APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Nitpicker » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:00 am

I too am sorry to revive an old thread, but after reading the whole thing, I am surprised that no one had already made the point that there is really quite a huge amount of water on Earth, in relation to the habitable volume of Earth. What the APOD really shows is that the total volume of Earth is so much (~600 times) bigger than the habitable volume of Earth. If we make the simple assumption that all of the Earth's water (1386 million km3) is habitable and make the further (even simpler) assumption that the lowest 1 km of atmosphere above the whole Earth's surface (510 million km3) is habitable, then (ignoring the volume of any subterranean habitable space, which I've just lumped in with the somewhat arbitrary habitable atmospheric volume), all of the Earth's water represents 73% of the habitable volume of Earth.

The fact is that sea levels are predicted to rise in the coming centuries, by amounts expected to cause all sorts of problems for humanity. This appears to be at odds with the notion that there isn't really that much water on Earth. I imagine that marine life might eventually benefit from the change. Change is good for life in general, but not necessarily for human life in particular.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Galaxian » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:00 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
drollere wrote:a sphere 1400 kilometers in diameter of water. ok ... now let's calculate how much trash, garbage, polluted runoff and sewage is dumped into it each year by 7 billion humans. maybe you can tint it brown in proportion. blue is much too optimistic.
That works out to each person on the planet having their own little cube of water about 600 meters on a side.
Only if you execute every other life-form on the planet, which is quite possibly a bad idea. Humans need to give some of those 216,000,000 cubic metres of water to fishes, vegetables, ducks (I *like* duck, it's tasty), veni... sorry, deer, crabs, kangaroos and other edibles. Even if Man exterminates all the non-useful beasties, the ones that aren't nice to eat and don't go well in curries, I'd think most of that cube would be used to keep non-humans alive.
You need more food than human to feed a human.
I'd think people would be lucky to have more than 1000 cubic metres of water each.
As 1 m3 is a ton, that comes to about a thousand tons of water each.
So, even with extremely high estimated usage by other buggers sharing the planet we each still have a swimming pool to drink.
No need to panic, then.
"The Martian Way" by Isaac Asimov. While I think it would be a capital offence to even think of messing with The Rings, for they are a thing of beauty and wonder, Saturn has *many* blobby bits floating around doing no good to no one. That short story should be required reading at every meeting of "environmentalists" and other tree-huggers on this planet. Before they start bleating about a paucity of clean water.
The very idea is laughable.
What we do have is a failure of imagination, a failure of courage and a failure of ability to do arithmetic.
[Sorry to revive a dead thread but I was busy in 2012 and missed this one and I'm too Green and Environmentally-aware to not be helpful.]

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by BMAONE23 » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:17 pm

JFB wrote:The diameter of the Earth is 12,755 KM and the narrative accompanying the graphic says that the sphere of water is 700KM. If that were so then 18.22 of these water spheres would line up side by side across the earth's diameter. Clearly the scale of the Water sphere is wrong by a factor of 2x. Its shown covering 1/3 of the continental US, which is 4,828 KM across.
Take another look, the write-up actually states that the ball of water would have a Radius of 700k
The radius of this ball would be only about 700 kilometers, less than half the radius of the Earth's Moon
This would give a diameter of 1,400K and would be 1/3 of 4,200k close enough to 4,828K

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by JFB » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:49 pm

The diameter of the Earth is 12,755 KM and the narrative accompanying the graphic says that the sphere of water is 700KM. If that were so then 18.22 of these water spheres would line up side by side across the earth's diameter. Clearly the scale of the Water sphere is wrong by a factor of 2x. Its shown covering 1/3 of the continental US, which is 4,828 KM across.

All the salt in the oceans

by neufer » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:08 pm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78250 wrote: <<Salinity—the amount of dissolved salt in the water—is critical to so many aspects of the ocean, from circulation to climate to the global water cycle. For the past year, NASA and Argentina’s Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE) have been making comprehensive observations of sea surface salinity from space. Launched on June 10, 2011, the Aquarius mission is slowly compiling a more complete picture of the salty sea and how it varies.

The map above shows salinity near the ocean surface as measured by the Aquarius instrument on the Satélite de Aplicaciones Científicas (SAC)-D satellite. The data depicted shows average salinity from May 27 to June 2, 2012, in a range from 30 to 40 grams per kilogram, with 35 grams being the average. Lower values are represented in purples and blues; higher values are shown in shades of orange and red. Black areas occur where no data was available, either due to the orbit of the satellite or because the ocean was covered by ice, which Aquarius cannot see through.

As oceanographers have known for many years—but now can “see”—the Atlantic Ocean is saltier than the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Rivers such as the Amazon carry tremendous amounts of fresh runoff from land and spread plumes far into the sea. And in the tropics—particularly near the Pacific’s Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone—extra rainfall makes equatorial waters somewhat fresher.

Near most coastlines and inland seas in the map, waters appear much fresher or saltier than in open-ocean locations. Look, for instance, at the Red Sea and the Mediterranean for saltier waters; significantly fresher waters appear in the Black Sea, in the icy high latitudes, and around the many islands and peninsulas of Southeast Asia. Indeed, runoff from rivers and melting ice does make water fresher, and strong evaporation and other processes do make the Red and Mediterranean Seas saltier. But mostly those extreme salinity measurements around the coastlines are a distortion of the satellite signal.

Technically, Aquarius measures the emissivity or “brightness temperature” of the surface waters, notes Gary Lagerloef, Aquarius principal investigator, based at Earth and Space Research in Seattle. Land masses have a higher emissivity than the ocean, so any measurement close to land tends to be skewed by its brightness. Over time, the Aquarius research team should be able to calibrate the measurements and develop mathematical tools to better distinguish the salt signal. But for now, the measurements are so new that the team is still working on the big picture of ocean salinity.

Aquarius is the first NASA instrument specifically designed to study surface ocean salinity from space, and it does so at a rate of 300,000 measurements per month. It uses three passive microwave sensors, called radiometers, to record the thermal signal from the oceans' top 10.1 millimeters (0.4 inches). “An overarching question in climate research is to understand how changes in the Earth’s water cycle—meaning rainfall and evaporation, river discharges and so forth—ocean circulation, and climate link together,” said Lagerloef. Most global precipitation and evaporation events take place over the ocean and are very difficult to measure. But rainfall freshens the ocean’s surface waters, and Aquarius can detect these changes in saltiness. “Salinity is the variable we can use to measure that coupling. It’s a critical factor, and it will eventually be used to improve climate forecasts.”>>
--------------------------------------------
Jerry: (Crying) What--what is this salty discharge?

Elaine: Oh my God. You're crying.

Jerry: This is horrible! I care!

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by solseed.erid » Thu May 31, 2012 9:57 pm

500pesos wrote:The only way there would be what us humans perceive as 'ice forests' is on a planet where water exists only in solid form (that covers the 'ice' part) but life has developed based on a different chemical substance which on that planet (because of its gravity and temperature) is liquid, off the top of my head, say, ammonia. Theoretically it could be possible. Not on Earth though.
Now, plants - and not any old sort of bacteria and the like - living in vacuum I find this extremely highly improbable to ever develop, for biological reasons, no matter how many gazillions of aeons go by. Were it otherwise, the universe around us would be teaming with vegetation (it obviously ain't).
Also, life existed for (only) 600 million years on Earth you say, which you find it "a blink of an eye in cosmic terms". That may be so, as I cannot say for how long this universe intends to exist in the future. In our planet's existence terms though, Earth will remain in a state where it can sustain life as we know it only for approximately another 600 million years, so, only for another blink of an eye... There's not enough time for anaerobic forests to start on this planet and populate the solar system.
500pesos, I believe you are showing a lack of imagination. We don't see the universe as teaming with vegetation because 1) it is young, 2) we haven't looked very far, 3) vacuum and ice forests are not in the adjacent possible of ocean life.

1) The galaxy is less than three times as old as the Earth. The first generation of stars were without heavy elements so they couldn't spawn life. The second generation were probably heavy element poor and so may not have been able to do any better. Sol is the first generation of stars to be able to support life. Even if the big rip is only 20 billion years away that allows Sol's biosphere about 30 times the time since the Ediacaran explosion to develop before the end. Granted it has to survive the end of Sol but for that it only has to manage to travel to another star in less than 5 billion years which should be easy.

2) Just because ice and vacuum forests are not visible to us doesn't mean they don't exist or won't exist somewhere in the galaxy. As already pointed out, the galaxy is young. It is often pointed out that aliens capable of FTL, if they exist, would be obvious because they would be everywhere by now. It would be tremendous coincidence if they arrived in the vicinity of Earth for the first time in the same century or even million years that we developed the technology to recognize them. But that point doesn't stand up when you are talking about life spreading through the galaxy. Given that the galaxy spins once every quarter billion years, it would be reasonable to assume that vacuum life, once it starts spreading could take a billion years to spread through the galaxy. If the possibility of life is only 5 or 10 billion years old then it would not be a coincidence if vacuum forests spread to our solar system in the same billion years that we developed the technology to detect it.

3) Life developed in the oceans of Earth within a few hundred million years of their formation but took billions of years to colonize intermittently wet land, let alone dry land. It was not in the adjacent possible for ocean life to colonize the high Arctic. But once ocean life colonized wet land, within a few hundred million years it had also colonized deserts and created tundra. Ice forests may or may not yet be in the adjacent possible of naturally evolving life, vacuum forests are definitely not. But given a few more hundred million years even naturally evolving life, may open up a lot of adjacent possible to which it currently does not have access. Add to that, that life now includes humans and artificially enhanced evolution (breeding and genetic engineering) and the next 600 million years (barring something like human-caused destruction of the biosphere) will be a lot longer in terms of evolutionary potential than the last 600 million.

As for the idea that life needs a different chemical basis to survive ice or vacuum. Again you need more imagination. Water can be kept liquid at low temperatures with pressure and dissolved substances; water can be kept warm, even in the vacuum of space with insulation. It may be that life will develop a new chemical basis in order to make the jump, but that basis could be developed by substitution over time. a) Add a small percentage of ammonia or alcohol to the cytoplasm in order to survive a little below zero, b) adapt metabolism to the presence of these substances in the cytoplasm, repeat step a) and b) a few times and you are no longer water based. I am not saying that is how it will go, I am just saying that given a chance, life will find a way.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by 500pesos » Wed May 23, 2012 10:17 am

solseed.eric wrote:

"We may think that ice forests are a laughable idea now but life will find a way to make them eventually and then vacuum forests and then the huge surface area of the outer icy worlds of Sol will be open to them."

I very much doubt this. The only way there would be what us humans perceive as 'ice forests' is on a planet where water exists only in solid form (that covers the 'ice' part) but life has developed based on a different chemical substance which on that planet (because of its gravity and temperature) is liquid, off the top of my head, say, ammonia. Theoretically it could be possible. Not on Earth though.
Now, plants - and not any old sort of bacteria and the like - living in vacuum I find this extremely highly improbable to ever develop, for biological reasons, no matter how many gazillions of aeons go by. Were it otherwise, the universe around us would be teaming with vegetation (it obviously ain't).
Also, life existed for (only) 600 million years on Earth you say, which you find it "a blink of an eye in cosmic terms". That may be so, as I cannot say for how long this universe intends to exist in the future. In our planet's existence terms though, Earth will remain in a state where it can sustain life as we know it only for approximately another 600 million years, so, only for another blink of an eye... There's not enough time for anaerobic forests to start on this planet and populate the solar system.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by 500pesos » Wed May 23, 2012 9:46 am

My guess is when the solar system was still very young, the Earth collided with a third body the size of that ball - which I expect would make for a tremendous collision - that a) broke off a huge chunk of it and created our moon and b) was mostly water ice (like some moons of Jupiter or Saturn) which melted because of Earth's proximity to the Sun and voilà there's our oceans. Of the other rocky planets, Mars wasn't hit by the same 'fortune' and Venus and Mercury are way too hot (and Mercury too small) to keep it.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by solseed.eric » Tue May 22, 2012 10:33 pm

ro_star wrote:...there is even the risk that a similar civilization with more technical knowledge may one day send an automated probe to remove the water from earth because they happen to need it since they polluted theirs; that's why we should set an example and keep it clean
ro_star, you have been watching too much 'V'. Taking our water is much harder than taking water from an Oort cloud object. Not only do you have to fight off the pesky humans but you have to lift the water out of a double gravity well; the Earth's and the Sun's. Any civilization in need of water can find plenty in the outer reaches of most solar systems as icy worlds. Compared to the energy required to drag water between stars, melting ice is child's play. Remember Pluto didn't cease to exist when it got demoted from planet status. It became the type object for a whole class of icy worlds. There are approximately a trillion ice worlds beyond Neptune.
[quote="ann']It's not having huge amounts of water that counts. It's having the right amount of water that counts, and having it in the right phase states - solid, liquid and gaseous - and having it where it can serve as a lubricant for the forces of plate tectonics and volcanism, and having it as a catalyst for life.
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

ann, I like you analogy about how water works with respect to life. What life needs is not water volume but surface area. Life lives on surfaces because life captures energy and once life forms a surface it denies energy to any life beyond that surface. Life particularly likes to exist on planar boundaries between two different resource rich zones (e.g. sky with light above, soil with water and nutrients below). So you are correct that life doesn't need more volume of water. But I think you are wrong about needing the right phase states. Life needed liquid water to get started but life is young; complex life on Earth has only existed for 600 million years. We puny humans think that is a long time but in cosmic terms it is a blink of an eye. 400 million years ago, desert plants would have been a laughable idea, and flower-forests (angiosperms, the last great advancement in plants) have only been around for about 100 million years. We may think that ice forests are a laughable idea now but life will find a way to make them eventually and then vacuum forests and then the huge surface area of the outer icy worlds of Sol will be open to them.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by bystander » Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 pm

And THIS Tiny Sphere is All the World’s Water *That We Can Use*
A few days ago, we wrote about a remarkable graphic released by the USGS, showing all the water on Earth—freshwater, saltwater, water vapor, water in plants and animals; all of it—rolled into a sphere.

That sphere was only 860 miles in diameter, fitting comfortably between Salt Lake City and Topeka, Kansas, on a map. It was striking, especially considering that the water available for humans use in our daily lives is only a very small fraction of that; the vast majority of the Earth’s water is saltwater, and most of the freshwater is tied up in glaciers.

How big would a sphere of just the freshwater available to humans be? Reader Jay Kimball of 8020Vision, his interest piqued, went ahead and made such a graphic:

That sphere—the sphere representing the freshwater available to humans—has a diameter of just 170 miles. Head to his blog to see the math.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by bystander » Thu May 17, 2012 8:28 pm

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Moonlady » Thu May 17, 2012 8:15 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Moonlady wrote:I wondered how much atmosphere earth got.

The effective volume (8.2 kilometers up) of earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers,
the actual volume (100 kilometers up) where the Karman limit is, 51 billion cubic kilometers.

Earth water volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometer.
Unlike water, the volume of the atmosphere is strongly dependent on its temperature and pressure. So comparing volumes is like comparing apples and oranges, unless you find a way to normalize things. The total mass of water is several orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the atmosphere. If you compressed the atmosphere into liquid, its volume would be much less than that of all the Earth's water.

It's not such a simple comparison.
Thanks Chris, sure you are right that elements comparing in different states like solid, liquid, gas and plasma is not correct and mass cant be calculated that way too.
I thought (unprofessional) I could somehow add to this day's picture which shows earth solid and water liquid, a size of atmosphere gas volume as it is in the condition of each
elements, a condition that is in real life, so how big would be a globe of atmosphere-layers, or in comparison in cubus, would it be less or more than water...do I make sense?! :?
I hope your hair does not stand right now!

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Chris Peterson » Thu May 17, 2012 4:57 pm

Moonlady wrote:I wondered how much atmosphere earth got.

The effective volume (8.2 kilometers up) of earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers,
the actual volume (100 kilometers up) where the Karman limit is, 51 billion cubic kilometers.

Earth water volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometer.
Unlike water, the volume of the atmosphere is strongly dependent on its temperature and pressure. So comparing volumes is like comparing apples and oranges, unless you find a way to normalize things. The total mass of water is several orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the atmosphere. If you compressed the atmosphere into liquid, its volume would be much less than that of all the Earth's water.

It's not such a simple comparison.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Moonlady » Thu May 17, 2012 3:59 pm

APOD Robot wrote:Image All the Water on Planet Earth

Explanation: How much of planet Earth is made of water? Very little, actually. Although oceans of water cover about 70 percent of Earth's surface, these oceans are shallow compared to the Earth's radius. The above illustration shows what would happen if all of the water on or near the surface of the Earth were bunched up into a ball. The radius of this ball would be only about 700 kilometers, less than half the radius of the Earth's Moon, but slightly larger than Saturn's moon Rhea which, like many moons in our outer Solar System, is mostly water ice. How even this much water came to be on the Earth and whether any significant amount is trapped far beneath Earth's surface remain topics of research.

<< Previous APODDiscuss Any APOD Next APOD >>
[/b]

I wondered how much atmosphere earth got.

The effective volume (8.2 kilometers up) of earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers,
the actual volume (100 kilometers up) where the Karman limit is, 51 billion cubic kilometers.

Earth water volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometer.

We got less water than air...do not pee when you are in water! :eyebrows:

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Chris Peterson » Thu May 17, 2012 4:09 am

abhagwat wrote:Is the water droplet drawn to scale wrt to the Earth's size? If only this much volume of water is there on the Earth (even if it saline) then its scary. I always thought 70% of Earth is water, but I understood from this APOD that 70% surface of area of Earth is water, and not volume. Is my understanding correct? Wish you guys had quoted some numbers for comparision and understanding.
Your (new) understanding is correct. To scale, all the water on the Earth is nothing more than a film on the surface (on a standard 30 cm globe, the oceans are less than a tenth of a millimeter deep- around the size of a human hair).

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by abhagwat » Thu May 17, 2012 3:51 am

Is the water droplet drawn to scale wrt to the Earth's size? If only this much volume of water is there on the Earth (even if it saline) then its scary. I always thought 70% of Earth is water, but I understood from this APOD that 70% surface of area of Earth is water, and not volume. Is my understanding correct? Wish you guys had quoted some numbers for comparision and understanding.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by neufer » Wed May 16, 2012 10:53 am

alter-ego wrote:
neufer wrote:
alter-ego wrote: FYI, a conservative average H2O content 1% within the sphere of air, so its water contribution is minor (as you would think) compared to the surface water.
Average H2O content 0.4% within the sphere of air.
I read that too, and I picked the larger number as a conservative (high) estimate. To quote the same article:
[b][color=#0000FF]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth[/color][/b] wrote:
Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
It's really not important what the exact number is, just that its small. In fact, I wouldn't bet on a number. The "above illustration" link has this detailed graphic: Global Water Distribution.JPG

Dang, I'm feeling thirsty all of sudden.
Mid-latitude air at the ground may be around 1% water vapor on average
but globally water vapor is 0.4% within the sphere of air.

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg.

0.4% of that is 2×1016 kg which amounts to just
0.00142% of the 1.4087 ×1021 kg of total water.

(Approximately 50.5×1016 kg water [i.e., 25 times the average atmospheric content] falls as precipitation each year.)

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by alter-ego » Wed May 16, 2012 5:55 am

neufer wrote:
alter-ego wrote: FYI, a conservative average H2O content 1% within the sphere of air, so its water contribution is minor (as you would think) compared to the surface water.
Average H2O content 0.4% within the sphere of air.
I read that too, and I picked the larger number as a conservative (high) estimate. To quote the same article:
[b][color=#0000FF]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth[/color][/b] wrote:Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
It's really not important what the exact number is, just that its small. In fact, I wouldn't bet on a number. The "above illustration" link has this detailed graphic:
0.001% of total water
0.001% of total water
Dang, I'm feeling thirsty all of sudden.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Ann » Wed May 16, 2012 1:11 am

Image
Photo: Mars Express
Mesas, flat-topped elevated structures, are common on Mars. It is fascinating to think that the Earth's continents are slightly like the mesas on Mars: They rise, often quite abruptly, from the bottom of the sea, and then they flatten off until they suddenly slope abruptly down to the bottom of the sea again.

It is good for us that the Earth has its giant mesas or continents. We would have had to be dolphins if the continents hadn't been there, and then we would have lacked hands, which would have made it difficult for us to build any real civilization.

Maybe we wouldn't even have been dolphins: If the Earth had never had continents, it might have been useless for the creatures of the ocean to develop lungs.

We might all have been sharks, or octopuses.

Ann

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Chris Peterson » Tue May 15, 2012 10:53 pm

ruprecht147 wrote:So it sounds like more water would mean a larger area covered by oceans, and less water would mean a smaller area? Somehow I'm thinking the answer might be more complicated.
The ratio of continents to oceanic basins is determined by tectonic processes. While it's true that more water would mean larger oceans, and less water would mean smaller ones, the changes would be relatively small unless you look at very large changes in water volume. Even with less water, the ocean basins will still be full, just not as deep. And with more water, the coastlines would move in a bit, but not far- the oceans would get deeper. Mainly you'd see the shifts along the boundaries between oceanic and continental zones.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Chris Peterson » Tue May 15, 2012 10:49 pm

Mactavish wrote:I am often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of knowledge that’s available. I was curious about the letters I M O. So, I Googled “IMO” and the responses were numerous. One in particular gave 41 meanings of IMO and then stated that it had 136 more! A few, with some stretch of the imagination, might have something to do with astronomy but, rather than reading all 177 and then guessing, I thought I would simply ask what did you mean by your “IMO”?
An extremely common Internet term, In My Opinion. Sometimes seen as IMHO, but I'm not humble enough to use that one <g>.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by ruprecht147 » Tue May 15, 2012 10:47 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
ruprecht147 wrote:1. How did such a tiny amount of water come to cover 70% of the planet's surface? Why not 25% or 50% or 90%?
Fundamentally, it's a consequence of the flatness of the Earth's surface and the total amount of water. The flatness results from our relatively high gravity, which limits how high mountains can get, and how deep valleys can get (with the highest spots representing thick continental crust, and the lowest representing thin oceanic crust). It's uncertain where the water came from- whether it was part of the protoplanet or was delivered later.

So it sounds like more water would mean a larger area covered by oceans, and less water would mean a smaller area? Somehow I'm thinking the answer might be more complicated. Generally, the idea that Earth's oceans originated from impacts by icy asteroids (or maybe comets) seems widely endorsed by astronomers these days -- Sean Raymond has done a series of articles on that topic. The trick seems to be figuring out how we got exactly as much water as we did.

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Mactavish » Tue May 15, 2012 10:41 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:Note that both here and in today's APOD no one bothered to remove the snow & ice fields.
Granted, the amount of water tied up in the Greenland icepack wouldn't visibly change the size of the water sphere, but leaving it white really detracts from the image, IMO.
I am often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of knowledge that’s available. I was curious about the letters I M O. So, I Googled “IMO” and the responses were numerous. One in particular gave 41 meanings of IMO and then stated that it had 136 more! A few, with some stretch of the imagination, might have something to do with astronomy but, rather than reading all 177 and then guessing, I thought I would simply ask what did you mean by your “IMO”?

Re: APOD: All the Water on Planet Earth (2012 May 15)

by Chris Peterson » Tue May 15, 2012 10:38 pm

ruprecht147 wrote:I never saw this image before APOD posted it. I love it and have shared it widely today. If anybody can point me to an answer to the following questions, I'd be grateful:

1. How did such a tiny amount of water come to cover 70% of the planet's surface? Why not 25% or 50% or 90%?
Fundamentally, it's a consequence of the flatness of the Earth's surface and the total amount of water. The flatness results from our relatively high gravity, which limits how high mountains can get, and how deep valleys can get (with the highest spots representing thick continental crust, and the lowest representing thin oceanic crust). It's uncertain where the water came from- whether it was part of the protoplanet or was delivered later.
2. How much has the water coverage of the Earth varied over geological time? What portion of the surface was covered by oceans 2 billion years ago, or half a billion years ago?
That is unknown. The ratio of land to sea is determined by the ratio of continental crust (which is old) to oceanic crust (which is young). Oceanic crust recycles much faster than continental crust. The continents move about in what is called the supercontinent cycle, but it is uncertain if the ratio of continental to oceanic crust has changed much in several billion years. During the first billion years of Earth's existence it was probably covered only with oceanic crust, in which case the planet was probably covered with a single ocean.

Top