Besoeker

Point taken.
101325 Pa is the same as 1013.25 mB is what I said.
So yes, I agree - Hectopascals.
Mostly I use SI for calculations in my field. I have done so for 40 some years. I can use Imperial but SI greatly simplifies many calculations.
As a quick example for power:
Imperial 1 hp = 33000ft-lb/minute or 550 ft-lb/s
SI 1Watt = 1Nm/s

There was no EU when I started my career. I think entry to the Common Market was on the agenda at the time - and as I recall Labour were vehemently opposed to it. EEC followed then it was EU.

I have been and still am strongly opposed to integration with the EU. I objected to the common market when my uncle, a farmer looking after our land, made as much out of subsidies for producing stuff we didn't need and could not have sold as he did in his job as a bourough surveyor.
I'd like to see a single good reason to continue to be part of the circus.

That said, metric has been around for about 200 years. And, for engineering, it is convenient. For me, in my professional capacity, it is the system of choice. CHOICE.

What I greatly object to is being REQUIRED to use SI units. If a market trader like Steve Thorburn and his customers want to sell and purchase bananas by the pound, those are the terms of the supply and purchase their contract.

I have no idea why some collection of nutters could come up with the idea that declaring trading in Imperial units illegal in UK would be a "good move".

Stupidity doesn't have enough syllables.

Clippo

I've kept out of this thread, partly because I've been demolishing mpkdavies' fatuous ideas on another. In that thread the issue of whether a trace quantity in a system, (in this case CO2 in the atmosphere), can have an effect on the system disproportionate to its' size.

Now, I've just seen Aardvark's 12.16pm post today, and for a non-scientist I presume, he has a remarkable grasp of commonsense on this issue. He has explained it clearly & succinctly. I would only add an example like vitamins. Your body needs only milligram or less levels of some of these to keep certain body processes functioning properly. In proportion to the weight of food you normally take in during a day, the levels of these are orders of magnitude less than CO2 in air. Also, ever heard of catalysts in chemical reactions?

You did make one severe mistake though Aardvark – that was referring mpkdavies to that internationally respected magazine, the New Scientist ( a private sarcastic dig).

Mpkdavies wrote:-
In the first instance,y ou will probably find some information on this in a reasonably popular geology textbook, with hopefully references to the detailed studies.

I haven’t time now to go and look things up but I think it is speculated that the earth’s atmosphere not long after its’ formation was a mixture of nitrogen, ammonia, hydrogen, methane and maybe nasties like hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide. There is no real way of knowing proportions and those gases are only speculated from occurrences in the rest of the solar system by space probes. It is also speculated that the vast majority of Earth’s water came from captured comets.

Leaving aside how life became established, (if you are not a creationist), at one period, I think 2-3 billion years ago, primitive bacteria evolved in some way to be able to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, possibly by an earlier version of photosynthesis that we see today in the respiration of plants. It is thought that these bacteria were completely analogous to stromatolites still found in NW Australia. It is thought there were periodic cycles of regular oxygen production (as evidenced by ‘rust’ banding in iron containing rocks radio-dated to those ages in various world locations, particularly Australia).

How the proportions of oxygen & nitrogen then changed over eons is a formidable scientific problem to solve so I think you are unlikely to get a reliable answer.

With regard to CO2 over the eons, I don’t know where it first came from. It is accepted that the earth, alone amongst the planets, received more than its’ fair share of elemental carbon in planetary formation as well as methane, but it would require a much more formidable paleo-chemist than I to suggest a mechanism of CO2 formation from this elemental carbon. I could have ago but it would be speculation.

Since oxygen supports combustion, its’ value will almost certainly have changed regularly over time.

It’s just occurred to me also that if you want a layman’s history of the earth, including some references to the atmosphere, try to hire Earth Story, by Aubrey manning on DVD. It goes on about plate tectonics a bit but I found it interesting as I did Bill Bryson’s book.

I can only say in conclusion that CO2 may be a tiny proportion of the atmosphere but, by implication of the historical graphs you’ve put up in all sorts of threads, you must readily accept that changes in CO2 concentration have large atmospheric effects.

That’s what you & mankind must focus on – but I fear we, or our children, are in for a rough ride.

mkpdavies

It's not about being successful, it is about satisfying a question on oxygen and what the fluctuations of that are. I still can't find anythign, so maybe you are right and it has been rock solid stable. That in itself is interesting to me.



Another sign of the cult mentality. Delusion. You have demolished any thing but your own credibilty. I'm quite enjoying your little rants though, so please do continue.

See how the cult mind takes the opinion of someone and elevevate it to high improtance.

Sarcastic? Moi?

Well if it's in a book, then it'll be on the web. Feel free to post it if/when you find it.

Convienient, but fair enough.

Some atmospheric effects, but the amount humans had added and the near lows historical co2 levels, means I certainly don't accept any doom scenarios being spurting by the usual suspects.

It'll go down as the biggest waste of time and money ever. Worse, it could go down as the action that kept Africa poor and stunted human technology enough to stop it surving in the futre, when an Ice Age or super volcano, or mega meteor or some other distaster that has happened before strikes.

This litteraly could be the human race being taken to its demise, by a hystrerical religious death cult.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Clippo

I’ve just had chance to check in a geology book and in that one it says, as I explained earlier that the early earth was devoid of oxygen until stromatolite type bacteria evolved ca 3.5 billion years ago. The book says the atmosphere at that time was probably Nitrogen and CO2 + traces of others but of course proportions are virtually impossible to determine. However, these mutated bacteria started to produce oxygen from CO2 and water by the photosynthetic (i.e. sunlight/uv) method that plants use today. Early emissions of oxygen were soaked up by iron containing rocks to form the rust-banded formations I mentioned. Gradually, the oxygen level in the atmosphere rose from an estimated 0.2% at 3-3.5 billion years ago to about 17% at the end of the so-called vendian geological period at 650 million years ago. So obviously it hasn’t changed much since.
The arrival of oxygen on the atmospheric scene had another useful side effect for life on earth. Before this time, there was no protection for life near the ocean surfaces because intense UV had no barrier to reaching the ocean surface. However, with oxygen present, UV interacted with it to produce ozone which in turn absorbed UV light – thus stopping it from blasting life on the ocean surface. Hence the modern worry about the ozone ‘hole’ that developed over the Antarctic a decade or so ago, but is now thankfully reported to be re-filling.

mkpdavies

I wouldn't break open the champagne yet.

Does remind me of CFCs being banned in fridges though. Meant all fridges became less efficient, thus use more energy.

The Chinese didn't bother and still used CFCs. Because ridges are a closed system, these CFCs are only ever a problem if not disposed of properly. So they have much better energy efficiency (CFCs are better than the alternatives) and don't harm the environment anyway.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Clippo

Clippo wrote:-
mpkdavies wrote in reply:-
Yet in the dingbat thread

Clippo wrote:-
mpkdavies reply :-
Certainly getting your ideas mixed up a bit now. You definitely aren’t a clear thinker mpkdavies are you!

mkpdavies

Don't you understand that I can accept small things can have big effects, but have seen nothing to convince that is the case in this instance?

If that's clear thinking, then give me murky.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems