but producing his own. He realised that the American public were naturally inclined to believe the expert opinion of medical doctors and researchers.

John Hill's genius was in realising that public opinion could not distinguish between men with impressive sounding credentials. Using a great deal of tobacco industry money he recruited a number of scientists, doctors and professors to refute the medical research. He found a rich vein of support in the atomic energy and weapons industry. 

That these men were not expert in the medical research field didn't actually matter. They were often well known, and often had the ears of congressman and the press and were very willing to become the titular heads of psuedo-scientific research foundations payed for by the tobacco industry. 

The aim was not to outright challenge the evidence; because that evidence was undeniable. The idea was to confuse and obfuscate both public and political opinion.

This campaign turned out to be wildly successful and enabled the tobacco industry to continue poisoning it's customers and raking in billions of dollars, whilst avoiding anti smoking controls and legislation for decades to come.

In the mid nineteen sixties the link between asbestos and chronic, often fatal lung conditions had led to a mass of litigation against the asbestos industry. The industry hired Hill and Knowle who undertook a campaign to refute the dangers of asbestos in exactly the same way they'd dealt with the tobacco industry.

  The result?  Even though the dangers of asbestos inhalation had been known since the turn of the century, it was not until the nineteen eighties that asbestos was outlawed as a building material.

In the late nineteen seventies, when the evidence of man made climate change was starting to become apparent the 'Seven Sisters';  that group of enormous, multi national petrol chemical companies which dominate the fossil fuel industry hired...guess who?

In 2022 Hill and Knowle were the official PR representatives of COP 23....

🙃

34 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Have you ever heard of a guy called John Hill, Ray?

No but your story reminded me of an excellent film. The Insider starring Russel Crowe and Al Pacino. All about an insider in the US tobacco industry wanting to spill the beans about nicotine.

I do believe those people involved in climate change believe the stats. It’s just that the difference individuals can make is minuscule but still costs more than the average person can afford.

The alternative is worse. Imagine if the planet was cooling and the more we tried to keep warm the cooler the planet got. 🥶

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s just that the difference individuals can make is minuscule

 

AN individual can't make much difference but the UK is made up of 68 million individuals, and the world is made up of greater than 8 billion individuals.

And when the behaviour of a significant number of individuals changes, either voluntary or involuntarily, then profoundly significant change is manifest.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eco-hypocrites-take-hundreds-private-jets-bezos-wedding

"Trust the science" just like these fine folks!

Dave

This is going into the bad topics area!  Done now!