New Estimates Say Earth's Oceans Smaller Than Once Believed

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."

Comments

Well it was more volumous...

[MyLongNickName]

Well, it was more volumous. But all those sponges soaked up so much.

How about some metric figures?

[Edisman]

For all you metric fans out there, the volume 320 × 10^6 cubic miles is approx. 133.4 × 10^7 cubic km with an average depth of 3.69 km.

Re:How about some metric figures?

[Red Flayer]

For all you metric fans out there, the volume 320 × 10^6 cubic miles is approx. 133.4 × 10^7 cubic km with an average depth of 3.69 km.

Yes, but that's meaningless to most people, it's a VLN without context. For all you fans of real, visceral numbers you can relate to, that volume (1.33 x 10^9 km^3) is approximately equal to the amount of water in the earth's oceans.

Hope that helps you to understand the magnitude of the number. Glad to be of service.

Re:How about some metric figures?

[camperdave]

Everyone knows that you are supposed to use miles for length and gallons for volume.

It wouldn't be so much of a problem to deal with your backward measurements, except you have so many of them: Furlongs, inches, yards, feet, leagues, gauges, links, rods, chains, fathoms, hands, nails, and who knows how many more. Why even your "mile" comes in geographical, international, survey, telegraph, tactical, and three different nautical flavours (admiralty, international, and US). An ounce of gold is heavier than an ounce of feathers, but a pound of gold is lighter than a pound of feathers. It's insane!

The really sad part of it all is that all your measurements are based on the metric standards anyways. So why not save your sanity and convert fully?

Re:How about some metric figures?

[Anonymous Coward]

The really sad part of it all is that all your measurements are based on the metric standards anyways. So why not save your sanity and convert fully?

You are really clueless if you can't think of all the obstacles. MPH and how you measure your fat ass or assess the temperature are the least of the concerns. There are also matters of "hard" vs "soft" conversion. A "soft" conversion would be taking a standard unit wrench set (1/16" increments, e.g.) and numerically translating that to metric values. Easy and it can be done exactly and it is 100% compatible in both directions. It is also 100% fucking stupid as it creates a 3rd tool standard that is identical to an existing standard in all but name only. Buying a metric set of tools is easy. Many sets in the states will have both. What is difficult is all the associated hardware you must work with. At our small company, we retire a machine after - ohhhhh - maybe 20 to 30 years of work. So the machines we just bought that aren't 100% metric or are mixed are likely to be that way for decades. Consider other areas like building codes specifying 6" of insulation or 2x4s (~1.5" x ~3.5"). Again, we don't want "soft" conversions but rather the "hard" conversions that share an existing standard. Going metric would involve at least approving whatever the European equivalents would be. I hope nobody dies because of it! All our air water electrical conduit is in inches. I have never even seen pipe or conduit options in a metric size - that I recall. So very much of the imperial system is ingrained into everything we do.

What would be nice is if the pro-metric crowd would address the tough issues, seek parity where equivalents can be used, and - lastly - realize that this is a 100 year project where the 'hearts and minds' are the last thing you need to worry about. You can sell people on simplicity but you need to make a good case for it. Lastly - and I always say this - if the pro metric crowd cared about standards, they would ditch the French language. The sooner it is dead, the better. We don't need it.

Re:Evaporation?

[Vinegar Joe]

earth will become one giant desert

Raise worms
Produce spice
Profit!

Re:Is that so hard?

[DamienNightbane]

There are tons of places off the coasts that are far shallower with lots of oil. They couldn't drill in those spots because the government wouldn't let them, thus forcing them to drill in the more risky deep ocean wells where gas likes to freeze and make your rigs explode.

Re:Paging Captain Nemo

[DamienNightbane]

The title "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" refers to the distance traveled, not the depth.

Re:Evaporation?

[w0mprat]

While it's true we lose some gas at the top of our atmosphere, earth is probably sufficiently large that we have a net growth due to meteorite bombardment. (By every measure I've heard of the earth is supposedly getting heavier). We may take on extra H2O from water ice in meteroids?

Re:I estimate

[ascari]

640 billion people? I suppose new estimates say Earth's population is larger than once believed...

Re:I estimate

[c6gunner]

Maybe FOX got it from a real news source, but I don't trust FOX.

That just means you're being brainwashed by a different news sources. You shouldn't trust ANY of them.