But those other examples suffer from the same flaw that no one has any intuitive understanding of how big those events are.
- Tonga eruption was 1e7 tons
- Hurricane Katrina was 1e10 tons
- Melting Antarctica is 1e12 tons (afaict)
- 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.