• @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.