zak said:zak said:Laura said:Data said:You may have seen this illustration before, but this is allegedly the total volume of water on Earth if collected into a sphere. Looks like it is 'not much'.
That is undoubtedly ridiculous! Surely they only mean fresh water?
Quick, somebody calculate the volume of earth's water and the volume of Earth itself and put them side by side as cubes.
It's what i think, only represent the fresh water part.
It's somewhere in this LINK, but i don't remember exactly where !
Well, finally i found the where of the somewhere from the link, and it's not only the fresh part as i thought !
See by yourself here:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83456&cl=78993&tid=5122
goyacobol said:Thanks zak. That is visually easy to understand. It certainly makes you realize how precious good drinking water is.
goyacobol said:I am not sure how they determine exactly where all that water is in some of those usually inaccessible places but then perhaps they have technology for which they don't want to give detailed analysis to the public. That's just my paranoid take on it I guess.
In addition, I think we must take into consideration that the water that seems to disappear, may have simply transformed itself into all the elements. We are looking for the molecule of water to determine the volume of moisture, but if the molecule has been transformed to evolve the organisms. Water has mutated in all living and non-living organisms. Then it ismkrnhr said:In this page there is an estimate of the known water distribution in volume (table at the end of the page).
There is still other sources that are still not accounted for in the mantle as shown here: https://www.sott.net/article/127858-Huge-Ocean-Discovered-Inside-Earth
Visually, we are not used to deal with volumes in spheres or cylinders (the confusion as to how much a glass of water can contain is well known) but a representation with cubes is more intuitive.
mkrnhr said:In this page there is an estimate of the known water distribution in volume (table at the end of the page).
There is still other sources that are still not accounted for in the mantle as shown here: https://www.sott.net/article/127858-Huge-Ocean-Discovered-Inside-Earth
Visually, we are not used to deal with volumes in spheres or cylinders (the confusion as to how much a glass of water can contain is well known) but a representation with cubes is more intuitive.
The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth's mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water.
"That's a real back of the envelope type calculation," Wysession said. "That's the best that we can do at this point."
Kisito said:Then it is obvious that we can not find the volume of water that the Cassiopaeans mention.
goyacobol said:I think this is an interesting subject that we probably take for granted. I feel less skeptical now that I see some of the techniques they have used to calculate the volumes. It is logical and impressive enough even if it is not perfect. It's more than I ever new before looking at it in more detail.