• FeminalPanda
            link
            English
            31 year 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
              21 year 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
            11 year 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
          21 year 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
            61 year ago

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