I think that using metres per second for wind speed would be an excellent idea. I made
the statement about retaining MPH for wind speed simply because it would be much
easier to sneak in celsius, kilopascals, and millimetres without much notice. Folks
understand speed from their cars.
However if metres per second is used it is much easier to actually picture a feather
or leaf travelling 10 metres (or 10 yards) in 1 second than 36 kilometres in one hour.
One used to using MPH would only have to multiply the metre/second value by two to
approximate miles per hour. I have a key-ring thermometer from Finland that has a
conversion table for windchill on the reverse. All the wind speeds quoted are in
metres per second. I have also seed other non-technical Finnish references on the web
that use metres per second for wind speed that lead me to believe that is how that
country reports wind speed to the general public.
Could the British members on the list shed some light on how weather is reported in
the UK?
greg
Saskatoon SK Canada
>>> Joseph B. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2001-03-22 09:08:03 >>>
Gregory Peterson wrote in USMA 11759:
>I still think that the US needs more of an obvious trigger. Weather would be
>a very good place to start to put metric in peoples faces.
>As I said before, start with degrees Celsius, kilopascals, and
>millimetres/centimetres of precipitation. Leave the MPH in place for wind
>speeds until the highways are done.
>
>This way people see metric, begin talking with metric terms and before long
>they'll end up preferring freezing at 0 rather than 32. It's too easy to say
>"a can of soup" whether it's 250 ml or 10 floz.
>
>greg
I see no reason to retain wind speeds in mph. The public would have no
more objection m/s or km/h than to °C, kPa, mm or cm. This is passive
metrication that requires no response on the part of members of the general
public.
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
