<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Carcinisation]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://carcinisation.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[strevdrrev]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://carcinisation.com/author/strevdrrev/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Ice Under the&nbsp;Bridge]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>The BBC is renowned worldwide for the high quality of its journalism. Take <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4718573.stm">this article from 2005</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>A thirsty thief is being blamed for downing a bottle of water, valued at £42,500, at a literary festival.</p>
<p>The two-litre clear plastic bottle containing melted ice from the Antarctic was devised to highlight global warming by artist Wayne Hill&#8230;</p>
<p>Its value was worked out by the artist from the damage worldwide of the entire ice sheet melting &#8211; he estimates between £6 trillion and £9 trillion &#8211; and the relative amount of damage from two litres of water.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hmm. Something seems off about those numbers. Let&#8217;s check them!</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>A two liter bottle of water weighs two kilograms. At £42,500 for a bottle, that&#8217;s about £21,250 per kilogram. A cubic meter of water weighs a metric ton, or 1,000 kilograms. So a cubic meter of Antarctic meltwater is worth, by this artist&#8217;s standard, a little over £21 million (as of 2005).</p>
<p>How much ice would £9 trillion buy at that exchange rate? £9,000,000,000,000 divided by £21,000,000/m^3 is roughly half a million cubic meters. That works out to an 80 meter cube (about enough to fill a football stadium) or a one meter thick iceberg with a surface area of half a square kilometer (something you might see a forlorn polar bear wandering around on in a BBC documentary). A football stadium full of ice is pretty big&#8230;but not really enough to cover <em>an entire continent</em>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15">B-15</a>, the largest iceberg on record, had a surface area of 11,000 square kilometers, and was probably more than <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ice_Shelf">100 meters thick</a>&#8212;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Research_on_Iceberg_B-15A_by_Josh_Landis,_National_Science_Foundation_%28Image_4%29_%28NSF%29.jpg">take a look at the picture</a>, and note that only about 10% of an iceberg is above water.</p>
<p>Well, maybe there&#8217;s a translation error. Maybe by &#8216;trillion&#8217; the artist means not the American or scientific trillion, 10^12, but the continental trillion, 10^18, which is 1,000,000 times bigger. In that case, £9 trillion does buy you <del>a </del><del>few</del> a big chunk of one B-15<del>s</del> worth of ice. That&#8217;s still <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B15a_a4.jpg">not nearly enough to cover Antarctica;</a> not even just the ice shelf around it. It&#8217;s also many orders of magnitude greater than the <em>entire economic output of the human race</em> since the dawn of recorded history.</p>
<p>Or, perhaps, the artist pulled the numbers out of thin air because they sounded impressive and he knew that nobody at a &#8216;literary festival&#8217; would ever think to check. Certainly the BBC didn&#8217;t bother to.</p>
<blockquote><p>He said: &#8220;The concept is to take something as dangerous as that and to bring it immediately into somebody&#8217;s presence.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Or maybe the concept is to engage in hollow titillation of the audience&#8217;s self-concept as (in Neil Tennant&#8217;s words) The Persuaded We. If they actually gave a for-real damn, they&#8217;d apply simple arithmetic to test a contentious claim. Instead, they get to stare in mute, respectful silence at a bottle on a pedestal. This <em>is</em> how religions get started.</p>
]]></html></oembed>