• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 18:48
CEST 00:48
KST 07:48
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors2Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun13[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Inheritors16[ASL21] Ro16 Preview Pt2: All Star10Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - The Finalists22
Community News
RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event10Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results02026 GSL Season 1 Qualifiers25Maestros of the Game 2 announced92026 GSL Tour plans announced15
StarCraft 2
General
Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - The Finalists Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool MaNa leaves Team Liquid
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event GSL Code S Season 1 (2026) SC2 INu's Battles#15 <BO.9 2Matches> WardiTV Spring Cup SEL Masters #6 - Solar vs Classic (SC: Evo)
Strategy
Custom Maps
[D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3 [A] Nemrods 1/4 players [M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
Mutation # 524 Death and Taxes The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 523 Firewall Mutation # 522 Flip My Base
Brood War
General
[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors Why there arent any 256x256 pro maps? BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL21 General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL21] Ro8 Day 2 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 2 [BSL22] RO16 Group Stage - 02 - 10 May
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers What's the deal with APM & what's its true value Any training maps people recommend?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread Daigo vs Menard Best of 10 Diablo IV
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia
Community
General
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread 3D technology/software discussion Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion McBoner: A hockey love story
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
streaming software Strange computer issues (software) [G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Movie Stars In Video Games: …
TrAiDoS
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Broowar part 2
qwaykee
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1973 users

Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 285

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 283 284 285 286 287 783 Next
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11825 Posts
June 14 2015 12:55 GMT
#5681
As i said earlier, the total solar energy absorbed by the earth in one year is ~3.85*10^24 J, and the absolute minimum possible energy to get the oceans to the moon was ~1.7*10^26J
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
June 14 2015 13:06 GMT
#5682
On June 14 2015 21:55 Simberto wrote:
As i said earlier, the total solar energy absorbed by the earth in one year is ~3.85*10^24 J, and the absolute minimum possible energy to get the oceans to the moon was ~1.7*10^26J

Oh, missed that, sorry. Do you have any estimates for other energy sources?

Is there any way whatsoever to make a slingshot-effect feasible? Bringing an asteroid or comet in a very proximity to earth creating some kind of giant tidal wave that can then be guided towards the moon? Hopefully without wiping out the rest of the earth too much in the process?

On a related note, would crashing the moon into earth count as "moving the oceans to the moon"? It is relative after all what is moving to what, who are you to say that it wasn't the oceans (and the rest of the earth) that moved to the moon???
jello_biafra
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
United Kingdom6641 Posts
June 14 2015 13:15 GMT
#5683
So...pretty much every time a referee makes a decision in a game of football such as giving a free kick or a yellow card or whatever players will argue with him and try and get him to change his decision, my question is: has a player ever actually successfully changed a ref's mind? It seems like it's never happened, lol.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions | aka Probert[PaiN] @ iccup / godlikeparagon @ twitch | my BW stream: http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/jello_biafra
538
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
Hungary3932 Posts
June 14 2015 13:51 GMT
#5684
On June 14 2015 22:15 jello_biafra wrote:
So...pretty much every time a referee makes a decision in a game of football such as giving a free kick or a yellow card or whatever players will argue with him and try and get him to change his decision, my question is: has a player ever actually successfully changed a ref's mind? It seems like it's never happened, lol.

Practically never, but it's not unheard of. Here's a short collection based on a half-assed google search: link

Also sometimes you will see the referee change his mind based on consulting the other referees (on the sideline, or lately, beside the goal lines), and sometimes even using "illegal" sources, such as the replay screen in the stadium. (This latter is not allowed, as football has only just started introducing the concept of video replays around last year, and it's still a very gradual process - the world cup used video-based goal-line decision technology to determine whether a goal was scored or not, but they don't use it for faults or offsides yet. See for example: argentinian referee banned for making the right call)

Also, afaik, players are not even allowed to argue the decision to the referee (you often see them get a yellow card for being too vehement), except for the team captains.

But once the referee's decree was carried out (ie. the new kick-off is made after a goal call), the referee can't change its mind anymore.
BW fighting!
jello_biafra
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
United Kingdom6641 Posts
June 14 2015 17:39 GMT
#5685
On June 14 2015 22:51 538 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2015 22:15 jello_biafra wrote:
So...pretty much every time a referee makes a decision in a game of football such as giving a free kick or a yellow card or whatever players will argue with him and try and get him to change his decision, my question is: has a player ever actually successfully changed a ref's mind? It seems like it's never happened, lol.

Practically never, but it's not unheard of. Here's a short collection based on a half-assed google search: link

Also sometimes you will see the referee change his mind based on consulting the other referees (on the sideline, or lately, beside the goal lines), and sometimes even using "illegal" sources, such as the replay screen in the stadium. (This latter is not allowed, as football has only just started introducing the concept of video replays around last year, and it's still a very gradual process - the world cup used video-based goal-line decision technology to determine whether a goal was scored or not, but they don't use it for faults or offsides yet. See for example: argentinian referee banned for making the right call)

Also, afaik, players are not even allowed to argue the decision to the referee (you often see them get a yellow card for being too vehement), except for the team captains.

But once the referee's decree was carried out (ie. the new kick-off is made after a goal call), the referee can't change its mind anymore.

Good answer, thanks. I thought it must have happened at some point but had just never seen it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions | aka Probert[PaiN] @ iccup / godlikeparagon @ twitch | my BW stream: http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/jello_biafra
Epishade
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
United States2267 Posts
June 15 2015 05:49 GMT
#5686
Maybe if we brought the moon closer to earth, we could move the water easier!
Pinhead Larry in the streets, Dirty Dan in the sheets.
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
June 15 2015 07:21 GMT
#5687
On June 15 2015 14:49 Epishade wrote:
Maybe if we brought the moon closer to earth, we could move the water easier!


When moving the oceans, we are talking about a mass of ~1.5*10^15 t. When moving the moon, ~7.5*10^19 t. Current moon speed is ~1km/s. Kinetic energy ~3.7.10^28J. Crashing the moon is a lot costlier than getting the oceans up there, so not a good idea.

If we move out of earth to gather energy however, we can probably do better. A single initial drone sent to a ressource extraction mission and the resulting energy transfered back to earth. Better than using only the ressources of our planet, but not very efficient yet. Best case scenario, we harness the energy of the sun itself instead of the fraction of the energy that hits the orbiting bodies. Sun energy: 3,826×10^26W which is enough to do the job in second(s).

Next problem: finding a way to build a structure that captures all the energy the sun provides to send it home and is less costly to build than sending the oceans to the moon.
Coooot
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
June 15 2015 08:00 GMT
#5688
On June 14 2015 22:15 jello_biafra wrote:
So...pretty much every time a referee makes a decision in a game of football such as giving a free kick or a yellow card or whatever players will argue with him and try and get him to change his decision, my question is: has a player ever actually successfully changed a ref's mind? It seems like it's never happened, lol.

Very rare that ref changes opinion, but very common to see "compensation penalty" to team A if team B got a doubtful one earlier. So more than changing the current decision (the ref knows he shouldn't/can't do that), they are making it more likely for future calls to go in their favour.

In practice though, most of them are just mad and pumped full of adrenaline I think.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
June 15 2015 08:26 GMT
#5689
vaporize the oceans then have the vapors, packed in special balloons, float out of the atmosphere; then just drag them to the moon.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11825 Posts
June 15 2015 08:42 GMT
#5690
I think this is the part where you come up with more and more creative ways to solve the problem, and i say "nope, conservation of energy".

No matter how you spin it, you must invest the energy necessary to change the gravitational potential energy of the water somehow. In your description, it would probably be very inefficient, as you would need to vaporize a lot of water, which needs shitloads of energy. And even then you haven't really won a lot, as the water balloons, even if they somehow magically nearly leave the atmosphere, will not be in an orbit, but just very high up. Space is not only a certain distance away, more importantly it is a certain speed away. To stay in space, you need to be going fast enough for the zentrifugal force to be equal to the gravitational force.
helpman177
Profile Blog Joined June 2015
56 Posts
June 15 2015 09:17 GMT
#5691
We dont need extra energy to vaporize the water. The sun does the job already.
We just need to find a way to package the clouds into balloons.
Ideally we would have a stratospheric station from which rockets can launch.
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
June 15 2015 10:04 GMT
#5692
On June 15 2015 18:17 helpman177 wrote:
We dont need extra energy to vaporize the water. The sun does the job already.
We just need to find a way to package the clouds into balloons.
Ideally we would have a stratospheric station from which rockets can launch.


The sun "does the job". Since we were planning to use all the sun energy that gets to the earth in the first place, that means part of the sun energy would be diverted to heating water instead of sending water to the moon, with the result that the water is in gazeous form and 0.0001% of the way there. Not an efficient use of the incoming energy.

On June 15 2015 17:42 Simberto wrote:
To stay in space, you need to be going fast enough for the zentrifugal force to be equal to the gravitational force.


Not true. To stay in space without spending any additional energy, you need enough speed. You could get to the moon without ever reaching a high speed in your starting point referential. Agreed, you get hit pretty hard when you get there, but that wouldn't be an issue.

Coooot
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
June 15 2015 11:47 GMT
#5693
On June 15 2015 18:17 helpman177 wrote:
We dont need extra energy to vaporize the water. The sun does the job already.
We just need to find a way to package the clouds into balloons.
Ideally we would have a stratospheric station from which rockets can launch.

I like this idea! Balloons aren't really helping, but using atmospheric water is possibly the way to go! Just have something orbiting at the edge of the atmosphere and, in some way, fish up the water molecules and push them up into a moon-bound trajectory. The atmosphere gets depleted of water (if done on sufficiently large scale), which will decrease rainfall and promote evaporation of the ocean.

The sun does indeed provide much of the power through evaporating the oceans, and we even get some extra help from brownian motion etc, fishing up the highest energy atmospheric water in the top layers, minimising energy needed. So yeah, the earth will be messed up: dry and who knows what the other climate effects will be, but I if you want to remove all the oceans, I don't think that is a concern anyway.

Now we just have to come up with an effective way to selectively find the water molecules in the very top layers of the atmosphere and send then to the moon. On a ridiculously large scale. And a way to catch them at arrival, and stuff them underground or whatever. Then we are done.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-15 12:42:54
June 15 2015 12:24 GMT
#5694
there aren't any water molecules in "the top layers" 'cause they liquify in the lower layers(troposphere) and drop back to earth.
you have to have something that would shield the vapors from all heat and/or matter transfers that might occur and to keep them going up regardless of the air density.

even if some water molecules would get lost in "the top layers", they'd be to heavy, the air density to low, so the gravity would just drag them down.

Edit: the idea is that, since you don't consume energy making the gas go up, the energy required to evaporate the oceans would be way less than the energy required to move the water with rockets or something.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18285 Posts
June 15 2015 13:11 GMT
#5695
The last two pages of discussion is just another one of the reasons why this thread is the awesomest thread on TL :D
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
June 15 2015 13:52 GMT
#5696
hmm, you don't even need to go full retard and heat the oceans 'till the boiling point; you could just play with atmospheric pressure variations and evaporate the water at ~50C or something.

and, if you manage to get to the upper layers of atmosphere with your balloon, you'd just use small nozzles(previously installed on your flying apparatus!) to let some vapors out and steer/propel it.
fuck man, you could even land it on the moon. AHA!
+ Show Spoiler +
all we need now is a clown who can make some serious balloon magic happen.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11825 Posts
June 15 2015 15:33 GMT
#5697
As i said, problems still stand.

I would like to correct my previous numbers, as i didn't realize that we don't have to take a reasonable orbital path to the moon, we could just dump things onto it at high speeds.

This leads as to an absolute minimum of 5.984*10^7 J/kg Energy required to get stuff onto the moon. This is the pure difference in their gravity wells, we even somehow siphon off the energy that we get back from crashing into the moon at full speed into something useable in this calculation.

There is no way around this. You need to put in this energy. Energy from the sun isn't free either, even if you use the energy from the sun to vaporize water, you still need that energy. Conservation of energy always wins against seemingly reasonable schemes.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18285 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-15 16:23:23
June 15 2015 16:22 GMT
#5698
On June 15 2015 16:21 Oshuy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2015 14:49 Epishade wrote:
Maybe if we brought the moon closer to earth, we could move the water easier!


When moving the oceans, we are talking about a mass of ~1.5*10^15 t. When moving the moon, ~7.5*10^19 t. Current moon speed is ~1km/s. Kinetic energy ~3.7.10^28J. Crashing the moon is a lot costlier than getting the oceans up there, so not a good idea.

If we move out of earth to gather energy however, we can probably do better. A single initial drone sent to a ressource extraction mission and the resulting energy transfered back to earth. Better than using only the ressources of our planet, but not very efficient yet. Best case scenario, we harness the energy of the sun itself instead of the fraction of the energy that hits the orbiting bodies. Sun energy: 3,826×10^26W which is enough to do the job in second(s).

Next problem: finding a way to build a structure that captures all the energy the sun provides to send it home and is less costly to build than sending the oceans to the moon.

Well, not necessarily. You forget that, as Simberto keeps wanting to point out, you have to somehow get all the water away from the earth's gravity well, which costs a LOT more energy than simply pushing it from one orbit to another. I have no idea how much energy would be needed to nudge the moon out of its current stable orbit and into a decaying orbit that would result in it crashing into the earth (I'm sure there are people here who can do that calculation), but my guess would be that if our aim is to unite the oceans and the moon, then we can probably crash the moon into the ocean for a fraction of the cost of transporting the oceans to the moon.

Of course, the resulting energy from the collision between earth and moon would instantly vaporize all of the oceans and maybe even blast them all the way out of orbit of the new stellar body moorth (no clue here), as well as a number of other utterly cataclysmic effects, so I am not sure you could consider this scenario as mission accomplished...
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-15 16:50:23
June 15 2015 16:26 GMT
#5699
your math is useless. it assumes you have to transport all that mass using (produced or absorbed)energy, but you don't; you're only spending energy on evaporating that water.
so how much energy it would take to evaporate all the oceans?.

Edit: i found some crazy long ass math - to evaporate all the liquid and solid(ice) water from earth, at boiling point(100C), using only the sun energy, would require 141.95 years. if you calculate it at ~50degreesC, remove the glaciers part and then factor in the amount of energy we can produce ... it becomes a relatively easy feat to achieve (spawning couple decades). + Show Spoiler +
Introduction to an Astronomical Nightmare

(Some basic data and information needed
for this Nightmare):

Radius of the Sun = 696 000 km
Volume of Sun = 4/3  r 3 = 1.4123 x 10 18 km 3

Equatorial Radius of the Earth = 6 378.140 km
Volume of Earth = 4/3  r 3 = 1.0868 x 10 12 km 3

Sun / Earth Volume Ratio = 1.3 million: 1
Hence the Sun is 1.3 million times bigger than the Earth in volume

Mass of Sun is 1.9891 x 1033 grams (1.9891 x 10 30) kg. This makes it 330,000 times more massive than the Earth. The Sun destroys itself at a rate of 5 x 10 9 kg sec –1 to 3.827 x 10 26 watts (3.827 x 10 26 joules of energy per second)

The Sun can maintain this current output of energy for about 5,000 million years more

The source of this solar energy is the proton-proton cycle in which hydrogen nuclei are converted to helium nuclei. Today, after more than 45000 million years of fusion in the core the concentration by mass of H 2 has been reduced from 75 % to about 35 %. Fusion is accompanied by a mass loss, which is converted, into energy

In the process of generating this vast amount of energy (4 x 10 26 watts), the heat and light is spread out into space. A tiny part of this heat is intercepted by Earth from an average distance (semi major axis) of 149.6 million km

In so doing, Earth receives 135.3  2.0 milliwatts / per cm (1.94  0.03 calories / cm 2 / minute. To put it in another way in the SI System, this is equivalent to 1353 watts per sq. metre. To express it another way, it is 1353 joules per second per square metre (1353 J s –1 m -1). This is called the Solar Constant.

Since the Radius of Earth is 6 378.140 km (6378 140 metres), and since the surface area of a sphere is 4r2, the surface area is 5.112 x 10 14 m –2 (approximately).

This means that, for every square metre of the Earth’s surface, 1353 watts x 5.112 x 10 14 m –2 = 6.917 x 10 17 watts (joules per second) will fall on it. This is spread out evenly day and night as the Earth rotates. The poles may be much colder than the equator for 6 months a year, but for the remaining 6 months of the year, it will receive the Sun’s energy continuously even at “night” Thus nearly about the same amount of energy is distributed over the Earth’s surface evenly over a long time frame.


The specific heat (also called specific heat capacity) is the amount of heat required to change a unit mass (or unit quantity, such as mole) of a substance by one degree in temperature

The specific heat capacity (abbreviated C, also called specific heat) of a substance is defined as the amount of heat energy (measured in Joules) required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of the substance by one Kelvin (K). The SI unit for specific heat capacity is the joule per kilogram Kelvin. Specific heat capacity is therefore heat capacity per unit mass.

The Kelvin (K) scale is a thermodynamic temperature scale, in which the lower fixed point is absolute zero, and the higher fixed point is the triple point of water at exactly 273.15 K. The melting point of ice based on the triple point is 273.15 K. Temperatures (t) on the Celsius scale can be converted to temperature T on the Kelvin scale: T/k = t/0C + 273.15. However, for practical purpose to simplify our calculations we shall still use the Celsius scale which most of us can understand better. Morever, we are not dealing with nano-physics of the world of atoms here.

The Specific Latent Heat of Vaporization is the amount of heat required to convert unit mass of a liquid into the vapour without a change in temperature

For water at its normal boiling point of 100 ºC, the latent specific latent heat of vaporization is 2260 kJ.kg-1. This means that to convert 1 kg of water at 100 ºC to 1 kg of steam at 100 º C, the water must absorb 2260 kJ of heat. Conversely, when 1 kg of steam at 100 º C condenses, it gives out 2260-kilo joules

Specific Latent Heat of ice = 3.4 x 10 5 J kg -1
Specific Heat Capacity of water (Cw) = 4.2 x 10 3 J kg –1 0 C -1
Latent Heat of Evaporation of water = 2.26 x 10 6 J kg -1
Heat needed to increase temperature of melted ice from 0 0 C to  0 C
= mil + miCw ( - 0)

There are approximately 400 glaciers and icebergs with a combined weight of (2.2067 x 10 19) kg

Density of ice = 917 kg/m3
Density of Liquid water = 1000 kg m-3

1 cubic km = 1000 m x 1000 m x 1000 m = 1 x 10 9 cubic metres
Since Density = Mass / Volume,
Therefore total mass of ice on planet Earth = density of ice x volume of ice = 917 kg x 24,064,000 cubic km x 10 9 (2.4064 x 1016 cubic metres) x 917 kg = 2.2067 x 1019 kg

(The above are the basic knowledge needed for my scientific nightmare. Now let me argue).

Average Temperature of All the Oceans:

The average temperature for all ocean waters is 3.51°C and its average salinity is 34.72 parts per thousand. For the ocean surrounding Antarctica (south of 55°), the average temperature is 0.71° and the average salinity is 34.65 parts per thousand. Of the major ocean regions, the North Atlantic is the warmest and saltiest (averages: 5.08°, 35.09 parts per thousand)

Source: Penguin

The Cold Dark Ocean Floors:

Sunlight cannot penetrate below a depth of about 660 feet, around the start of what's known as the bathyal zone (it ends where the water temperature drops to 4 degrees Celsius -- at about 6600 feet). Some fish and crustaceans at these depths are blind; other animals -- as many as half of the creatures in the deep oceans -- have become bioluminescent, producing their own light in specialized organs called photophores.

Without sunlight, there is no photosynthesis, and without phytoplankton to kick start the food web, animal life is sparse. Because of the scarcity of food in the deep sea, many fish have evolved bizarre adaptations to help them get what they can.

The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Marianas, a distance of 10,294 m (35,798 ft) below sea level in the Pacific Ocean. It is located 338 km (210 miles) SW of Guam. It is the deepest at 10,294 metres (35,798 ft) known depression on the earth's surface. God only knows what lurks inside there.

Even the height of Mount Everest is only 8850 metres (29035 feet) high, which means the entire Mt Everest would be submerged into the Mariana Trench if it was placed there. We are unsure what are the temperatures of waters conceal in some of these awesomely deep trenches. Some of the ocean floors have vents and abyss where hot water may sprout out from underground volcanic activities. The hot water may dilute the remaining relatively cold masses of surrounding water. Then the hot and cold water may circulate around deep in the ocean floors. So the picture is very complicated. This makes calculations exceedingly complicated. Even if we do know all the information available, probably we may need a supercomputer to execute the equations containing all those ever-changing variables. But I think this is not necessary as we are looking at this planet as a whole, and not as a intricate changing fabric of physical variables. So we will use some oceanographic data that tells us that the average temperature of all the ocean waters on Earth is 3.51°C. We will adopt this figure for our calculations, and this estimate is not going to deviate very much from truth

Amount of Water on Earth

There is a lot of water on our planet. There are about 1 354 728 800 cubic kilometer (km3) of it. This water is spread over different kinds of places as given in table below:

Total amount of water in cubic kilometers (km3) (%)

Seas and Oceans 1 321 920 000 (97.57)
Ice-caps and glaciers 24 064 000 (1.77)
Deep groundwater 4 216 000 (0.31)
Shallow groundwater 4 216 000 (0.31)
Inclination and capillary water 68 000 (0.005)
Rivers 1 360 (0.0001)
Salt or brackish lakes 108 800 (0.008)
Fresh water lakes 122 400 (0.009)
Water-vapour in the air 12 240 (0.0009)

Total amount of solid water (ice) + liquid water = 1 354 716 560 km 3 This excludes all the water vapor in the air including all the clouds as they cannot be included in the calculation since they have already been “vaporized”

1 cubic km (km 3) = 1000 m x 1000m x 1000 m = 1 x 10 9 cubic metres (10 9 m 3)

We also need to realize that water fills ¾ of the Earth surface. So we can expect that ¾ of the heat delivered to Earth falls and warm up the oceans, the remaining heats up the dry land. So we may think we should not include this part of heat into the calculations? Are we right? Wrong! All the heat is now trapped, and the entire Earth is a heat trap. It is now like an oven in which a cake is being baked. It is now the total heat distributed and available everywhere, and not just some parts going into the oceans. The scenario then we will be entirely different from what is now where Earth receives the balance between what it receives, and what escapes back into space. This heat balance just equates so that Earth is not overheated at the moment. This heat balance also allows us to enjoy the cooler sea breeze in the day, and the warmer land air being discharged into the sea at night due to convection air currents. But this wind-heat dynamics over land and sea will no longer work when everything on Earth-land and oceans are all heated up share the same temperature. There may not be a difference in heat gradients by then. So the heat from the land through this heat-transfer mechanism is also heating up the oceans and seas.

The heat dynamics would be different unlike now. If it would still be the same as it is now, I would have taken that into consideration, and divided that up into the calculations. But I have not, because I cannot foresee there would be heat exchange between land and sea by then. The oceans will be actively boiling be then, and superheated steam will be everywhere – land sea, atmosphere, and some diffusing even into interplanetary space. The whole Earth is just heated up uniformly like an oven. There is just no temperature difference at all.

Stage One of Calculation (Ice on Earth):

Density = Mass x Volume
Since density of ice is 917 kg per cubic metre (917 kg m 3)
Therefore the total mass of ice on planet Earth = Density x Volume = 917 kg x (2.4064 x 10 16) m 3 = 2.207 x 10 19 kg
Hence, to melt 2.207 x 1019 kg of ice into water from 0 0 C – 0 0 C (same temperature), requires (3.4 x 105) x (2.207 x 1019) = 7.5 x 10 24 Joules

Stage Two (Changing All the Ice into Liquid Water):

To heat up 2.207 x 1019 kg of melted ice from 0 0 C to 100 0 C, requires;
Specific heat capacity of water (Cw) x weight of water in kg

= 4.2 x 103 J kg-1 x 2.207 x 1019 = 9.3 x 10 22 Joules

Stage Three (Changing All the Liquid Water into Gaseous Water):

To boil off 2.207 x 10 19 kg of water at 100 0 C completely into steam, requires:

Specific Latent Heat of Vaporization (of water) x Weight of water = 2.26 x 10 6 J kg-1 x 2.207 x 10 19 = 4.98 x 10 25 Joules

Therefore, to boil off 2.207 x 10 19 kg of ice-caps + glaciers + permanent snow completely into steam requires: (7.5 x 10 24) + (9.3 x 10 22) + (4.98 x 10 25)

= 5.74 x 10 25 Joules

Liquid Water (The Oceans, Seas, Rivers and Lakes):

The Average Temperature of all the oceans in the world is 3.51 0 C (see information earlier). Hence to raise this temperature to just boiling point (100 0 C) requires a temperature difference of 100 – 3.51 = 96.49 0 C

There are all in 1 330 652 560 cubic km (km 3) of liquid water on this planet. This is an estimated value. So we will round this up to 1330652560 x 10 9 = 1.33 x 10 18 cubic metres. (m 3). It includes all the oceans, seas, lakes, underground water, rivers, etc. Since the seas and the oceans make up the most waters (97.57 %) and they are at an average temperature of 3.51 0 C, the minor sources are assumed to be at the same temperature. This excludes all the ice. The calculation for ice has to be done separately, but the water vapour cannot be included in the calculation as it is already in the “gaseous” form and they are not going to be condensed again as we are going to heat up the entire planet after this.

One cubic metre of water = 1000 kg at 0 0 C, but we assume this is also true at 3.51 0 C. The difference is so insignificant that we can ignore it as we are dealing with astronomical figures.

Hence to bring the temperature of all the liquid waters (1.33 x 10 18 cubic metres) from 3.51 to 100 degrees Celsius requires:

(.1.33 x 10 18) x (4.2 x 10 3) J kg –1 x 96.49 0 C x 1000 kg =

5.39 x 10 26 Joules


Now to Change All the Liquid Water into Steam:

Now we need to change all that water (1.33 x 10 21 kg) at 100 0 C completely into steam

(1.33 x 10 21) kg x (2.26 x 10 6) J kg –1 =

3 x 10 27 Jolues

Finally, to vaporized all the masses of ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, permanent snow, plus all the liquid water on Earth completely into steam requires:

(5.74 x 10 25) + (5.39 x 10 26) + (3 x 10 27) =

3.6 x 10 27 Joules

This means it is 3100, 000 000, 000 000, 000 000, 000 000 (31000 million, million, million, million joules of heat energy from the Sun). In the American English language this Nightmare Figure is called

3.6 Octillion Joules

Just How Much is Lost?

The Sun destroys itself at a rate of (5 x 10 9) kg per second. In the process, it generates 3.827 x 10 26 joules of heat and light per second. We have seen it requires 3.6 x 10 27 joules of energy to vaporize all the oceans, seas, ice, lakes, river, and all the waters from Planet Earth (see calculation above). In order to supply this amount of energy to boil off all the waters, including all the glaciers and all the permanent ice on Earth, the Sun will have to destroy (5 x 10 9)  (3.827 x 10 26) x (3.1 x 10 27) =

4.05 x 10 10 kg of matter

This will yield a stupendous 3.6 octillion joules.

The Second Nightmare!


Imagine 3.6 octillion joules of heat are needed to vaporize all the water on Earth until it is bone-dry to the ocean floors. And how long will that take?

(3.1 x 10 27)  (3.827 x 10 26) =

8 seconds

Eight seconds, that’s all it takes if Earth were to be thrown into the Sun. And 1.3 Million Earths can jolly well be thrown into the Sun – A Colossal Lake of Fire that Will Burn with A Searing Temperature of

15 million °C

This nuclear fire will burn if not throughout
All Eternity, but for at least another

5,000 Million Years More

Save Your Souls if you ever get inside!

The Sun’s heat falls off inversely as the square of its distance. Hence, if Earth were to stay put in her orbit at a respectable mean distance of 149.6 million km away around the Sun, then that will take:

(3.1 x 10 27) joules  (6.917 x 10 17) joules per second (watts) = 4 479 768 786 seconds

But one Solar Year = 365.25 = 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 = 31 557 600 seconds. Hence it will take 4 479 768 786  31 557 600 =

141.95 years to empty all the oceans
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18285 Posts
June 15 2015 16:44 GMT
#5700
On June 16 2015 01:26 xM(Z wrote:
your math is useless. it assumes you have to transport all that mass using (produced or absorbed)energy, but you don't; you're only spending energy on evaporating that water.
so how much energy it would take to evaporate all the oceans?.

I vaporize water all the time when I boil pasta or make tea. I don't think that the vapor goes to the moon. Hell, most of it hangs out in my kitchen and condenses back into liquid form at some point. How do you get your water vapor to the moon?
Prev 1 283 284 285 286 287 783 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
IPSL
19:00
Ro24 Group F
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Liquipedia
BSL
19:00
RO16 Group B
Bonyth vs Sterling
KwarK vs JDConan
ZZZero.O259
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SpeCial 192
JuggernautJason116
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 450
ZZZero.O 259
NaDa 19
Dota 2
monkeys_forever654
League of Legends
Doublelift3046
JimRising 291
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox479
C9.Mang0338
Mew2King84
Other Games
gofns12620
tarik_tv9504
summit1g7000
Grubby5056
Liquid`RaSZi1086
FrodaN1078
UpATreeSC45
Dewaltoss31
NightEnD18
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1648
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream54
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 30
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• imaqtpie1221
Upcoming Events
Patches Events
1h 12m
Replay Cast
10h 12m
Wardi Open
11h 12m
Afreeca Starleague
11h 12m
Jaedong vs Light
Monday Night Weeklies
17h 12m
Replay Cast
1d 1h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 11h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 11h
Snow vs Flash
WardiTV Invitational
1d 12h
SHIN vs Nicoract
Solar vs Nice
GSL
2 days
Classic vs Cure
Maru vs Rogue
[ Show More ]
GSL
3 days
SHIN vs Zoun
ByuN vs herO
OSC
3 days
OSC
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Escore
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Zoun vs Ryung
Lambo vs ShoWTimE
Replay Cast
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
BSL
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Cure vs Zoun
Clem vs Lambo
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
BSL
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-05-02
WardiTV TLMC #16
Nations Cup 2026

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
ASL Season 21
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
IPSL Spring 2026
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 2
KK 2v2 League Season 1
Acropolis #4
SCTL 2026 Spring
RSL Revival: Season 5
2026 GSL S1
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S2: W6
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
Escore Tournament S2: W7
Escore Tournament S2: W8
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Maestros of the Game 2
2026 GSL S2
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
PGL Astana 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.