Even though the damage types are not analogous people still want a crude metaphor for how "big" the blast was. Since people are going to compare it to a nuke regardless you might as well have some rough criteria for how a comparison could happen.
Also since 1945, had there been just a single size of nukes? I may not have a sense of how big a Hiroshima nuke was as compared to a 1975 nuke vs a 2022 nuke. Just saying ... a better comparison (which I don't know as I am not a subject expert) could be developed.
Maybe "enough energy to melt 1980 Antarctica" or some other similar scary comparison. Maybe "10 times the energy of hurricane Katrina"
Edited the last 3 words
- Tonga eruption was 1e7 tons
- Hurricane Katrina was 1e10 tons
- Melting Antarctica is 1e12 tons (afaict)
But when I see "comparable to a nuke" at least I know immediately that this is a major event. A hurricane, powerful as it may be, is harder to grasp for a comparison.
As a non-American, I do.
I agree comparable to a nuke is better, I was just commenting that Katrina for a large number of people is quite different than the other examples and does convey an intuitive understanding.
While noting that intuitive understandings are imprecise.
Katrina did squat to the city except tear up some roofs and windows. The water deposited just so happened to breach some flood control stuff and then all the damage was a result of everything being immersed in floodwater. A storm releases energy in the form of find and droplets of liquid being accelerated by gravity and flung around by said wind. An explosion releases a pressure wave.
Comparing energy released in storms to explosions is like saying a leafblower can push harder than a dude with a sledge because it has more horsepower. Neither comparison serves any useful purpose.
It doesn’t make much sense to compare the energy released by Katrina to that of the Tonga eruption.
I’m personally a huge fan that the most destructive device in human history can can be thrown around in conversation simply, as a four letter word, and as simply as one would refer to a “book” as being a good source inspiration, or “coke” as being a delicious beverage. Yes, a “nuke” can be inspirationally delicious comparison for destruction.
Perhaps comparisons to “nukes” should be reserved to their “human impact”, and not simply their “big boom” factor. I’m sure victims of nuclear weapons, and unfortunate locals of nuclear test sites would agree.
Say, it’s likely more accurate to say “That TikTok went nuclear”, than any comparisons of an explosion or eruption to a “nuke”.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-energy-of-a-thunderstorm-...
If that's correct than that comparison doesn't initially sound as cool as a nuclear blast... :). But I guess that that's related to the duration of a blast vs. thunderstorm...?