Searching \ for '[OT] Ocean high water data.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/mems.htm?key=data
Search entire site for: 'Ocean high water data.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Ocean high water data.'
2007\10\15@182211 by James Newton

face picon face
The nice thing about actual data is it removes any personal bias. I was
rather amazed to find the following:

<tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=20011015&edate=20070
816&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=2&unit=1&shift=g&stn=8729210+Panama+Ci
ty+Beach%2C+FL&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Plot>

Looks pretty darn stable to me. I do NOT see a rising trend there. Anyone
else got any ACTUAL data to share that conflicts with that?

If the ocean level rises in one part of the world, doesn't it pretty much
have to rise all over, given some time for the water to move to the lowest
point?

If the ice was, in fact, melting on average over the world, would we not see
a trend by now?

Or is it that the oceans are so deep and broad that the water will not
visibly rise until a much larger quantity of ice has melted?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@183119 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>If the ocean level rises in one part of the world, doesn't it pretty much
>have to rise all over, given some time for the water to move to the lowest
>point?
>
>If the ice was, in fact, melting on average over the world, would we not see
>a trend by now?
>
>Or is it that the oceans are so deep and broad that the water will not
>visibly rise until a much larger quantity of ice has melted?

Or are we seeing land in various places *sinking* ?

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\15@191736 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
That is definitely the matter here in Thailand, and likely anywhere else
they continue pumping massive amounts of water fromn the ground for
industrial consumption.

Regards/Roger, in Bangkok


On 10/16/07, Chris Smolinski <spam_OUTcsmolinskiTakeThisOuTspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> >...
> >
> >...
>
> Or are we seeing land in various places *sinking* ?
>

2007\10\15@212843 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu On Behalf Of James Newton
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:22 PM
>
> The nice thing about actual data is it removes any personal bias. I was
> rather amazed to find the following:
>
> <tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=20011015&e
> date=20070816&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=2&unit=1&shift=g&s
> tn=8729210+Panama+City+Beach%2C+FL&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=
> View+Plot>
>
> Looks pretty darn stable to me. I do NOT see a rising trend there. Anyone
> else got any ACTUAL data to share that conflicts with that?

Nice site you found, I haven't been there before. AFAIK, MHW Tide Height is
not the same as sea level. The particular station your looking at does not
have "Sea Level Trends" available (it's grayed out) probably because they
don't make sea level measurements there. Here's the NOAA page for sea level
measurements:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Here's a different Panama City station but it has a very short history (1973
to 1999):
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=87291
08
Here's Pensacola FL (1923 to 1999):
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=87298
40
There's a real long history for your area, San Diego (1906 to 1999):
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=94101
70

Paul Hutch

{Quote hidden}

2007\10\15@215729 by James Newton

face picon face
Ah, well that changes things... Apparently the TIDES are no higher but the
average sea level IS.

I also found
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/datainfo/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/823081.gif

And THAT shows a definite trend: The seas ARE rising.

--
James Newton


{Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@001549 by Jim Korman

flavicon
face
James Newton wrote:
> Ah, well that changes things... Apparently the TIDES are no higher but the
> average sea level IS.
>
> I also found
> http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/
> http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/datainfo/
> http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/823081.gif
>
> And THAT shows a definite trend: The seas ARE rising.
>
> --
> James Newton
>  
Here's the list of all the stations
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pub/indexb.dat

Kind of interesting, The Chesapeake Bay is sinking..
Annapolis Maryland, North Chesapeake Bay
www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/960080.gif
Hampton Roads (Mouth of the James River, Chesapeake Bay)
www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/960071.gif
GALVESTON, Tx
www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/940008.gif
Scandinavia is still recovering from the last ice age...
Turku, Finland
www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/060241.gif
So I tried Australia......
Sidney
www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/680141.gif
And India
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/500041.gif

The following book was written early enough (1990) that I
believe it is relatively free of global warming bias (for or against).
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1345&page=R1

The opening chapter starting at page 37 should be read at least.
It speaks to some of the reasons for the above observations.

BTW - For the record. I do believe that global warming is occurring
and has been during this inter glacial period. I also think (based
on the evidence) that it's going to get real cold again, probably
sooner than later (but could be centuries).

And yes, I used to play a weather forecaster (US Air Force), but
now do programming on systems used for weather forecasting/analysis.

Jim

2007\10\16@041405 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Does anybody not believe that global warming is occurring as we continue to
move out of the last (mini) ice-age? The dispute is over why rather than
what.

On 10/16/07, Jim Korman <jkormanspamKILLspamalltel.net> wrote:
>
> BTW - For the record. I do believe that global warming is occurring
> and has been during this inter glacial period.

2007\10\16@070500 by Rich

picon face
I thought that the significant debate was over the question as to the
contribution to GW by man's actions.  Some ideas seem to go as far as to say
that GW is the exclusively result of man's negligence and corrupt nature.
Still others say that GW is part of an historical cyclic system and is a
natural phase in this trend.  I have entertained the idea that perhaps the
earth's wobble plays a part.  But that may be almost as unfounded as other
ideas I have heard.
   It seems to me also that the debate has been less scientific than
political.  I am always skeptical about ideas that are politically
motivated.  I am personally not convinced that GW is in a crisis at present
and I am not convinced that it is the result of using hair spray or driving
SUVs.  I don't know of any scientific data that has been made publically
available to clearly provide conclusive evidence that the aerosols are the
major contribution to GW.  That is not to say that it does not exist, only
that I have not discovered it in spite of my efforts.  There seems to be a
lot of weight given to volcanic activity by some, cow flatulence by others
and a variety of such ideas.
   But to say anything negative about the willingness to have open debate
may be too parochial and actually discourage discovery.  And why not
entertain the absurd?  The absurd may be more important than the political
motives for debate.


{Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@075528 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Ah, well that changes things... Apparently the TIDES are no higher
>> but the
>> average sea level IS.

The very very large majority of international level sea level experts
consensus opinion is that all the IPCC sea level rise scenarios are
high by factors of 5 or 10 or more (depending on the model).

FWIW the sea level experts latest figure as of some months ago in
units I can't remember and over a period I  can't remember BUT I can
did up both shortly AND you'll get the point regardless is 5 +- 15
units over X years.

IPCC are all upwards and far higher to far far higher.

The sea level experts say ' if you'd ask us we'd tell you but you
don't so we can't and we don't know why you don't ask us - but we'll
tell you anyway.

That should give people enough to abuse and malign me over until I get
to give you chapter and verse so you take it back and apologise. Some
hope of that :-).




       Russell


2007\10\16@091317 by Eoin Ross

flavicon
face
Q: If an ice cube melts in a glass of water - does the water rise, fall or stay the same?

A: It'll stay the same as the ice cube displaced (raising the level) it's exact mass of water.

So therefore if we only lose SEA ice - then no raising of sea levels will occur.

Then of course one has to ask how much atmospheric water vapour is increased, this might offset the lost ice over land from glacier retreat and less snow cover.

>>> .....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....massmind.org 15 Oct 07 18:22:26 >>>
The nice thing about actual data is it removes any personal bias. I was
rather amazed to find the following:

<snip>

If the ocean level rises in one part of the world, doesn't it pretty much
have to rise all over, given some time for the water to move to the lowest
point?

<snip>

Or is it that the oceans are so deep and broad that the water will not
visibly rise until a much larger quantity of ice has melted?

--
James.


2007\10\16@093819 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
"Eoin Ross" writes:
>Q: If an ice cube melts in a glass of water - does the water rise, fall or sta
>y the same?
>
>A: It'll stay the same as the ice cube displaced (raising the level) it's exac
>t mass of water.
>
>So therefore if we only lose SEA ice - then no raising of sea levels will occu
>r.
>
>Then of course one has to ask how much atmospheric water vapour is increased,
>this might offset the lost ice over land from glacier retreat and less snow co
>ver.

       I think it is like a budget. There is a finite amount of
water in the world for all practical purposes. much of it is in
the sea. Some of it is in the air in the form of water vapor,
and some is fresh water, in lakes and rivers that ultimately end
up in the sea.

       Then there is ice such as glaciers and polar ice caps.
That part is much like taking water out of circulation and
hoarding it. It gets in to the air via sublimation and becomes
fresh or sea water if it melts, but while it is frozen, it 's
participation in the world's water budget is greatly slowed
down.

       So, when it melts on land, it should raise the sea level
as well as add more water vapor to the air. If it melts from
floating ice such as at the North Pole, it just lowers the
alvido (reflectiveness), and adds more water vapor to the air.

       The change in alvido is probably the most serious
consequence since it makes the Earth's Polar regions stop
reflecting and start absorbing Solar radiation much more quickly
if there is little to no ice.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
Systems Engineer
OSU Information Technology Department Network Operations Group

2007\10\16@095031 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> So therefore if we only lose SEA ice - then no raising of sea levels
> will occur.

Yes

Gore's figures for sealevel rise if all land based Greenland ice
melted was about correct. It's how probable that scenario is that is
at issue. Antarctic land ice is also capable of doing the same.


       R

2007\10\16@095855 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
I have been deliberately avoiding this thread and have not read most of the
posts in it but decided to chime in on this post.

Yes, there are plenty of people who do not believe global warming is
occurring.

For an interesting counterpoint, read the (fiction) book "State of Fear" by
Michael Crighton. In the fictional story, there is plenty of factual data,
with citations, that can call into question whether or not global warming
really is occurring.

I personally have no opinion on the matter, and believe this topic is not
appropriate for the PIC list and would appreciate not seeing any more posts
on the topic, but for those looking for a counterpoint to global warming,
the book is an excellent start (and entertaining to boot!).

-Matthew

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@102702 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > BTW - For the record. I do believe that global warming is occurring
> > and has been during this inter glacial period.
>
>
> Does anybody not believe that global warming is occurring as
> we continue to move out of the last (mini) ice-age? The
> dispute is over why rather than what.


Well, the real question is 'can we do anything about it, or should we just
sit it out until the next ice-age.'  

The answer to 'is it natural or man-made' isn't really relevant, and it's
probably 'yes' anyway.  (If man can punch a hole in the ozone layer, then a
bit of the blame can be directed that way.)

As James pointed out, making things cleaner & more efficient isn't a bad
idea whatever the reason.

So:

Q1 - Is is hot/cold/windy/different in here?  
A1 - Yes, and you look fat in those pants.

Q2 - Our fault or is it Gaia?  
A2 - Meh, but probably 'Yes'.

Q3 - Can we fix it?
A3 - Maybe, depends if 'Bob The Builder' is busy.

Tony

2007\10\16@102839 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >
> > Or are we seeing land in various places *sinking* ?
>
>
> That is definitely the matter here in Thailand, and likely
> anywhere else they continue pumping massive amounts of water
> fromn the ground for industrial consumption.


In Australia we have problems caused by the reverse.  Farmer pumps water out
of the rivers, the water table rises bringing up salt with it.  Farmer finds
something else to do as not much grows after that.

Can't win, can you?

Tony

2007\10\16@142005 by jtroxas

picon face
I thought its just those floating Ice thats melting...
So those wont raise the sea level even if all of them melt.. however if
land base Ice were to melt.. It will..

"James Newton" <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmassmind.org> wrote in message
news:030c01c80f79$ddeaa120$6600a8c0spamspam_OUTefplus.local...
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@142828 by James Newton

face picon face
Russell, please: Scripture and verse. Don't post what you remember hearing,
what you think it was, or what you know but can't find the reference for.

Facts with references, please.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@142855 by jtroxas

picon face
Nothing we can do about that.. were just too damn addicted with our way of
life.. nothing can change that untill we see millions dying.. at least be
happy we wont be alive when the Ice finaly comes... or maybe it wont and we
just get cooked in one big oven...

"Jim Korman" <@spam@jkormanKILLspamspamalltel.net> wrote in message
news:KILLspam47143AF5.1060803KILLspamspamalltel.net...
{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\10\16@143316 by jtroxas

picon face
Regardless of Global warming what I want is lower energy prices..
whether GW is politically motivated or not.. I dont really care...
Its about time those fu***ng Oil Industry gets some competition.. get more
research done on alternative energy..

"Rich" <RemoveMErgrazia1TakeThisOuTspamrochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7BA96A0C705345D5A8BABB3A290EE71C@RichPC...
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\16@172836 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Project completed - this phase anyway.
Files just sent.
About to sleep long and hard (10am here).

Have had about 4 hours.night for ? 5 days and while I can run like
that it's not good.

BUT before I go:

> Russell, please: Scripture and verse.

As I said, I have it, just not to hand and I wasn't going to destroy a
month's work going to get it for it.

> Don't post what you remember hearing,

Why not?
Some things I remember hearing but not the refs.

Others I know exactly where they came from. Which is what I said was
the case in this case.
If I tell you what it said and I'm sure (apart from a small case of
the units) then it's NO different than you trusting me to read it from
paper and cite it.  The first link is to a private publication from a
retired professor who headed all sorts of interrnationally recognised
sea level professional bodies. The secondary links will be traceable
but the primary one needs you to trust me regardless of how I tell it.

>  what you think it was,

KNOW apart from units.

> or what you know but can't find the reference for.

can find. Just wasn't going to blow the project on something that
sh..peeple will just find bizarre reasons to ignore. :-)

> Facts with references, please.

Fact as given.
Refs are concrete.
data will come.

Meanwhile, despite months of asking many times I've seen nobody
confirm that a little simple analysis of the material James has been
posting (Who drives the Porsche and who owns the Zebra?) shows that
IPCC are saying in science speak "There is NO statistically
significant indication that ...".

You'se guys dig up that simple analysis and I'll get the sealevel
experts data in the next day or 3 (after I sleep).

BTW fwiw, sealevels vary geographically at the same point in time, as
I've said multiple times.

- By around 10m for major currents eg Gulf Stream
- By metres for eg El Ninyo.
- By metres over 50-100 yerars across oceans in a cyclic mode over
10's to 100 years with complex multi noded sloshings happening.
- By 1 km plus at equator due to earth's spin
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and

The NASA satellite data b4 and after 2000 had a step function in it
that turned up on their graphs etc BUT somebody worked out what they'd
done even though NASA wouldn't show them their dice or say where they
threw them.

When even NASA says "I won't give you my data because you will analyse
it (and show I'm wrong) then there's something aglae . It's in writing
fwiw.
Source: I remember, and I saved it.
Refs: I'm going to go and sleep.



       R







       R


>
> --
> James.
>
> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\17@094128 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
I have heard people say that the water cycle is holding more water in
general. I don't care enough to find sources to prove it. Regardless of
whether global warming exists, NOBODY can argue that burning carbon
fuels is good for our health and for the health of the environment. It
is quite the contrary.
-
MK

James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\17@095707 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Martin Klingensmith wrote:

> I have heard people say that the water cycle is holding more water in
> general.

I also have a theory of mine, actually.
We're some 3 billions people more than one century ago; a human body is
made of some 80% water. How much water are all these people "taking
away" from the world ? :)

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\10\17@103716 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Appriximately 0.07 cubic miles of water is contained inside 6 billion
people (assuming 150lb per person, 75% water, 8lb per gallon of water,
0.13368 ft^3 per gallon of water).

This 0.07 cubic miles of water is pretty much nothing in the ocean.

And, for the record, I'm using imperial due the fact that I know a
gallon is about 8lb.  Would anyone care to perform the same
calculations in liters/meters?  Due to the quick nature of it, I could
easily be off by a lot, an independant calculation would be nice.

-Adam

On 10/17/07, Dario Greggio <spamBeGoneadpm.tospamBeGonespaminwind.it> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\17@103755 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>I have heard people say that the water cycle is holding more water in
> general. I don't care enough to find sources to prove it. Regardless
> of
> whether global warming exists, NOBODY can argue that burning carbon
> fuels is good for our health and for the health of the environment.
> It
> is quite the contrary.

I wouldn't argue that point.

But I note that a New scientist article recently suggested that
burning ALL the hydrocarbon deposits may be enough to completely
prevent the next ice age cycle.

It's likely that they are correct.
It's also likely that they are incorrect.



       Russell

2007\10\17@103817 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I also have a theory of mine, actually.
> We're some 3 billions people more than one century ago; a human body
> is
> made of some 80% water. How much water are all these people "taking
> away" from the world ? :)


Average SG ~=1
Say 50l / 50 kg water average (high)
Water in 3 billion people ~= 3E9 x 50 kg = 15E10 kg

Volume of water =
1000 kg = 1 M^3 so 15E7 m^3

Surface of earth = 4 pi r^2 =~~ 4 x 3 x (6.5E6)^2m^2 ~~~~~=  5E14 m^2

[[Aside: m^2/(all people) = 5E14/6E9 = 5E5 each or about 700m x 700m
each.]]

So depth of this much water in metres when spread across earth's
surface =

       15E7/5E14 = 3E-7m

ie about 0.3 micrometre :-)

What is man that you are mindful of him ... ? :-)

E&OE

       Russell




>
> --
> Ciao, Dario
> --

2007\10\17@104017 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> James Newton wrote:
>> The nice thing about actual data is it removes any personal bias.

A good theory anyway.
It's likely that you are correct :-)


       Russell

2007\10\17@104212 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
And, of course, a liter of water weighs one kg.

How terribly _convenient_ for you.

/me scowls at imperial

-Adam

On 10/17/07, M. Adam Davis <TakeThisOuTstienmanEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\18@074414 by Tony Smith

picon face
...and as a bonus occupies 1000 cubic centimeters (that's a 4" cube for you
people stuck in the dark ages :) ).

Extra brownie points awarded by using the fact it takes 1000 calories to
heat that water up by one degree celcius.

All ya gotta know is - Water: 1cm^3 = 1 millilitre = 1 gram = 1 calorie to
heat up 1 degree.  Yay metric!  (For non-water weights, multiply by its
specific gravity, eg ~0.7 for petrol, ~8 for steel)

Why weigh something when you can use a ruler?

Tony


/me laughs at people doing calcs in imperial units.



{Quote hidden}

2007\10\18@170506 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tony Smith wrote:

> Yay metric!  

It's rare to read this in English :)

Gerhard

2007\10\18@181153 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Tony Smith wrote:
>
>> Yay metric!
>
> It's rare to read this in English :)
>
> Gerhard

I'm surprised by that :-).
Maybe rare to read it in 'US English' as the US has not, as
yet, metricated entirely. (As a compromise NASA metricates
half of each spacecraft sent to Mars :-) ).

In NZ we changed from LSD currency (aka Pounds Shillings and
Pence) to decimal in 1967 - 40 years ago this year!

Somewhere after that we metricated our official measurement
systems and have now been using MKSA/ISO so long that the
old system is largely but not totally washed out of our
brains. I still find mpg a better measure than l/100km. (How
far can I go with X fuel as opposed to how much fuel does it
take to go X distance). The former is the most useful as you
watch the gas gauge dropping and succour is 100 km (or
miles) away.

Metric is marvellous.
The Babylonians would be miffed.



       Russell




2007\10\18@212502 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> It's rare to read this in English :)

> I'm surprised by that :-).

You shouldn't be. With all the qualities Kiwis have, sheer numbers is not
one of them.

> I still find mpg a better ...

It's mainly this what I meant :)

> ... measure than l/100km. (How far can I go with X fuel as opposed to how
> much fuel does it take to go X distance). The former is the most useful
> as you watch the gas gauge dropping and succour is 100 km (or miles)
> away.

This difference has nothing to do with metric or imperial. In Brazil, the
common measure for fuel consumption is km/l. I think l/100km is a mainly
German thing (not sure though).

Gerhard

2007\10\18@222902 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I still find mpg a better ...

> It's mainly this what I meant :)

> This difference has nothing to do with metric or imperial.


Indeed.
That was more about getting old units washed out of my
brain.

The preferred imperial unit of fuel economy is, of course,
"per acre".
For metric it's "per hectare".



       Russell

2007\10\19@054949 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Adam,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:34:12 -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Appriximately 0.07 cubic miles of water is contained inside 6 billion
> people (assuming 150lb per person, 75% water, 8lb per gallon of water,
> 0.13368 ft^3 per gallon of water).
>
> This 0.07 cubic miles of water is pretty much nothing in the ocean.
>
> And, for the record, I'm using imperial due the fact that I know a
> gallon is about 8lb.  

<nitpick> Actually, you did it in American, not Imperial.  An Imperial gallon weighs 10lbs. </nitpick>  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\19@072005 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>> And, for the record, I'm using imperial due the fact that I know a
>> gallon is about 8lb.  
>
> <nitpick> Actually, you did it in American, not Imperial.  An Imperial
> gallon weighs 10lbs. </nitpick>  :-)

I love them fringe units -- it's like going to the circus :)

Gerhard

2007\10\19@090155 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> <nitpick> Actually, you did it in American, not Imperial.
>> An Imperial
>> gallon weighs 10lbs. </nitpick>  :-)
>
> I love them fringe units -- it's like going to the circus
> :)


They were, however there first :-)

Having a (real) gallon of water weight 10 pounds was a good
idea.
The only problem was then having 8 pints to the gallon
instead of 10

The Yankees, instead of making their pints 0.8 the size and
having 10 of them, made their gallon 8/10 the size. If
they'd got it right back then we may by now have had another
spacecraft on the surface of Mars.



       Russell




2007\10\19@093246 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  >> <nitpick> Actually, you did it in American, not Imperial.
>>>  An Imperial
>>>  gallon weighs 10lbs. </nitpick>  :-)
>>
>>  I love them fringe units -- it's like going to the circus
>>  :)
>
>
>They were, however there first :-)
>
>Having a (real) gallon of water weight 10 pounds was a good
>idea.
>The only problem was then having 8 pints to the gallon
>instead of 10
>
>The Yankees, instead of making their pints 0.8 the size and
>having 10 of them, made their gallon 8/10 the size. If
>they'd got it right back then we may by now have had another
>spacecraft on the surface of Mars.

Actually, the US gallon is the original English (Queen Anne) gallon.
It was the British who redefined the gallon in 1824. As this was
after the American Revolution, we did not feel inclined to go along
with the change ;-)


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\19@095219 by Peter Bindels

picon face
On 19/10/2007, Chris Smolinski <RemoveMEcsmolinskiEraseMEspamEraseMEblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> Actually, the US gallon is the original English (Queen Anne) gallon.
> It was the British who redefined the gallon in 1824. As this was
> after the American Revolution, we did not feel inclined to go along
> with the change ;-)

The Brits were concerned with MPG numbers that early?

2007\10\19@123607 by Goflo

picon face
Unless you live in a shire where 4 gills = 4/3 pint ...
Avoirdupois, of course.

---- Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechspam_OUTspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\20@114821 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >
> > Yay metric!  
>
> It's rare to read this in English :)
>


Yeah, sad isn't it.  Even in Australia hardware stores still play 'hide the
metric bolts' 40-odd years after converting.

For your amusement, check out a cutting guide for a fairly complicated
project in wood, like a cabinet or something.  All those measurements in
feet, inches & fractions!  The horrors involved in totalling all the parts,
and trying not to make mistakes.

In metric, you just use millimetres and add it up on a calculator.  No
fractions there.  And before someone points out you'll occasionally go into
decimals, well, you do the same in imperial too.  1/1000" exists for a
reason...  It's common to see both fractional & decimal inches on the same
plan, oh the pain.

No doubt when the US goes metric they'll change a few things, like make the
metre = 3 feet and a kilogram = 2 pounds.

I once got a good laugh from some US house renovations show (y'know, fix it
in a weekend stuff) and the contractors were trying to divide up an area to
put arches in.  I think they got it right on the third go.  They faired
about as well putting up a picket fence, fence post errors for real.

Tony

2007\10\20@145436 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tony Smith wrote:

>>> Yay metric!  
>>
>> It's rare to read this in English :)
>
> Yeah, sad isn't it.  

The sad part is all the wasted time and effort.

> It's common to see both fractional & decimal inches on the same plan, oh
> the pain.

I feel with you. I'm a bit involved in mechanical design done in the US,
and it seems that many designers there just "don't do metrics".

> No doubt when the US goes metric they'll change a few things, like make
> the metre = 3 feet and a kilogram = 2 pounds.

Germany actually did the latter (but the other way round: 2 pounds = 1 kg
-- they didn't change the kg :). There were a few versions of pounds
("Pfund") around before, AFAIK, and they were simply "metricised". When I
was young, you'd still buy the bread at the bakery by the (metric) pound.

Gerhard

2007\10\20@205326 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> No doubt when the US goes metric they'll change a few
>> things, like make
>> the metre = 3 feet and a kilogram = 2 pounds.
>
> Germany actually did the latter (but the other way round:
> 2 pounds = 1 kg
> -- they didn't change the kg :). There were a few versions
> of pounds
> ("Pfund") around before, AFAIK, and they were simply
> "metricised". When I
> was young, you'd still buy the bread at the bakery by the
> (metric) pound.

Milk in 600 ml bottles - while the glass bottles lasted -
long gone now..
Many things in 454 gram bagfuls
Even now, N decades on,  there are probably 454 gram food
objects for sale in our supermarkets.

2007\10\22@094524 by William Couture

face picon face
On 10/20/07, Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechTakeThisOuTspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

> Many things in 454 gram bagfuls
> Even now, N decades on,  there are probably 454 gram food
> objects for sale in our supermarkets.

I see 454 gram items in the market all the time.  I even see
453.6 gram items.

Of course, I am in the USA...

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2007\10\25@180222 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William Couture wrote:

> On 10/20/07, Russell McMahon <EraseMEapptechspamspamspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Many things in 454 gram bagfuls
>> Even now, N decades on,  there are probably 454 gram food
>> objects for sale in our supermarkets.
>
> I see 454 gram items in the market all the time.  I even see
> 453.6 gram items.
>
> Of course, I am in the USA...

That's all only to make price comparisons more difficult :)

Gerhard


'[OT] Ocean high water data.'
2007\12\26@022621 by Apptech
face
flavicon
face
I'll leave all the prior post untrimmed at the end of this
post, as a look at the page I've referenced may encourage
some more than averagely inquiring minds to delve further
into the prior material.

A look at the notes in

       http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/commentaries/west_coast_north_america.pdf

which are by a respected researcher with the "Permanent
Service for Mean Sea Level" service, may provide material
for long term mental background processing by those
genuinely interested in the reality behind the various
material being presented on "climate change".

Taking his Figure 1.1 and pondering on how valid
extrapolation of the 2 incomplete curves to the left might
be, and the implications of the apparent trends from about
1900 (or about 1850) to the present may be entertaining.

Graphs such as figures 1.5 and 1.6.1 will be of no surprise
to sealevel experts but may give laymen food for thought.
(The notes to 1.6.1 give some probable reasons for what is
seen).

Figure 1.8 is interesting, especially when compared to most
other graphs.

Note the comment below 1.8.




               Russell

PS    Don't let me do more than point a few things out that
may be of interest. Immediate interpretation may be about as
useful as having me expound at length on what it all may
mean :-) :-(. As I noted at the start, filing it all away
for mental processing is probably more useful.



_________________

Interest & Information only - Semi-random semi-facts:

- The equivalent sea-level content of various land-ice
reservoirs is

0.5m    Small ice caps and all glaciers
7 m      Greenland
61m     Antarctica


- 1C increase in global mean air temperature would result to
~~~~= 100 mm rise in sea level due to thermal expansion.

______________________________________________



{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...