DISQUS

rain · 1 year ago

great image, only a little mistake, i think the left Earth will be better without the north pole, because the sphere of water teorically contains him

Jay Pyatt · 1 year ago

If the average human weighs 70Kg and you multiply that by 125% since we are denser than water. Then convert to volume and multiply by 7 billion. The human race is .6125 cubic km. Not even visible on the photo.

Eric · 1 year ago

Cool! I was just going to ask that question. How would ALL animal life look in comparison?
THANKS!

not a strong swimmer · 1 year ago

cool, except of course that most people that I know *float* when we get in the pool - a strong indication that humans are NOT denser than water.

Mike · 1 year ago

They float because their lungs are filled with air. Air is less dense than water. Mike

thirsty · 1 year ago

the same (i supose) happens with the percentage of potable water, so our survival is like a luck

Roebrt · 1 year ago

I recall reading that if the earth were a perfectly flat sphere the water would be to a depth of around 10,000 feet - I always that that was kind of cool fact.

mordicai · 1 year ago

Okay, that is pretty darn neat. While we're mentioning things, I'm be curious to see the moon thrown in there for comparison...

JasonR · 1 year ago

This might be relevant: All the Water and Air in the World...winner of [the] Novartis/Daily Telegraph Visions of Science photographic awards

See also.

Frank · 1 year ago

I knew that the earth atmosphere is very thin so I was alway concerned about air polution. Now I willl be concerned also about water polution. It does not look like mush water at the scale of the planet!

fourstar · 1 year ago

Why am I suddenly reminded of Pamela Anderson?

TS · 1 year ago

fourstar: Could it be that Anderson has a larger left air sphere density as well?

jamesbondjapan · 1 year ago

It may also be helpful to show a few more "spheres" on this image to put everything into perspective:

1. the total mass of all living humans (I presume it will be a very small sphere)

1. the total mass of all living organisms (including insects, algae, plankton, trees, grasses, etc. - again likely quite small)

3. the total amount of water used by humans every year

4. the total amount of human related exhaust (cars, industry, heating/electricity, cow methane, etc.)

I figure all these spheres will be quite small. I am not suggesting pollution is not a problem - I think it is a huge one - just that we need to understand the relative magnitude of things when we show "surprising" images like this one.

Mairsil · 1 year ago

I agree. I think the 'surprising' effect is mostly because the earth is much larger than people realize, rather than the volume of air being much smaller. I doubt any of the items you have mentioned would be more than a single pixel on these images.

Adam H · 1 year ago

Pat Stanton wrote:
"Spherical volume = (1/6) x Pi x diameter^3"

I'm certain that the volume of a sphere is 4/3 x Pi x r^3.
I haven;t bothered to examine what this change would do to the calculations.

Still a neat image, even if possibly inaccurate.

tim Rowledge · 1 year ago

Do the math; since diameter = 2 * radius
diameter^3 = 2^3 * radius^3 = 8 * radius^3
therefore
4/3 * Pi * radius^3 = 4/3 * Pi * 1/8 * diameter^3 = 4/(3*8) * Pi * diameter^3
= 1/6 * Pi * diameter^3

bay · 1 year ago

I wonder how that compares to the ice volume in say, haley's comet....

(anyone want to see if we can smack a comet into a dry planet and design some lifeforms to live there? algae or somethin? couple of rockets, a couple of grad students... whaddya say?)

chip · 1 year ago

what about all the water in our bodies, and in all the plants and stuff?

ML · 1 year ago

I was wondering the same thing

digchinese · 1 year ago

Did Pat's son think the small spheres were too small or too large?

Galah · 1 year ago

Australia is not on the map so therefore not applicable to us???

Herbert · 1 year ago

Great work; makes me thinking about our waste of life energy ...

M. Seavey · 1 year ago

The water image includes green (which appears to be plants as there aren't vast landscapes of green bedrock or soil in those locations) and white (which which appears to be in locations of glacial ice). For the image to truely represent the world with all of it's water removed into the second sphere, the green plants and white ice should be removed. Otherwise a good representation.

anonymous · 1 year ago

Can you do one with all the oil on Earth please?

Jeremy Marr · 1 year ago

Thanks for sharing. It is a very powerful image and it is nice to see it backed up with the math too.

Matthew Burton · 1 year ago

This is really interesting, but I disagree with why boing boing says it's interesting. I think it's more a commentary on human brain power than on earth's natural resources. It shows us how bad we are at making spacial relationships, understanding the impact of cubing an integer, knowing the average depth of the oceans (around 4km), etc. I'm not excluding myself from this group, of course, and I didn't know the 4km stat until I looked it up just now.

It is amazing to think that all that ocean fits into what seems to be such a little ball. But that "little ball" reaches far, far into outer space, 1300 km beyond the 80km "sky/space" boundary.

tp · 1 year ago

tell the photo rights holder to sue you for all the money this post made you

dmun · 1 year ago

"...gathered into a ball at sea-level density." - this assumption greatly reduces the size of the 'air' sphere. All of the air 'on' (in?) Earth is not just at sea level. I live at approx. 3000 ft, and there is abundant oxygen at this level to support life.
How large would it be if the air's density was assumed to be at an average land elevation above sea level?

simon prichard · 1 year ago

andrew nowicki's figures are wrong

He says the mass of the water on our Earth is 1.35 × 10^18 tonnes or 1.35 million, trillion tonnes

He then says the mass of our Earth is 1.347 × 10^21 to 1.4 × 10^21 KG!.
Lets call it 1.35 x 10^21 kg for convenience and comparison

As there are 1000 kg to a tonne, 1.35 x 10^21 kg is 1.35 million, trillion tonnes.

According to andrew's figures the water on our Earth has the same mass as Earth, with its water.

But the graphic looks reasonable to me

Mike Scirocco · 1 year ago

Incredible! Very nice job!

Now how about one that shows the relative sizes of all of the pollutants we're dumping into both the air and water every year?

farang · 1 year ago

"tree hugger shock media"???

I suspect someone usually voting for "supply-side" economic nonsense thought that one up.

Lee · 1 year ago

how long would it take to swim through it and for your lungs to process all the air?

Carl Mauro · 1 year ago

See the air is depicted at sea level density. Remember Pascal?

stacker 2 ephedra · 1 year ago

Ephedra and Ephedrine diet pills are scientifically proven to melt fat and raise metabolism without diet or exercise.

EphBurn 25 is the classic ECA Stack just like the original Stacker 2. It will give you the strong thermogenic fat burning effect naturally. You can get it here:

http://www.thatswholesale.com

dphiffer · 1 year ago

Delete

-Dan

On Mar 15, 2008, at 10:32 AM, "Disqus" <

Martian native · 1 year ago

Mars has more dry land surface area than Earth.

Poopy · 1 year ago

I just soiled my Drawers!!

Joseph · 1 year ago

Great picture of reality of earth's wonders water and air are essential for life. Water also should be available to people in need their is a great web page I have seen we should give our support and signed the petition online... http://www.world-water-org.org for the first time I see serious organization that will make a difference for the child and mother's in need during emergency measures.

geoland1 · 1 year ago

ok, a vehicle takes in so much air, as opposed to a human. The vegetation replaces only so much, ect. Humans, ect. use so much water, returning little. My point being, how much time would it take to diminish the relevant sourses for survival? My thought being that as the population gets larger, the use gets more intense. deforestation, ect. can the math be done for that? I feel sorry for mankind and our mother earth.

Ron · 1 year ago

I'd be curious as to see how large a sphere the total amount of topsoil would take. That is, the non-rock/lava part of the earth's surface (which I would assume is never very deep). It should include the amount beneath the oceans, of course, since a lot of the soil ends up there. The tricky part would be figuring out the amount suspended in the oceans and lakes and rivers (as well as in the atmosphere).

It would be tough to decide the cut-off for 'soil' vs. 'rocks'. Sand is probably the former, with gravel being the latter. My intent is to figure out how much of the solid earth can grow things, location being ignored.

silv · 1 year ago

as for human life, you have to resize the image roughly 10 times in order for the "humanity sphere" to become 1px in size. feeling insignificant???

J. Bailey · 1 year ago

How big of a sphere is left if the same math is applied to the " solid" mass of the earth , this would be a fair comparison and would probably balance out the decididly unbalanced view represented .

bert · 1 year ago

If the pixel issue receives all the focus of discussion, it potentially results in a deception --
although only a few pixels across, the volume water sphere may not be so small as one might be led to think.

Using equatorial and polar radii (km) of 6378.136, and 6356.752, the volume of the oblate spheroid of the Earth is 1.0833e12 km^3 (using 4/3*pi()*a*b*c, where a and b are equaltorial and c is polar radius). The equivalent sphere with that volume gives a "mean volumetric radius" of 6371.000 km, for both mantle and water.

Subtracting the value given above (1.4087e9 km^3) for the volume of the total sphere which is taken by water, we get a remainder volume of 1.0818e12 km^3. This remainder represents a theoretically smooth spherical mantle. It has a "mean radius" of 6368.237 km.

Subtracting underlying mantle radius from the total volumetric radius gives 2.763 km layer of water on top of the mantle.

Thus, if the mantle upon which we walk were condensed into a smooth sphere, we would be standing underneath a column of water roughly 1.72 miles high, or 9065 feet.

Although there may be a shortage of pixels, there is no way we have a shortage of water on this planet. Given our scientific ability to squeeze two rocks together and command, "give my brother a drink of clean water," the only shortage is that of the compassion and intelligence required to clean it up, and share it without ruining it.

If we were to being massive desalination, to recharge the ground water aquefers which we have wrecklessly pumpted down (which would not produce any increase in waste heat or carbon), the question would be become one of "what then do we do with all the waste electricity, waste minerals and waste gold ..."

To give you an idea of how much energy is in each "pixel" -- recharging 1-foot of groundwater for the State of Kansas, would produce as waste by product (a) 3100 metric tonnes of gold, (b) 3.06e13 kW-hr of waste electricity, (c) 7.76 kg of Hydrogen H2 gas for transportation. That would be the waste byproduct of using our potential compassion and brains, for just recharging 1-ft of groundwater for our Kansas farmers alone.

Rob · 1 year ago

Good question JamesBondJapan!

russelln · 1 year ago

does this image include all the water in plant and animal life also, also it would be interesting to see all human life reduced to the contex of a sphere also...since the human body is 90 percent water to begin with...then I will think the relantionships will be in focus...

Charles Dixon · 1 year ago

Okay do this imagine that ball slice it up into circular pieces and place it in the oceans the the average oceans depth. The picture is not accurate that ball can't fill the vast Pacific Ocean and I doubt it would even fill the Indian ocean. Just as Gore's Inconvenient Lie it's more scare and blare. 1000 of the 2000 "scientists" came public and annouced that they didn't agree with the findings of the IPCC. A hand full of those same scientist came forth with the movie about the global warming swindle. Before you ride me out on the rail ask why some of the major mouthpieces for Global Warming are the same corporations that are exploiting all of the earth's resources?

Remember all of our vast humanity could occupy the big state of Texas and be given some land to live on. All 6-7 billion of us. Next all the people of the world could fit in the city of Houston and not touch one another with arms outstretched.

Ozone · 1 year ago

I suspect that within the first 24 hours, assuming that all of us remained respectfully within our 10' by 10' quadrants and never touched anyone, we would all be overcome by the overwhelming fumes from our own waste at about the same time that we all began wondering where our next meal would be coming from.

After a week, Texas would be uninhabitable for decades.

Larry Spiak · 1 year ago

can you do that for people? That'd be a statistic worth seeing too!

Howard Ratcliffe · 1 year ago

Any estimates on the quantity of water under the earth's surface? Tectonic plates ride on underground pools of water. All in all, there is a lot of water for a gravitationally accreted rock floating in 2.7K vacuum of space to acquire, don't you think?

Bob Hamrick · 1 year ago

Yeah. It was designed that way. Cool, huh?

dave · 1 year ago

Who is Anrew Norwicki ,why is his data revelent
water = ice
this is why in the name of science so many people are off to a bad start

Hal Gillis · 1 year ago

this is one of the most useless studies i've ever seen. what is the pixel count on hours wasted?
ok, so the Earth has this much air and water. what are we supposed to do with this information?

djfelix · 1 year ago

Can we see a sphere of all the hot-air generated over a silly graphic by heavy-breathing moonbats talking about how this little graphic shows us "so much" about global warming? Seriously people. It's a little picture, and it changes nothing about the religion of global warming. If anything, it only illustrates how difficult it is for man to have any noticeable effect on the planet, much less the universe. But, in essence, it changes nothing. People who believe in global warming cum climate change will no sooner denounce it than a Catholic will denounce Jesus. You can not disprove religious beliefs with science, and global warming is no different.

KLM · 1 year ago

What's the point of this whole thing. What are we supposed to be shocked about?

Ace · 1 year ago

This mixes air and water compared to the total mass of the earth. I would think a better method would be to to take the crust of the earth, say about one mile deep, and roll it into a ball to compare the air and water balls to. After all, we don't live under the earth's crust so there is no point in adding all of that mass in a comparison.

SteveS · 1 year ago

I'd like to point out that the earth is POURUS and therefore a lot of the earth's water is trapped in soil moisture and underground aquifers. This pic seems to depict surface water only. It got me thinking, though.

Jumanji · 1 year ago

Great!
;-)

Rodrigo · 1 year ago

Hey!! please, someone reply this: Ok, we can see earth is bigger than the water, but what about the inside of the earth, it is considered the core of the earth "EARTH" ???? or it is considered as magma or other names?? if that is correct, we need to see the earth ball, the water ball, the air ball, and "the magma, core of the earth or whatever name ball"

James · 1 year ago

I believe that you all are wrong for the reason nobody will ever be able to know or figure it out

zakk · 1 year ago

this is a great image. are there more spheres on the way?
www.zakklife.weebly.com

kirandulo · 1 year ago

excellent images! two bubbles represent fundamental resources of Life on the Earth needed for survival and are really scarce. we playing around and poisoning them so suicider way without taking enough responsibility. it makes me sad whenever I think about the last minute coming soon, faster than we have ever thought.

poppop · 1 year ago

On y voit que cette masse est minuscule et que cette ressource doit être protégée, la plupart des océans étant en train de devenir des poubelles sans poissons.

boblabla · 1 year ago

interesting question, education occuring within a netwoked context? i have often questioned just that, the dissemination of educational knowledge in a commercial world, this is information that is primary to our self-awarness, but that self-awarness can only be achieved with the apporpriate amount of money, after all it is information existing in the commercial market; however only if you gain this knowledge through the "recommended outlets" ie. college, university. even through non-networked context, textbooks, television programs as you say, they would license an image, article, etc. to whatever medium that is going to be expressing this information, once again the one with the money. to very briefly, and saltily anwser your last question, how can the two support each other?, they won't be able to, not because they can't, but because to those holding the rights to said information, it is more profitable not to.

yeah i know, this is more like loose philosophy than exact science, but a question was asked.

Viv Benton · 1 year ago

Hi,
My husband and I are writing a book called Cool Solutions for a Warming Planet. We'd like to include this image in our book. Can you guide us as to whom we should approach for permission. Thanks for your interesting site.
Regards
Viv Benton

Benton Productions P/L
70 Kallista- Emerald Road,
The Patch
Victoria 3792
Australia

phone + 613 9752 1089
bentonproductions@aapt.net.au

Chars · 1 year ago

Sorry I dont understad the reason about this picture can you explain to my??
E-mail: caredu_1596@hotmail.com
I will wait your answer

ElChap · 11 months ago

Another way to visualize this is to imagine being in Spain and seeing the water sphere represented in the left picture. It would be quite a gigantic one, the size of France, Germany, Italy and some Eastern Europe countries combined. it would probably block the most of the visible sky to the North East and be 5 times taller than the altitude at which the shuttle orbits the earth... It would still seem enormous to a human observer on the ground...

KEN · 11 months ago

BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT

BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBOLLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT

greatdomainnow · 8 months ago

A very cool anyalysis, well done. In regard to the amount of water contained in Earths atmopshere I wanted to mention a technology that many people aren't aware of yet. It is the atmospheric water generator technology where the systems harvest fresh water from air.

It pretty cool if you want to check it out. You can go to this website to see some of them if you want to. www.internationalwaterfromair.com

Sapper · 8 months ago

Imagery talks to emotion in a different way than phono-serial abstract linguistic coding. Images like this really do communicate information with people, allowing them perspectives they have never had before. One of those people is going to come up wit an idea that will save both planet and people.

Joe Witte · 7 months ago

This is great.
Another perspective is that the diameter of the earth is about 12,742 km, the "air" globe diameter is about 2,000 km;

thus the diameter of the air-globe is about 15% of that of the earth at a great circle: 2,000/12,742= 15%
or(just to approximate the correct sizing for the diagram there would about 12 air globes across the equator)

frank edwards · 6 months ago

what i am trying to get at is a simple answer,that at the rate we are useing up the air how long before it is all gone,thanks

recycled · 3 months ago

Did the math seems like these figures are approximations at best. Why is the ice still represented on the North Pole if it is indeed included in the calculations and was the compression of these fluids calculated at different densities as they compressed at lower altitudes and depressed their substrates? It would seem not. The Earth's atmosphere bulges near the Equator this does not seem to be taken into account either. While removing water would allow the Earth's surface to rebound in a measurable way that does not seem to be taken into account in the dry Earth image allowing for a more accurate visual comparison. Seasonal changes in atmospheric density due to temperature and precipitation may not have been totally balanced by hemispheric seasonal opposition. Finally why were France, Germany and Eastern Europe dissed in this manner when these spheres could have been represented elsewhere just as efficiently? Good job not completely accurate needs more but I can appreciate the effort.

pepon · 3 months ago

I hope the owner of the rights does not raise an issue with the use of this photograph. It's posting, if anything, has sparked a most elegant analysis of its accuracy, thus highlighting the creativity involved in its design.