"Singapore-sized iceberg menaces Berlin"
Uh ... logistics suggest this is just plain silly.
The Register's standards soviet is today calling for an international symposium of iceberg experts and builders with really, really long tape measures to settle once and for all just how to quantify titanic Titanic-busting ice mountains. In a report this week on a massive lump which has detached itself from Antarctica's Pine …
I suggest we revert to this universally recognised imperial standard the "Jug o' Pimms" - of much greater use than the continental "Jug o' Sangria" - and both roughly equivalent to 12 standard ice cubes.
With this it is then easy to see that the "Singapore" iceberg at 60.5 billion "Jug o Pimms" would barely cover the average british summer consumption !
So what's the big deal :-)
"I suggest we revert to this universally recognised imperial standard the "Jug o' Pimms" - of much greater use than the continental "Jug o' Sangria" - and both roughly equivalent to 12 standard ice cubes."
Might I suggest we shorten that to just 'jugs'?
"With this it is then easy to see that the "Singapore" iceberg at 60.5 billion "Jug o Pimms" would barely cover the average british summer consumption !"
Which therefore makes that 60.5 gigajugs.
I would propose that only islands are used when discussing floating structures. There is a much better sense of boundaries. It has already been commented that there is little chance of seeing an iceberg and Berlin in close juxtaposition. It is easier to visualise, and indeed define islands.
Whilst Manhattan and Singapore would both meet this criteria I would hope that the Reg would recognised the fine and honourable traditional UK measurement of the Isle of Wight https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22size%20of%20the%20isle%20of%20wight%22
Even using islands might be a little difficult, it doesn't really work unless you compare with other bits of ice. So if we could measure things in Greenlands (Nano-Greenland, Pico-Greenland and so on)
I don't think using the south pole would be a good idea, as it could be too variable if global warming kicks in properly. We would have been stuffed if we had decided, say 30 years ago, to use "Average North Poles"
In my opinion, Greenland is best.
Extract from another report about the berg "UK and US teams are monitoring the progress of the iceberg, which at 270 square miles in size is bigger than the Isle of Man."
What sort of meaningless comparison is that? Australia is bigger than the Isle of Man as well, and an Australia-sized iceberg would be really worrying. It's as much use as saying 'bigger than Rockall', which is equally true, but doesn't really help.
I think we need legislation to enforce the El Reg units of comparison.