# Picture : All the earth's water in a single sphere compared to earth



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

Source *USGS*

This picture shows the size of a sphere that would contain all of Earth's water in comparison to the size of the Earth. The blue sphere sitting on the United States, reaching from about Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kansas, has a diameter of about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers) , with a volume of about 332,500,000 cubic miles (1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers). The sphere includes all the water in the oceans, seas, ice caps, lakes and rivers as well as groundwater, atmospheric water, and even the water in you, your dog, and your tomato plant.










Credit: Illustration by Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; USGS.. 
Data source: Igor Shiklomanov's chapter "World fresh water resources" in Peter H. Gleick (editor), 1993, Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources (Oxford University Press, New York).

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/gallery/global-water-volume.html


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

What about water trapped in the mantle and below. I heard that it is 10 times more than the water on the surface. [i find that extraordinarily fascinating]


----------



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

I don't believe the graphic takes it into account. Other wise the 'water balloon' should be much larger.


----------



## Who (Jul 29, 2010)

All the oceans seem very shallow now.


----------



## Chopkinsca (Jun 16, 2006)

I was expecting the water bubble to be much larger...


----------



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

This comes from USGS. But the water 'droplet' just doesn't seem big enough.


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

here is another one


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

ExplorerAtHeart said:


> What about water trapped in the mantle and below. I heard that it is 10 times more than the water on the surface. [i find that extraordinarily fascinating]


Seems likely, with plate subduction and all. I'm surprised all the water on Earth hasn't been dragged into the mantle along with the subducting oceanic plates. I would think that, in 4.6 billion years, that must have been enough time for it to have happened several times over. But I dunno, maybe it comes back to the surface in the form of mineral hydrates from volcanoes and midoceanic ridges and ****.

I think I missed my calling, I'd probably make a good geologist.

/overanalysis


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

ExplorerAtHeart said:


> here is another one


OMG Put it back! Put it back! Don't take all the water and stick it out there! Satellites'll run into it and send it to the moon, Venus, or Mars!


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

Witan said:


> Seems likely, with plate subduction and all. I'm surprised all the water on Earth hasn't been dragged into the mantle along with the subducting oceanic plates. I would think that, in 4.6 billion years, that must have been enough time for it to have happened several times over. But I dunno, maybe it comes back to the surface in the form of mineral hydrates from volcanoes and midoceanic ridges and ****.
> 
> I think I missed my calling, I'd probably make a good geologist.
> 
> /overanalysis


That and there may be enough of it to where that hasn't happened yet. ie a billion years ago there used to be alot more water on the surface.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

No way..... there must be more water hiding somewhere


----------



## Craig788 (Apr 16, 2012)

that is actually really scary


----------



## Define Lies (Jan 17, 2012)

Interesting. Also, water makes up one- one hundredth of a percent of the earths mass, if I remember correctly


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

They said in a documentary that water is like 0,0x % of the earth's total volume, so yeah, it makes sense.

Less water would have made life chances of appearing close to 0, double the water would have occupied all Earth's surface, and as a consequence, would drastically lowered the chances of life evolving, cause u need land for that.


----------



## lazy (Nov 19, 2008)

it seems so little


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

It does look a little small. I know that cubic or spherical volumes take up less space than flat ones. But, the oceans are very deep, there are a lot of lakes, and there is a lot of snow.

If that ball of water hits the dry Earth doesn't look like it would fill up all the oceans, lakes, rivers, and snow covered places.


----------



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

Classified said:


> It does look a little small. I know that cubic or spherical volumes take up less space than flat ones. But, the oceans are very deep, there are a lot of lakes, and there is a lot of snow.
> 
> If that ball of water hits the dry Earth doesn't look like it would fill up all the oceans, lakes, rivers, and snow covered places.


I agree. I think they got it wrong. But of course, I'm not a scientist. Just fascinated by it.


----------



## Kris10 (Oct 14, 2009)

Noooo waaaaay!!!

something just doesn't look right:/


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

I think it's because we have the fact drilled into us that the Earth is 70% water. What they mean to say is that the SURFACE of the Earth is 70% covered by water. That's like saying 99% percent of an apple is covered by a red peel. True, but it's the juicy fruit inside that makes up most of the apple.

And let's not forget, the oceans are, at their deepest, only a few kilometers deep. Not very thick in terms of the total diameter of the Earth.

But I agree, that little sphere of water does seem puny!


----------



## Kris10 (Oct 14, 2009)

Then again the dried up oceans do look pretty shallow.


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

Define Lies said:


> Interesting. Also, water makes up one- one hundredth of a percent of the earths mass, if I remember correctly


At first I read that and thought you said 1/100th of the Earth's mass. I was thinking "no way, maybe 1/100th of a percent".

Then I read your post again. :b:teeth


----------



## river1 (Jan 12, 2012)

thanks for posting this itès very interesting!


----------



## jon 29 uk (Sep 14, 2011)

crazy but makes sense.


----------

