Why Do Media Outlets Often Get Unit Conversions Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redbelly98
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on frustrations with professionals making errors in unit conversions, particularly in scientific contexts. A notable example is the miscalculation of the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice, where 1 million square kilometers was incorrectly stated as approximately 620,000 square miles instead of the correct conversion of about 385,000 square miles. Participants express annoyance at the lack of attention to detail, especially when it comes to squaring conversion factors for area calculations. There are also mentions of common errors in reporting electricity prices, where distinctions between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours are often overlooked. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate unit conversions in scientific communication and the potential consequences of such mistakes, referencing a historical incident where NASA lost a spacecraft due to a similar error. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for precision in professional settings to avoid misunderstandings and misinformation.
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
186
It really annoys me when professionals mess up unit conversions.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090403/sc_afp/usclimatewarming_20090403144320
"The amount of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice at the end of summer by then could be only about 1 million square kilometers, or about 620,000 square miles," said US researchers who authored the study published Thursday.


(1 million km^2 is actually 390,000 square miles.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
My personal one is the unnecessary number of decimal places (especially here in metric land)
I just bought a barbecue that warns me to keep it 182.8cm (6ft?) away from flammable materials.
 
EDIT: responding to deleted post.

The conversion is not between km and miles, rather it is between square km and square miles.

1 million km^2 = (1000 km) x (1000 km)
= (621 miles) x (621 miles)
= 621 x 621 miles^2
= 385,000 sq. miles

It's a common enough error for science students, not to square the length conversion factor in order to get to get area. Just a little irksome when professionals do this.
 
Last edited:
mgb_phys said:
I just bought a barbecue that warns me to keep it 182.8cm (6ft?) away from flammable materials.

LOL, that's funny!

I swear I would fall over if a local news agency ever grasped the difference between kWs, and kW-Hrs. Any time I see a story about the price of electricity, they always cite the price in cents per kW.
 
I'd buy a kW for $100 if I could keep it for the rest of my life.
 
Proton Soup said:

I was also thinking about google... and this monday xkcd

http://www.xkcd.com/563/

fermirotica.png

I love how Google handles dimensional analysis. Stats are ballpark and vary wildly by time of day and whether your mom is in town
 
BTW, the way I read the article from post #1, it is the scientists and not the reporter who made the error.

The same mistake is given on NOAA's website
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090402_seaice.html

I reported the mistake to them; we'll see if there's a correction or do they just write me off as some anally retentive geek from the fringes of society. Well, at least they did acknowledge receiving my email.

Proton Soup said:

That's exactly what I did. Had to be sure, after all.
 
Redbelly98 said:
It really annoys me when professionals mess up unit conversions.

October 01, 1999

NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288
 
  • #10
noaa article seems to be fixed already
 
  • #11
Ben Niehoff said:
I'd buy a kW for $100 if I could keep it for the rest of my life.

I'll sell you a kW but only for 5 seconds.
 
  • #12
Proton Soup said:
noaa article seems to be fixed already

You're right. It was mistaken earlier (within 1/2 hour of 1st post in this thread). When I went back later and saw the same date there, 2 Apr 2009, I just assumed it had not been corrected yet.

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
  • #13
There was a piece on Antarctic warming where they said that the temperature had been increasing 32.2 F per year for the last decade.

I'm pretty sure they meant "increasing 0.1 C per year"
 
Back
Top