Changing Pop images of the Earth and Clouds

This is an odd pop phenomenon I’ve noticed, but haven’t seen anyone else ever comment on.

How do you depict the Earth and Clouds, seen from far away from the earth?

Nowadays, you show the earth as a blue-brown-white ball of oceans and continents and ice, closely sheathed with a thin covering of clouds. But, prior to about 1960, it was almost never depicted that way (at least outside of science fiction). Instead, the earth was shown as a cloud-free sphere, just like a classroom globe, with the clouds just sort of floating freely in space, as if normal clouds were a normal interplanetary phenomenon not subject to the usual rules of gravity. In fact, it was frequently depicted this way even in science fiction movies.

Examples are The Invisible Ray (from the 1930s), where we see the fall of a meteorite from a point of view outside the earth. The slowly turning globe has absolutely no clouds. There arn’t any in space, either.

Casablanca, where the globe shown at the beginning is swathed in clouds
The Day the Earth Stood Still. at the beginning we approach the earth , and see it from Klaatu’s POV. There are no clouds on the earth, but there are plenty of them between the earth and the moon.

This Island Earth – again, no clouds in space, but the Earth is cloud-free.
I had school textbooks from the 1950s period that showed the Earth surrounded by magical, gravity-defying clouds that extended well away from the earth.

The truth is that there really wasn’t a good reason for this. People knew better. Frank Kelly Freas and other SF cover illustrators showed the earth with a close-fitting mantle of cloud cover, and none in space. The movie Forbidden Planet gets another vote from me as Greatest Sf Film for getting this right, too – Altair IV has close-fitting cloud cover

the motion picturess shot by rockets on test flights from the period show the proper cloud cover, and weather satellite photos (which we got on the news every night during the 1960s) showed the earth as a ball with close-fitting ubiquitous cloud cover.
But Pop Culture representations of the earth continued to show it cloud-free for the most part, with those unscientific clouds out in space. Until the Apollo flights. There were images of the earth shot from far away that showed those dramatic cloud layers. In particular, there was the shot showing Earthrise over the Moon that was widely reproduced, and even made into a popular poster.*

It seems that ever since then the Earth and its clouds have been properly presented in pictures and the movies, and you don’t see the cloudless earth with space-faring clouds (although you’ll still see unscientific nebulae too damned close to the earth – I think artists feel that space is too barren, and needs something to make it visually interesting)
but it amazes me how the true image of a cloud-wrapped Earth made so little headway until that Apollo poster brought it home. Did the makers of movies think that the rubes in Sheboygan wouldn’t think it was the Earth, or that it didn’t look right with the clouds, and wouldn’t accept it if shown properly?

*The movie 2001 showed the earth correctly, with its cloud blanket hugging close, and it came out about the same time as the iconic Apollo image. But this wasn’t a big part of the 2001 iconography – the images associated with the film emphasized the space wheel, the various ships, and the Monolith. The shots of the properly-clouded Earth weren’t major images associated with the film. Star Trek showed cloud-wrapped planets, too, and might have helped. Although the way they depcted orbits always bothered me.

Although, to be complete, you should note that when they showed Earth, it was cloudless.

I sum up this issue as accuracy vs. iconicity.

The iconic view of the earth was indeed that of a classroom globe. It’s instantly recognizable.

More to the point, it gives the continents in relation to one another. For many purposes that’s why you’re showing the globe.

The view from space is a different sort of icon. It emphasizes the smallness and wholeness of the earth. We are all one on Spaceship Earth and that kind of crap.

Most artists are not scientists and you can see from a zillion comments on these boards that accurate understanding of anything scientific is in short supply. There was no good reason for an artist to research cloud patterns on the earth unless clouds were a necessity. Sometimes simpler is better visually.

I think the answer is a combination of what image popped into the artist’s head when told to draw the earth and what purpose the image was supposed to have. Outside of the hard core science and sf audiences nobody thought twice about the issue of accuracy or what the Sheboyganite rube would think. The artists didn’t think, and the filmmakers didn’t think either. Iconicity was far more important.

In some ways we’ve been ruined by the picture of the cloud-ridden earth. It obscures geography. Maybe that’s why teens don’t know where to find Canada on a map! :smiley:

I can’t remember ever seeing clouds shown that way. Are you sure you’re not confusing your memory of the Universal logo, with the Van Allen radiation belts rather fancifully depicted?

Yeah; sometimes the planets looked good, but when you saw the Enterprise supposedly in orbit, often they’d use some stock film showing the ship passing stars at warp speed.

Funny you should bring this subject up; I’ve recently been considering it in light of the nonsensical “the Moon landings were faked!” claims occasionally encountered on the internet. While it hardly counts as scientific proof, to me the appearance of the Earth in those Gemini and Apollo pictures clearly refute the claims of the moon-hoaxers, precisely because they look nothing like what people prior to the start of the space program thought the Earth would look like from space. Even those hardcore scientific illustrators people have mentioned, while they did show a cloud-wrapped globe, got the overall picture subtly wrong: the blues not intense enough, not nearly enough structure and texture in the cloud formations, the continents appearing more green than brown, etc. The space program completely changed the way we view our planet, although we often take that change for granted today.

Ah, but how do you know they haven’t faked all the other pictures from “space”, supposedly taken by “satellites” in “orbit” around our “planet”. (It’s turtles all the way down!)

VERY sure. It’s the reason I wrote this post. Go look at the films I cite (none of them are Universal movies) The Universal “Van Allen” belt looks completely different – it’s a well-defined ribbonlike structure. The things I;'m talkimng about are unmistakeable CLOUDS. Wispy ones or big fluffy cumulonimbus clouds anomalously out in space.