21–30 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, I thought the Olympic swimming pool was the only unit of measure for journalism.
In the UK, they used to use the volume of Wembley Stadium (a well-known sports ground), but then it was demolished and rebuilt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, I thought the Olympic swimming pool was the only unit of measure for journalism.
In the UK, they used to use the volume of Wembley Stadium (a well-known sports ground), but then it was demolished and rebuilt.
Mighty interesting, sure. Still, I can't stand these awe-driven narratives. The formula is getting old and in the jumping from one wow to the next a lot of the real questions and facts are left half-explained. And as somebody already pointed out, the units... football fields, Hiroshima bombs and the area of California... they should standardize those already, right? Journalists could use abbreviations and the rest of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the volume of the ESB is about 1e6 m³. So that's about 37e12 m³ of magma. But yeah, using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything.
> using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything Manhattan has a land area of 59.1 square kilometers [1]. 37e12 m³ of magma would fill the land area of Manhattan to over 600 kilometers, i.e. well past the boundary of space. Alternatively, it would fill California's 424,000 thousand square kilometers to 100 meters, or…
That sounds like a hell of a lot more than 37 million times the volume of the Empire State Building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything Manhattan has a land area of 59.1 square kilometers [1]. 37e12 m³ of magma would fill the land area of Manhattan to over 600 kilometers, i.e. well past the boundary of space. Alternatively, it would fill California's 424,000 thousand square kilometers to 100 meters, or…
> Alternatively, it would fill California's 424,000 thousand square kilometers to 100 meters That sounds like a hell of a lot more than 37 million times the volume of the Empire State Building.
ED: Ahh, they had wrong area for California. It's 424,000 square kilometers not "424,000 thousand square kilometers"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the volume of the ESB is about 1e6 m³. So that's about 37e12 m³ of magma. But yeah, using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything.
> using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything Manhattan has a land area of 59.1 square kilometers [1]. 37e12 m³ of magma would fill the land area of Manhattan to over 600 kilometers, i.e. well past the boundary of space. Alternatively, it would fill California's 424,000 thousand square kilometers to 100 meters, or…
> they estimated that Kuwae’s eruption had released vast quantities of magma, enough to fill the Empire State Building 37 million times over This is a unit of journalistic measurement I have never come across before.
Mighty interesting, sure. Still, I can't stand these awe-driven narratives. The formula is getting old and in the jumping from one wow to the next a lot of the real questions and facts are left half-explained. And as somebody already pointed out, the units... football fields, Hiroshima bombs and the area of California... they should standardize those already, right? Journalists could use abbreviations and the rest of…
Exactly! When future historians read back at writing from our time period - if it is still around - then how do you think they'll characterize it?