Here is a graphic illustration of just how little water there actually is on our planet.  There are three bubbles shown.  The 1st bubble represents ALL of the water on, in, and over the planet.  The smaller 2 bubbles represent Earth's liquid freshwater supply broken down into several categories.   

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html#.T7Fqm7_rybJ

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120524.html

i LIKE THIS ONE BETTER.

Also to note.
That OUT OF all the water on earth, less then 1% is fresh water..

I like the second too. The first is missing a sphere that includes all fresh water. They omitted Antarctica, which has the bulk of earth's fresh water tied up in a 2 mile thick ice sheet atop the driest desert on earth. Huh??!!? Yup. Antarctica, in terms of precipitation is the driest place on earth with just 2 inches of fresh powder snow per year. This, despite the fact that 70% of the earth's fresh water is at the poles, mostly on Antarctica.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/whats%20it%20like%20in%20Antarctica.htm

http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html

Nice find, ECA.   The relative size of Europa's water bubble is amazing.  It would be cool to see other planets and/or major moons' water quantities as well. 

I haven't gone to the charts.  Too easy to see the issue:  how much (fresh) water do we need and how much do we have?  Comparing the size of one relevant issue to other irrelevant issues is "not helpful."---IE==the comparison can be viewed as "how little fresh water we have" -OR- how much salt water we have.  The relationships between those two is irrelevant.

Similar deal with Antarctica being "a desert."  Well--if you were dying of thirst, where would you rather be?  The Sahara with an umbrella, or Antarctica with a stove?  The desert can be defined as precipitation per year or by how much water regardless of form is present?

Yes my dear friends---its all definitional.  And by definitional I mean NOT that you have to choose the "right" definition, but rather that ALL definitions need to be considered, weighted, compared, evaluated, included.

What would the bubble look like for that?

I haven't gone to the charts.  Too easy to see the issue:  how much (fresh) water do we need and how much do we have?  Comparing the size of one relevant issue to other irrelevant issues is "not helpful."---IE==the comparison can be viewed as "how little fresh water we have" -OR- how much salt water we have.  The relationships between those two is irrelevant.

Similar deal with Antarctica being "a desert."  Well--if you were dying of thirst, where would you rather be?  The Sahara with an umbrella, or Antarctica with a stove?  The desert can be defined as precipitation per year or by how much water regardless of form is present?

Yes my dear friends---its all definitional.  And by definitional I mean NOT that you have to choose the "right" definition, but rather that ALL definitions need to be considered, weighted, compared, evaluated, included.

What would the bubble look like for that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc26sf-cZg  !!!!

I met Don Ho at the bar after his show was over. Offered to buy him a drink.  He said "No Thanks" and ordered his regular (looked like club soda but who knows?) and we had a nice conversation for about 10 minutes.  I've always liked "tiny bubbles."  Who doesn't like tiny bubbles?

I met Don Ho at the bar after his show was over. Offered to buy him a drink.  He said "No Thanks" and ordered his regular (looked like club soda but who knows?) and we had a nice conversation for about 10 minutes.  I've always liked "tiny bubbles."  Who doesn't like tiny bubbles?

Title could be: " Gung Ho meets Don Ho!

I REALLY dont want to say this...

But you met a Ho, in HAwaii??
Did the bubbles go to your head, ....
I know, my friends always say it..
SHUT UP ED..

I haven't gone to the charts.  Too easy to see the issue:  how much (fresh) water do we need and how much do we have?  Comparing the size of one relevant issue to other irrelevant issues is "not helpful."---IE==the comparison can be viewed as "how little fresh water we have" -OR- how much salt water we have.  The relationships between those two is irrelevant.

Similar deal with Antarctica being "a desert."  Well--if you were dying of thirst, where would you rather be?  The Sahara with an umbrella, or Antarctica with a stove?  The desert can be defined as precipitation per year or by how much water regardless of form is present?

Yes my dear friends---its all definitional.  And by definitional I mean NOT that you have to choose the "right" definition, but rather that ALL definitions need to be considered, weighted, compared, evaluated, included.

What would the bubble look like for that?

Actually, such charts are useful for the uninformed. Many mistakenly believe that with all the water on the planet, water can never be in short supply. Such people point to the fact that no molecule of water is ever lost. However, what they don't get is that when the water drains to the ocean, it is no longer potable. Nor is it useful for agriculture.

The real bit they miss is that while it is true that ocean water can be desalinated, it takes a lot of energy to do so. And, the amount of energy to then move the desalinated water from the coast to the farms in the mid west is just ludicrous. So, a chart showing that we have very little fresh water on the planet and that the vast majority of it is tied up in ice caps, mostly on Antarctica and a little on Greenland, then followed by rivers and streams and lakes and other useful sources gives a good visual that we do not have an endless supply of fresh potable drinking water on the planet. And, it shows that maybe dumping fertilizer and sewage into the water and bathing in the same water we drink and dumping in PCBs and other pollutants just might actually be a bad idea.

ECA--you blind sided me with that.  Yes, I met a ho==actually, THE ho, I'm not so humble to claim.  Ha, ha.  Good one.  Ed huh?  Only took a few years for that bit of personal info to slip out.  Ho's for me, first name for thee.  But seriously, there are few pleasures that match tiny bubbles in the head and an amiable Ho not trying to take advantage of the situation.  "Tiny Bubbles..... make me feel free...."  Don't even know it that is the real lyrics==its mine.

Scotty--with nano technology and advancement in solar cells and whatnot, yes==its exactly the availability of salt water that will solve the water crises we are at the edge of now.  Add to that salt tolerant plants and recycled second use water and THE FUTURE IS SO BRIGHT.... I gotta wear shades.

You haven't mentions that carrying capacity link I gave you.  Excellent web site which is why I actually posted.  From memory--if everyone lived like Ugandans--the Earth can support 18 billion.  If everyone lived like USA--3 billion.  (Maybe 1.8?)  Yes--everything is definitional.

Tiny bubbles......................

Re: Ho.

Wasn't there some joke about Santa being on trial for libel?

Plaintiff's attorney: Did you or did you not call my client, not once, not twice, but three times a ho?

Scotty--with nano technology and advancement in solar cells and whatnot, yes==its exactly the availability of salt water that will solve the water crises we are at the edge of now.  Add to that salt tolerant plants and recycled second use water and THE FUTURE IS SO BRIGHT.... I gotta wear shades.

You haven't mentions that carrying capacity link I gave you.  Excellent web site which is why I actually posted.  From memory--if everyone lived like Ugandans--the Earth can support 18 billion.  If everyone lived like USA--3 billion.  (Maybe 1.8?)  Yes--everything is definitional.

Tiny bubbles......................

Doesn't solve the transport issue for the water. Are you going to pump the necessary water up 5000' of vertical and across 1000 miles to get it to Denver?

As for supporting 18 billion. Do you want to live the lifestyle of a Ugandan? And, even at that, I'd question for how long. I'd like to know whether those calculations included using up all of the top soil in the mid west and all of the water in the Ogallala aquifer, for example. What about the rest of the desertification currently underway? What assumptions were made about whether we'd have ocean seafood in our diets? A billion people today rely on the ocean for the bulk of their protein. The ocean is forecast to be commercially dead by 2050 or earlier either from overfishing or from ocean acidification, whichever comes first. They're forecast for about the same time, I think, somewhere in the 2040s. What about sea level rise inundating all the low lying areas of the world, like the entire state of Florida and the entire nation of Bangladesh?

Scotty:

Doesn't solve the transport issue for the water. Are you going to pump the necessary water up 5000' of vertical and across 1000 miles to get it to Denver?  ///  Yeah--ok.  Just like being against battery cars because "what about the guy in Texas that commutes 300 miles to work each day?  Desalinization will get cheaper and cheaper as technology develops allowing displacement of down stream uses so that upstream users like Denver can use rivers like God meant them to be.  Stop being so unimaginative.

As for supporting 18 billion. Do you want to live the lifestyle of a Ugandan? ///  That was the point made.

And, even at that, I'd question for how long. I'd like to know whether those calculations included using up all of the top soil in the mid west and all of the water in the Ogallala aquifer, for example. ///  Don't know.  Just one shows opinion MEANT to show that sustainability rests on what life style is being sustained.  Do you need it spelled out even more?  It goes right back to what I asked you years ago:  you gonna sustain smallpox?   And you still have no answer but criticize answers from others.  Bad negativity.

What about the rest of the desertification currently underway? What assumptions were made about whether we'd have ocean seafood in our diets? A billion people today rely on the ocean for the bulk of their protein. The ocean is forecast to be commercially dead by 2050 or earlier either from overfishing or from ocean acidification, whichever comes first. They're forecast for about the same time, I think, somewhere in the 2040s. What about sea level rise inundating all the low lying areas of the world, like the entire state of Florida and the entire nation of Bangladesh?  ///  Whats your point?  Assumptions - Analysis - Choices.

Oh please booboo, smallpox may have some relevance in a discussion about the morality of extinctions. It is completely off the wall to bring it up here. It makes no difference to the number of people that can be sustained on the planet whether or not we have a jar of smallpox in a freezer.

And, my point is that people making statements about the planet supporting 18 billion Ugandans are likely not taking into account the already dwindling food supply. They're probably making the assumption that we can continue to produce food at today's rates forever. But, we're already seeing decline in food production. So, we should be assuming that in response to decreased food supply, we will have a declining human population. That is the obvious conclusion. Yeah. More equitable distribution would help. But, today's food production is not sustainable.

That which is unsustainable will not continue.

This is true of never ending population growth and of never ending economic growth. And, it sure as hell is more true than ever given current declining food supply and decline in arable land.

To think that we can have never ending population growth and never ending economic growth is literally to live in Never Never Land. Wake up!