• @Robmart@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      207 months ago

      Aren’t you just seeing the lack of water rather than actually seeing the oxygen?

            • FeminalPanda
              link
              English
              37 months ago

              Ehhh, if you made a translucent sphere that could hold a vacuum you would get the same outcome l.

              • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                27 months ago

                It would be close but but exactly the same. A vacuum would refract the light going through it differently than a bubble of gas. Though I think it would need to be pretty big to see it with the naked eye.

            • Kühe sind toll
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              You see the a bubble of gas(and therefore the absence of water), not the oxygen itself. You could use only nitrogen gas and you couldn’t tell the difference.

          • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            There won’t be that much CO2 for a long time, even if we increase our carbon output. Currently it stands at around 0.04%, third to argon at a bit under 1%. Oxygen is just under 21%. Oxygen and nitrogen together make up over 99% of the atmosphere (at sea level). That’s for dry air, otherwise water vapour is at around 1% and the others reduced to fit that in.

            • Tlaloc_Temporal
              link
              fedilink
              67 months ago

              Ah, but this is a bubble blown by a person. Exhale would have less oxygen and more CO2.