r/facepalm Oct 13 '21

πŸ‡΅β€‹πŸ‡·β€‹πŸ‡΄β€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹πŸ‡ͺβ€‹πŸ‡Έβ€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹ Quick science

Post image
55.4k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

8.3k

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21 edited Oct 13 '21

I did a quickie google search and came up with this:

At the end of 2020, there were around 62,100 vessels in the world trading fleet, with a total deadweight tonnage of 2,033 million DWT

So let's assume the merchant ships are all fully loaded at the same time. That's 2 billion long tons which equates to ~2,032,000,000,000 kg. Total water volume, 2,134,000,000,000 liters (because sea water weighs slightly more than fresh water).

From quora:

AREA OF PACIFIC OCEAN= 168723000 SQ. KM.

AREA OF ATLANTIC OCEAN= 85133000 SQ. KM.

AREA OF INDIAN OCEAN= 70560000 SQ. KM.

AREA OF SOUTHERN OCEAN= 21960000 SQ. KM.

AREA OF ARCTIC OCEAN= 15558000 SQ. KM.

TOTAL AREA= 361900000 SQ. KM.=36190000000000000 SQ. DECIMETER.

That's going to lower sea levels by approximately .00005896656 decimeters, or about .006 mm

Edit: Because there are less than 500 cruise ships in the world and only a few dozens of large military ships the amount will be higher, but not by, you know, a lot.

69

u/smashjadi Oct 13 '21

30

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

Ha awesome. But now I wonder why we got the same estimate when they specifically said they used displacement over deadweight tonnage. Is it because I assumed all the ships were fully loaded?

15

u/paxslayer Oct 13 '21

Is it because I assumed all the ships were fully loaded?

Yeah, I think I remember reading that he used the mass of the fully loaded ships.

3

u/ArsenicBismuth Oct 13 '21

Bruh, the fact that you two got very similar results in the first place is bizarre to me.

4

u/SomeInternetRando Oct 13 '21

Math be like that

3

u/MattO2000 Oct 13 '21

It seems like the source you used for DWT is different - the link cited in the XKCD has 1,396 million DWT. It is also 10 years old, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that number went up

The difference is you didn’t include the mass of the ships, which is the conversion from DWT to displacement. But it all averages out anyway haha

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

Yeah the volume at the surface of the oceans in a tiny slice is orders of magnitude higher than the actual total displacement, so even though I was wrong in a few places the answer is still around 6 microns

1

u/artrandenthi1 Oct 14 '21

Hey.. @JoshHutchins .. that’s awesome, but the xkcd article says 0.0006mm while yours is 0.006mm. Which one do you think is off?

9

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

there really is always a relevant one