New Estimates Say Earth's Oceans Smaller Than Once Believed 263
Velcroman1 writes with this snippet from Fox News: "Using lead weights and depth sounders, scientists have made surprisingly accurate estimates of the ocean's depths in the past. Now, with satellites and radar, researchers have pinned down a more accurate answer to that age-old query: How deep is the ocean? And how big? As long ago as 1888, John Murray dangled lead weights from a rope off a ship to calculate the ocean's volume — the product of area and mean ocean depth. Using satellite data, researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute set out to more accurately answer that question — and found out that it's 320 million cubic miles. And despite miles-deep abysses like the Mariana Trench, the ocean's mean depth is just 2.29 miles, thanks to the varied and bumpy ocean floor."
What were the earlier estimates? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what were the earlier estimates? I'm on Slashdot => I did not RTFA.
Evaporation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Evaporation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't panic, it's not very fast, but we DO need to encase it, ourselves and the sun in a giant Dyson Sphere [wikipedia.org] soon to mitigate the problem.
Re:What were the earlier estimates? (Score:2, Interesting)
1 cubic mile is about 26 billion barrels.
Where do that start measuring? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evaporation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about some metric figures? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How about some metric figures? (Score:1, Interesting)
Japan did it, and it worked. Everything was in an old measurement system. Distance, weight, volume, area, it was all in an old standard that is comparable to the imperial system in that there were soft conversions as well. The conversion was mostly made after WWII, but more than 60 years later, we still use the same measurements, converted to metric, for a lot of things. For example, 1 "sho" of a liquid is approximately 1.8 liter. So you buy a "sho" of a liquid, knowing fully well it is 1.8 liters. Common housing is built on the old standard, but done entirely so using the metric system. (For example, the width of a standard door is 1 "gen" but there are no rulers that use such a unit.)
You would think that such a conversion would be even more difficult than the US considering that 1 "masu" (a volume unit used for both dry and wet goods) in Japan was not a solid unit, as East Japan and West Japan used a slightly different size as the basis for the unit. But it worked.
While I wouldn't say it would be easy to convert to the metric system, claiming that it is nearly impossible because everything is based on it (of course it is!) is ignorant at best. Guess what, we use 2x4 lumber to build houses too these days. But no one uses an inch/foot ruler to figure things out. We use the metric system. And roll our eyes over the fact that 2x4 isn't even 2" x 4".
This is coming from an ex-pat living in Japan by the way. Converting isn't easy, but it is hardly as hard as you make it sound. The only reason the British are still in such a weird situation with a mix-match of units is, as far as I can tell, because they are British. It's called the imperial system for a reason.
So what benefits do you have in switching? I'll leave that for NASA to explain.