contentbot@lemmy.caB to Cool Guides@lemmy.caEnglish · 6 months agoA cool guide about wateri.redd.itexternal-linkmessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1340arrow-down116file-text
arrow-up1324arrow-down1external-linkA cool guide about wateri.redd.itcontentbot@lemmy.caB to Cool Guides@lemmy.caEnglish · 6 months agomessage-square30fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareHedup@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·6 months agoSo organisms have just as much water as rivers? That seems surprising, but I guess it could be that way.
minus-squareBlackmist@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·6 months ago50% of a tree is apparently water, which seems like a lot.
minus-squaretacosplease@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 months agoIt’s the other 60% you have to worry about
minus-squareFleur__@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·6 months agoCould just be that whatever was used to create the diagram has a minimum slice size and anything below that just gets rounded up. Without labels for the size of each slice it’s impossible to tell.
minus-squarejaybone@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 months agoWould be nice if they included a source for this data. Then it would not be impossible to tell.
minus-squareZagorath@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·6 months agoJust eyeballing it the organisms looks maybe 2/3rds the size of rivers?
So organisms have just as much water as rivers? That seems surprising, but I guess it could be that way.
Removed by mod
50% of a tree is apparently water, which seems like a lot.
It’s the other 60% you have to worry about
Could just be that whatever was used to create the diagram has a minimum slice size and anything below that just gets rounded up. Without labels for the size of each slice it’s impossible to tell.
Would be nice if they included a source for this data. Then it would not be impossible to tell.
Just eyeballing it the organisms looks maybe 2/3rds the size of rivers?