Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A massive volcano that scientists can't find

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#31

Post by maxxxxx »

lostlogin wrote: post #14
Pitarou wrote: post #6

> 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.

I agree, I thought the Olympic swimming pool was the only unit of measure for journalism.

the question now is: How many Olympic swimming pools fit into the Empire State Building?

But seriously, I am OK using this kind of unit to illustrate that something is really big but at a minimum they should also add some real units.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#32

Post by maxxxxx »

agucho wrote: post #18

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…

They should just write "really big".

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#33

Post by dmurray »

Retric wrote: post #27
wfunction wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Empire State buildings base is almost 2 acres x 443.2 m tall and a square km is 247 acres. 2 * 443m * 37 million / 424 million (424,000 thousand) / 247 ~= 0.3m so covered to the depth of 1 foot. Which seems more reasonable. ED: Ahh, they had wrong area for California. It's 424,000 square kilometers not "424,000 thousand square kilometers"

That 424million should be 424,000, so we are back at 300m deep. Except the ESB doesn't fill anywhere near all of the (2 acres x 443m) cuboid, so 100m is closer.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#34

Post by [deleted] »

dmurray wrote: post #33
Retric wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Empire State buildings base is almost 2 acres x 443.2 m tall and a square km is 247 acres. 2 * 443m * 37 million / 424 million (424,000 thousand) / 247 ~= 0.3m so covered to the depth of 1 foot. Which seems more reasonable. ED: Ahh, they had wrong area for California. It's 424,000 square kilometers not "424,000 thousand square kilometers"

That 424million should be 424,000, so we are back at 300m deep. Except the ESB doesn't fill anywhere near all of the (2 acres x 443m) cuboid, so 100m is closer.

[deleted]

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#35

Post by Retric »

dmurray wrote: post #33
Retric wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Empire State buildings base is almost 2 acres x 443.2 m tall and a square km is 247 acres. 2 * 443m * 37 million / 424 million (424,000 thousand) / 247 ~= 0.3m so covered to the depth of 1 foot. Which seems more reasonable. ED: Ahh, they had wrong area for California. It's 424,000 square kilometers not "424,000 thousand square kilometers"

That 424million should be 424,000, so we are back at 300m deep. Except the ESB doesn't fill anywhere near all of the (2 acres x 443m) cuboid, so 100m is closer.

Yea, I was thinking they where off by 1000 somewhere. Checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California gives (423,970 km2).

And yea, 1/3 of the volume is a better approximation but the numbers where so far off that seemed less useful.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#36

Post by dmurray »

maxxxxx wrote: post #31
lostlogin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I thought the Olympic swimming pool was the only unit of measure for journalism.

the question now is: How many Olympic swimming pools fit into the Empire State Building? But seriously, I am OK using this kind of unit to illustrate that something is really big but at a minimum they should also add some real units.

The real problem is that 37 million is too big a number. Saying something would fill 10 or even 100 Empire State Buildings is relatable. Once you say 37 million ESBs or 10 billion swimming pools, you might as well say it's 10 quadrillion coffee cups full.

I prefer the examples higher up the thread of filling the Grand Canyon 9 times or submerging all of California to a depth of 100m.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#37

Post by dredmorbius »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #3

Imagine observing these events and trying to explain them with rudimentary scientific understanding. At the time, the best explanations for volcanoes involved wind causing friction in narrow canyons or subterranean rivers of fire, but nobody really knew. One can appreciate mythology more in this light, given the titanic scale of volcanic eruptions and an entire species agape in wonder. Cool stuff. Really drives home…

The study of the evolution of understanding of geology itself, particularly from the late 18th century, when things started hotting up, is pretty interesting.

A lot of initial observations and attempts to reconcile those with the biblical record, but that didn't add up. Lyell establishing gradualism. Lord Kelvin noting that thermodynamic cooling only allowed for about 30 million years of Earth history (pretty clearly not consistent with the structural geological record). Rutherford, Soddy, and Hardy establishing radioactivity and radiodating. Plate tectonics being proposed (initially as "continental drift"), rejected as patently absurd, and adopted some 50 years later as the fundamental organising principle of geology.

Added gloss from discoveries such as the Chixulub impactor, etc.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#38

Post by kijin »

tinco wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

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…

Is this really correct? You'd think with modern imaging it would be fairly easy to spot a 100m high magma formation the size of california. How does magma even flow with such volume, it sounds like it would create an island that everyone would know the name of.

In an explosive eruption, the magma doesn't just flow downhill and solidify in place like it does in Hawaii. It gets blown to smithereens by expanding gases and the resulting fine particles are scattered all over the world. All that's left is a hole in the ground, which will be quickly filled in if it's below sea level.

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#39

Post by dTal »

agucho wrote: post #18

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…

Well, you know the trouble with standards...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-conv...

Re: A massive volcano that scientists can't find

#40

Post by maxxxxx »

dmurray wrote: post #36
maxxxxx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question now is: How many Olympic swimming pools fit into the Empire State Building? But seriously, I am OK using this kind of unit to illustrate that something is really big but at a minimum they should also add some real units.

The real problem is that 37 million is too big a number. Saying something would fill 10 or even 100 Empire State Buildings is relatable. Once you say 37 million ESBs or 10 billion swimming pools, you might as well say it's 10 quadrillion coffee cups full. I prefer the examples higher up the thread of filling the Grand Canyon 9 times or submerging all of California to a depth of 100m.

How about writing 1000 cubic kilometer and then adding that this is the equivalent of 10 times the Grand canyon? I just would like to see real units. I also don't know how long a football field is.
Post reply on HN