6 ms·

"1.2 cubic kilometers" is a ridiculous unit, because it obscures the cubic power on the kilometer. "1.2 billion cubic meters" would be much better.

effie 10y ago
I'd rather say 1.2 cubic kilometers is easily visualizable, 1.2 billion of whatever not so much.
- nucleardog 10y ago
  1.2 cubic kilometres is definitely more intuitively visualized, but I'd prefer it taken even further. "Enough CO2 to blanket a 35km by 35km area at 1 metre deep." or "Enough CO2 that, settled at 1 metre deep, it would blanket the land to nearly 20km away." I think either really paints a more easily understood picture of what a colossal amount of gas this actually is.
  - vacri 10y ago
    You'd probably want to increase the depth in that measure, because phrased that way, it sounds like you could just stand up to avoid the CO2.
    - kijin 10y ago
      According to the article, you could actually stand up to live if you were far enough from the lake. People lying on the floor, on the other hand, died.
ScottBurson 10y ago
Even better would have been to give the mass instead of the volume, because the volume depends on the temperature and pressure. Assuming STP, I get 2.16 billion kg, which I guess most people would call 2.16 million tonnes, though I'm rather inclined to write it as 2.16 Tg :-) That's .01% of worldwide annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. (Someone should check my arithmetic -- it's been a long time since I last applied the ideal gas law.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kragen 10y ago
The SI unit is liters; 1.2 cubic kilometers is 1.2 teraliters. I wish people would just use SI units in things like this. However, as other commenters point out, it's also useful to visualize this in different ways: it's a 660-meter-radius sphere, it covers 60000 hectares to two meters deep, or it covers 120000 hectares to one meter deep, or it would cover a 19km radius to one meter deep.

effie 10y ago

I'd rather say 1.2 cubic kilometers is easily visualizable, 1.2 billion of whatever not so much.

nucleardog 10y ago
1.2 cubic kilometres is definitely more intuitively visualized, but I'd prefer it taken even further. "Enough CO2 to blanket a 35km by 35km area at 1 metre deep." or "Enough CO2 that, settled at 1 metre deep, it would blanket the land to nearly 20km away." I think either really paints a more easily understood picture of what a colossal amount of gas this actually is.
- vacri 10y ago
  You'd probably want to increase the depth in that measure, because phrased that way, it sounds like you could just stand up to avoid the CO2.
  - kijin 10y ago
    According to the article, you could actually stand up to live if you were far enough from the lake. People lying on the floor, on the other hand, died.

ScottBurson 10y ago

Even better would have been to give the mass instead of the volume, because the volume depends on the temperature and pressure. Assuming STP, I get 2.16 billion kg, which I guess most people would call 2.16 million tonnes, though I'm rather inclined to write it as 2.16 Tg :-) That's .01% of worldwide annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. (Someone should check my arithmetic -- it's been a long time since I last applied the ideal gas law.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kragen 10y ago

The SI unit is liters; 1.2 cubic kilometers is 1.2 teraliters. I wish people would just use SI units in things like this. However, as other commenters point out, it's also useful to visualize this in different ways: it's a 660-meter-radius sphere, it covers 60000 hectares to two meters deep, or it covers 120000 hectares to one meter deep, or it would cover a 19km radius to one meter deep.