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.
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.
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.
nitrogen – 78%
oxygen – 17%
carbon dioxide – 4%
other gases - 1%
So you can see 17% oxygen
Ehhh, if you made a translucent sphere that could hold a vacuum you would get the same outcome l.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, but this is a bubble blown by a person. Exhale would have less oxygen and more CO2.