Water, world 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Pangolin Posted 10:11 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Life is a film 100 ft deepThe vast majority of life on this planet lives in a thin film 100 feet from the land/air or air water interface. On a ball the size of a basketball the comparable thickness of oil would be barely perceptable.
   So when somebody says "you're slime," they're right.
   
   Put the Carbon Back

   Permalink

2. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 10:59 am
   27 Feb 2008

   And let us not forget...that if we were to squeeze every single person on earth right next to each other, touching with almost no space in between, they would take up less than 10 sq. miles worth of space.

   Permalink

3. 

   Pangolin Posted 6:38 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   Yeah, but the smell......And let us not forget...
   that if we were to squeeze every single person on earth right next to each other, touching with almost no space in between, they would take up less than 10 sq. miles worth of space.
   Do you have a link to the math for that? While it is true that on prime irrigated garden land in a semi-tropical zone you can feed a person on 2 acres there is a massive shortage of such land. Most of the world is ocean, desert, tundra, ice, vertical or otherwise unsuitable for feeding people.
   Starving to death in the vastness of the Amazon or the Siberian forest is quite possible even though surrounded by living things.
   The expression of a limited world was best expressed earlier on Grist in a post titled: "My Little World (and yours, too)"
   
   Put the Carbon Back

   Permalink

4. 

   spaceshaper Posted 10:27 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   Never mind the smell, the math's pretty simpleTen square miles would give us a little over 4 s.f. per person (10 x 27,878,400/6.5 billion). We'd actually have room to sit down.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

5. 

   spaceshaper Posted 10:33 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   Oh dear..Make that 0.04 s.f per person. Ah well. It was fun while it lasted.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 11:55 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   "the eyes have it"Graphic presentations have terrific value in getting us tree-swinging primates to take to heart certain differences.
   You young whipper-snappers do not remember when two-dimensional projections of the world (i.e., on flat wall-maps) for some weird reason (no doubt evil: racism?; colonialism?; imperialism?) made Alaska, Greenland and Arctic Canada look tremendous, while Africa and Brazil looked modest.  By the same token, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics looked awesomely monstrous and frightful.
   Back when I was in class with Euclid, I remember being told that if the Earth were shrunk to the size of a billiards ball, no actual billiards ball could be made so smooth.  And by contrast, if the smoothest of actual billiards balls were inflated to the size of the Earth, its irregularities would be far higher than the Himalayas and far deeper than the deepest ocean canyons.
   It would be interesting to see a graphic comparison of biota, e.g.: the biomass of plants, animals and bacteria; the biomass of terrestrial organisms and marine organisms; the biomass of human beings, rats, chickens, beetles and ants.
   
   Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

7. 

   sindark Posted 1:04 am
   28 Feb 2008

   MercatorYou young whipper-snappers do not remember when two-dimensional projections of the world (i.e., on flat wall-maps) for some weird reason (no doubt evil: racism?; colonialism?; imperialism?) made Alaska, Greenland and Arctic Canada look tremendous, while Africa and Brazil looked modest.
   Actually, the distortion on the Mercator projection serves a pretty important purpose: it ensures that a straight line drawn on the map is also a straight line on the ground - pretty handy when you are trying to navigate.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

8. 

   sindark Posted 1:05 am
   28 Feb 2008

   Mercator IITo be more technical about that point:
   "All lines of constant bearing (rhumb lines or loxodromes - those making constant angles with the meridians), are represented by straight segments on a Mercator map. This is precisely the type of route usually employed by ships at sea, where compasses are used to indicate geographical directions and to steer the ships. The two properties, conformality and straight rhumb lines, make this projection uniquely suited to marine navigation: courses and bearings are measured using wind-roses or protractors, and the corresponding directions are easily transferred from point to point, on the map, with the help of a parallel ruler or a pair of navigational squares."
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

9. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:20 am
   28 Feb 2008

   Support and squeeze...Do you have a link to the math for that? While it is true that on prime irrigated garden land in a semi-tropical zone you can feed a person on 2 acres there is a massive shortage of such land. Most of the world is ocean, desert, tundra, ice, vertical or otherwise unsuitable for feeding people.
   I didn't say anything 'bout supporting the population.  I just said that if ya physically took everyone and placed 'em in the same spot, little space in between, it would take up less than 10 sq. miles.
   It obviously takes more space to actually support those people.  If it didn't, then our collective impact on the Earth would be...well...just ten square miles.
   But we haveta have fields to provide food, and homes for shelter, and mines for raw materials, and transportation systems, and stores, and all the other infrastructure that's really what causes our impact.
   It's funny how a group of creatures who could be squeezed into 10 sq. miles worth of space need more than half of the planet's landmass (and a good deal of the waters) in order to support themselves.

   Permalink