Humidity in Dallas

[Cupcake77]

Originally Posted by lizziebeth

Are you here just to try to push people's buttons? I saw you on another Dallas post being Bitter McWhiny (unless there's another Cupcake out there...don't care to double check). Do you do this for all major city threads or do you just like picking on Dallas. People refuse to move to Dallas? We have plenty of people here...many more than we really need. There are places I haven't expressed a desire to move to but I don't think I've flat out told people that I REFUSE to live in a certain place. Who are you hanging out with anyway?

double check please, not me if you are referring to another forum. link please.. I would like to see it. otherwise I think you're full of *&^%.

oh yeah you should seriosuly consider a nose job unless it's some other lizzibeth from Dallas. I don't care to double check but will if you ask me to.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

My native Texas friend now lives in Atlanta and he says there is no comparison to the heat in Dallas in the summer. He chooses Atlanta weather over Dallas. Personally, I think they both stink.

One of the main differences between the ATL summers and the DFW summers is that it gets hot and muggy in N.Texas in May (April some years) and the heat often stays into Oct with heat indexs (combo of air temp and humidity) basically at the same level as Houston, Austin, etc. in the heart of the summer.
In ATL (north GA), there's typically some real variation in the summer weather, atleast there was the year I was there back in the late 90s. We had very hot muggy weather like TX in June, but then unlike TX we also had a boni fide front come thru in late July with dry air & clear skies and highs in the 70s.
Also ATL has a real 4-seasons climate including some nice color in the fall leaves and gorgous springs which is absent from DFW. On the negative side for ATL there's too much precip as the annual rain there is at about 47 inches (virtually identical to Houston), while DFW has a foot less annual precip.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

with heat indexs (combo of air temp and humidity) basically at the same level as Houston, Austin, etc. in the heart of the summer.

As far as I know, the so-called "heat index" has no medical basis... the sense perception of air temperature and humidity are entirely different physiological effects on the body.

Since a particular individual can be less sensitive to heat than the average and could be more sensitive to humidity than the average, there is no useful generalization to be made regarding the combination of heat and humidity that is true for everyone.

In my case, I am not that sensitive to heat. It doesn't cause me as much distress as it would a cold-weather yankee. On the other hand, I grew up in a dry climate, and excess humidity affects me much more than it seems to affect the people in Miami or Houston. So Dallas in a summer afternoon is ideal for me... low relative humdity which helps me, and higher air temperature, which doesn't materially hurt me.

By the way, your comments were interesting regarding your year in Atlanta. It should be remembered, of course, that weather is not the same as climate. Both Dallas and Atlanta are in the same climactic region according to a classification called the Koppen scale of climate. They are in the CWA classification, which is also called Humid subtropical with rain evenly distributed throughout the year.

It should be noted that Dallas and Atlanta are at opposite extremes of this classification. When you drive west toward Abilene, and especially when you get to Midland or Lubbock, you are in an entirely different climactic zone.

[First24]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

One of the main differences between the ATL summers and the DFW summers is that it gets hot and muggy in N.Texas in May (April some years) and the heat often stays into Oct with heat indexs (combo of air temp and humidity) basically at the same level as Houston, Austin, etc. in the heart of the summer.
In ATL (north GA), there's typically some real variation in the summer weather, atleast there was the year I was there back in the late 90s. We had very hot muggy weather like TX in June, but then unlike TX we also had a boni fide front come thru in late July with dry air & clear skies and highs in the 70s.
Also ATL has a real 4-seasons climate including some nice color in the fall leaves and gorgous springs which is absent from DFW. On the negative side for ATL there's too much precip as the annual rain there is at about 47 inches (virtually identical to Houston), while DFW has a foot less annual precip.

Atlanta is also 500 feet higher in elevation than Dallas. Atlanta's summer weather is moderated occassionally by cooler easterly winds off the Atlantic that wedges against the Appalachians.

My comment on the topic:

Dallas' heat can be intense but it's more tolerable due to lack of relative humidity. I'd rather deal with 99 degrees in DFW than 95 in Houston. There's a BIG difference in comfort levels from my experience.

[eepstein]

As a general rule, Dallas doesn't get those kind of hot heat indexes. However, as a "weathergeek" I have lived in Austin for 7 years and when the temperature gets into the high 90's and above the heat index is NEVER above that. Oftentimes when the temp gets above 100 degrees, the air is so dry that the heat index is actually lower than the actually temperature. Austin is a very unique situation.

Originally Posted by aceplace

Well, if the Austin heat index only rarely goes above the limit, maybe the Dallas heat index only rarely does as well.

Your claim is what is called "anecdotal", not credible as a generlization. Your personal assumptions, evaluations, etc, are no better than someone else who comes to an opposite conclusion.

According to the NOAA statistics I published above, the average afternoon humidity for Austin is slightly higher than for Dallas. We would expect Austin to have a slightly higher afternoon temperature than Dallas because it is 200 miles closer to the equator.

So with a slightly higher humidity, and a higher temperature, how do you get a lower heat index? Because you feel like it?

[Cupcake77]

El Paso has pretty nice weather, actually we're considering moving there. It's much drier

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Cupcake77

El Paso has pretty nice weather, actually we're considering moving there. It's much drier

Yea but see EP is a truly Sothwestern city. Isn't it actually in mountain time zone, and it has mountainous terrain in the area so its more like New Mexico than South Central Texas which includes DFW, Lubbock, etc. and is like Witchita and OKC and part of all the prairie country that stretchs north all the way to Canada.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Yea but see EP is a truly Sothwestern city. Isn't it actually in mountain time zone, and it has mountainous terrain in the area so its more like New Mexico than South Central Texas which includes DFW, Lubbock, etc. and is like Witchita and OKC and part of all the prairie country that stretchs north all the way to Canada.

While you are right about El Paso being a city of the southwest, you need to get a map and grasp the great size and variations of the state of Texas.

El Paso is closer to Los Angeles than it is to Texarkana in the same state. Likewise, Texarkana is closer to Chicago than it is to El Paso. You have correctly identified Lubbock as in the Mountain Time Zone. It is due south of Albuquerque, NM by a couple hundred plus miles and is actually further west than Denver, CO and Cheyenne, WY. El Paso sits at an elevation of 3,720 ft.

Neither Lubbock nor Dallas are considered anywhere close to South Central Texas. Lubbock is on a high plain, the Llano Estacado in west Texas at an elvation of 3200 ft. It is the only one on your list that can be considered part of the prairie you describe extending to Canada, as the Llano Estacado is the southern extension of the Great Plains.

Dallas, Oklahoma City and Wichita are too far east to be considered part of the Great Plains. Dallas is only about 60 miles from the Oklahoma border and it is considered North Texas. It sits at an elevation of 430 feet, so it is no wonder that it and El Paso have a differing climate. But the great disparity in elevation between both Lubbock and El Paso with Dallas plus Dallas' lying so much further east, neither can you lump Lubbock and Dallas together. While not being identical, Lubbock will be more akin to El Paso weather wise than it will be with Dallas.

Look at a map of Texas sometime and appreciate these differences. The only city in Texas I would list as south central would be San Antonio.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Neither Lubbock nor Dallas are considered anywhere close to South Central Texas. Lubbock is on a high plain, the Llano Estacado in west Texas at an elvation of 3200 ft. It is the only one on your list that can be considered part of the prairie you describe extending to Canada, as the Llano Estacado is the southern extension of the Great Plains.

Dallas, Oklahoma City and Wichita are too far east to be considered part of the Great Plains. Dallas is only about 60 miles from the Oklahoma border and it is considered North Texas. It sits at an elevation of 430 feet, so it is no wonder that it and El Paso have a differing climate. But the great disparity in elevation between both Lubbock and El Paso with Dallas plus Dallas' lying so much further east, neither can you lump Lubbock and Dallas together. While not being identical, Lubbock will be more akin to El Paso weather wise than it will be with Dallas.

Look at a map of Texas sometime and appreciate these differences. The only city in Texas I would list as south central would be San Antonio.

When I said places like Lubbock and DFW were South Central Texas, I meant they were in the South Central Region of the US vs EP which is in the Southwestern region of the US. My mistake. But EP is clearly a SouthWestern City just as Albuquerque & Phoenix are.
But when I see places like DFW/N.Texas, Lubbock, Amarillo it just looks like Wichita, OKC, even Fargo to me, but I'm from Missouri where we have some real geological variety to include mountanous country to our land so I'm probably at fault for generalizing too much. In other words if there's a difference between Witchita and Dallas for example, it's real subtle, atleast to me.
But here's a question for you - my wife is a Texan and her familys Texas roots go back aways. Anyway her father is from Comanche county and she says thats "West Texas". Now when I look at a map it doesn't look like its in western Texas to me, but maybe at one time when her father (he died an old man some time ago) was a young man it was considered "West Texas" ?

[Saintmarks]

Ok, South Central Texas and South Central US are big differences, helps me understand your post better.

As far as the boundary of what is considered West Texas, I am sure it will differ from person to person. My inlaws are from Happy which is about 40 miles south of Amarillo. They say they are from the Panhandle, but if you lopped off the upper panhandle at its base, Happy is south of that line, so I argue with them about that.

I have been in TX for 6 years (GA native - was in Fort Worth for grad school 84-86) and am still learning the correct lingo. Here in Dallas, the news stations all refer to their greater viewing area (which extends beyond the metroplex) as "North Texas." generally anything west of the greater North Texas area and the Hill country is considered West Texas whether it be Amarillo in the panhandle or El Paso. I don't know the vernacular for the stretch of TX that extends under NM as it looks like a panhandle as well. My understanding is the Panhandle primarily refers to the top hat that extends above the boundary line of the Red River that separates most of Oklahoma from Texas.

West Texas generally refers to anything west of Abilene. Other parts of the state might think differently, but that is the common term I hear from those in the DFW area.