Would storms on an ocean world harm the marine life?Anatomically correct sharknado sharkSemi-liquid atmosphere - Weather and ClimateWould a massive ocean yield larger storms?Could a motorcycle cause enough pollution to harm a world?In a world 2x the size of earth would sentient aquatic life be more probable?How would you make a planet have more lightning stormsI want a layer out of frozen clouds floating around my planet. How could that work?How to generate powerful cyclonic storms in an ocean basinOcean currents on a world with 1 continent and many archipelagosWhat would be the implications of an ocean made from blood on the world?Life evolving on a artificial Floating Island on a ocean world

UK Tourist Visa- Enquiry

What are the differences between tunneling and regulare encapsulation?

The English Debate

Imaginary part of expression too difficult to calculate

Is VPN a layer 3 concept?

Extraneous elements in "Europe countries" list

How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?

Why does Surtur say that Thor is Asgard's doom?

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?

Why is "la Gestapo" feminine?

Is this Pascal's Matrix?

What kind of footwear is suitable for walking in micro gravity environment?

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

Interior of Set Notation

How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?

Recursively updating the MLE as new observations stream in

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

Jem'Hadar, something strange about their life expectancy

Do I need an EFI partition for each 18.04 ubuntu I have on my HD?

Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?

Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?

Is xar preinstalled on macOS?

CLI: Get information Ubuntu releases

How to test the sharpness of a knife?



Would storms on an ocean world harm the marine life?


Anatomically correct sharknado sharkSemi-liquid atmosphere - Weather and ClimateWould a massive ocean yield larger storms?Could a motorcycle cause enough pollution to harm a world?In a world 2x the size of earth would sentient aquatic life be more probable?How would you make a planet have more lightning stormsI want a layer out of frozen clouds floating around my planet. How could that work?How to generate powerful cyclonic storms in an ocean basinOcean currents on a world with 1 continent and many archipelagosWhat would be the implications of an ocean made from blood on the world?Life evolving on a artificial Floating Island on a ocean world













1












$begingroup$


On a habitable world completely covered in water, with no land above sea-level, there would presumably be storms of biblical proportions. Suppose this world has oceans so deep that the deeper layers just have too much pressure for life of any kind to survive - from the planet's organisms' point of view, the sea would essentially be bottomless.



Without any seabed for shelter/anchorage, but also without any land to be beached on, would gigantic storms, waves etc. be seriously harmful to underwater creatures? When I say "seriously harmful", I mean so damaging as to make the very existence of complex sunlight-zone life on the world dubious.



Two points for further clarification:



  • The animals do not need to surface to breathe.

  • Yes, they could potentially take shelter in some kind of floating reef/microbial mat, but ignore that for the purposes of the question.









share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago















1












$begingroup$


On a habitable world completely covered in water, with no land above sea-level, there would presumably be storms of biblical proportions. Suppose this world has oceans so deep that the deeper layers just have too much pressure for life of any kind to survive - from the planet's organisms' point of view, the sea would essentially be bottomless.



Without any seabed for shelter/anchorage, but also without any land to be beached on, would gigantic storms, waves etc. be seriously harmful to underwater creatures? When I say "seriously harmful", I mean so damaging as to make the very existence of complex sunlight-zone life on the world dubious.



Two points for further clarification:



  • The animals do not need to surface to breathe.

  • Yes, they could potentially take shelter in some kind of floating reef/microbial mat, but ignore that for the purposes of the question.









share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


On a habitable world completely covered in water, with no land above sea-level, there would presumably be storms of biblical proportions. Suppose this world has oceans so deep that the deeper layers just have too much pressure for life of any kind to survive - from the planet's organisms' point of view, the sea would essentially be bottomless.



Without any seabed for shelter/anchorage, but also without any land to be beached on, would gigantic storms, waves etc. be seriously harmful to underwater creatures? When I say "seriously harmful", I mean so damaging as to make the very existence of complex sunlight-zone life on the world dubious.



Two points for further clarification:



  • The animals do not need to surface to breathe.

  • Yes, they could potentially take shelter in some kind of floating reef/microbial mat, but ignore that for the purposes of the question.









share|improve this question









$endgroup$




On a habitable world completely covered in water, with no land above sea-level, there would presumably be storms of biblical proportions. Suppose this world has oceans so deep that the deeper layers just have too much pressure for life of any kind to survive - from the planet's organisms' point of view, the sea would essentially be bottomless.



Without any seabed for shelter/anchorage, but also without any land to be beached on, would gigantic storms, waves etc. be seriously harmful to underwater creatures? When I say "seriously harmful", I mean so damaging as to make the very existence of complex sunlight-zone life on the world dubious.



Two points for further clarification:



  • The animals do not need to surface to breathe.

  • Yes, they could potentially take shelter in some kind of floating reef/microbial mat, but ignore that for the purposes of the question.






biology planets weather ocean






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 7 hours ago









SealBoiSealBoi

6,30612364




6,30612364







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
I don't see why the lack or continents alone would lead to much bigger storms.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
$endgroup$
– Renan
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
$endgroup$
– Renan
5 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

Photosynthesis can take place at depths of about 200m; so, as long as sustained storms do not significantly disturb life at those depths, then life would be fine.



To understand your risks, a wave only causes major disturbances down to about 1/2 the height of the wave, meaning you'd need storms to consistently produce 400m waves to kill off all life. However, in the open ocean (under Earth's gravity), wind can generally not produce a wave taller than 10m because as the wind whips it up bigger and bigger, the wave will begin to crest and gravity will force it to collapse in on itself. For this reason, waves bigger than 10m are almost always causes by seismic activity or from being pressed up on by a continental shelf. So, in your world, even if you had massive super storms constantly raging at the surface, just 5m down you'd have relatively calm water without any continental shelves to exasperate things giving you a 195m save zone for photosynthetic life.



So to answer your question, storms will not inhibit life.



That said, with no readily available access to ground minerals, your world may not be able to sustain life for completely different reasons. If your planet does not have underwater mountains that reach within 200m of sunlight or some other mechanism for uplifting significant mineral content into the upper layers of the ocean, it's unlikely for you to have the diversity of elements you would need for life.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith Morrison
    16 mins ago


















1












$begingroup$

The climate of a planet is primarily driven by the energy imparted to it by its parent star and the difference in atmospheric circulation driven by the poles not rotating and the equator rotating at high speed. The most serious storms would probably occur on rapidly rotating planets with high solar input, but there is a limit to how high wind blown waves can get.



If there is no need to surface to breathe creatures on such a world would be able to avoid the effects of storms simply by diving down a few hundred metres and in most cases by diving just a few tens of metres.



It is hard to believe that wind-blown waves would be able to build to such intensity that this strategy would not work. Adding too much energy to the atmosphere would have the effect creating chaotic conditions in which it would be difficult for sufficiently large well-formed waves to exist as they would be hit by many other waves and variable wind conditions.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    No.



    • Earth has storms of biblical proportions that happen over its oceans. Perhaps a dolphin or whale is occasionally affected, but that's it. Those storms are a much greater danger to those of us dependent on its surface. Generally speaking, I doubt it matters how big a storm gets.


    • Your ocean bottom won't be smooth just because there's no surface land. You'll have ridges, sinkholes, canyons, areas of shallow water and areas of deep water. You'll have currents, waves, and tides (assuming a moon). You'll (presumably, it's your world) have coral reefs. If you draw a shape encompassing our own oceans starting at a depth of, say, 2 meters and encompassing everything deeper, you'd have your world in a nutshell. In other words, there will be plenty of places to hide if you can't get deep enough.


    • Your sea life will have evolved on that planet (I assume, you didn't say if they were transplanted or not). They will have adapted to whatever storms your world can throw at them just as all life on Earth has done. Can Mother Nature throw a curve ball that takes out a few creatures (like a wildfire on land)? Sure! But I don't think that's what you're asking about. I believe you're asking about within-the-statistical-norm storms — the kind life would have adapted to. (This is why I don't believe it matters how large your storms get.)


    • Earth has depths were no life can live, but it also has a very wide band of depth where life thrives, and at the bottom of that band are depths that wouldn't know a storm was raging no matter how biblical its proportions. Frankly, I'd doubt anything deeper than 100 meters would ever now a storm was in process.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141763%2fwould-storms-on-an-ocean-world-harm-the-marine-life%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      Photosynthesis can take place at depths of about 200m; so, as long as sustained storms do not significantly disturb life at those depths, then life would be fine.



      To understand your risks, a wave only causes major disturbances down to about 1/2 the height of the wave, meaning you'd need storms to consistently produce 400m waves to kill off all life. However, in the open ocean (under Earth's gravity), wind can generally not produce a wave taller than 10m because as the wind whips it up bigger and bigger, the wave will begin to crest and gravity will force it to collapse in on itself. For this reason, waves bigger than 10m are almost always causes by seismic activity or from being pressed up on by a continental shelf. So, in your world, even if you had massive super storms constantly raging at the surface, just 5m down you'd have relatively calm water without any continental shelves to exasperate things giving you a 195m save zone for photosynthetic life.



      So to answer your question, storms will not inhibit life.



      That said, with no readily available access to ground minerals, your world may not be able to sustain life for completely different reasons. If your planet does not have underwater mountains that reach within 200m of sunlight or some other mechanism for uplifting significant mineral content into the upper layers of the ocean, it's unlikely for you to have the diversity of elements you would need for life.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
        $endgroup$
        – Keith Morrison
        16 mins ago















      6












      $begingroup$

      Photosynthesis can take place at depths of about 200m; so, as long as sustained storms do not significantly disturb life at those depths, then life would be fine.



      To understand your risks, a wave only causes major disturbances down to about 1/2 the height of the wave, meaning you'd need storms to consistently produce 400m waves to kill off all life. However, in the open ocean (under Earth's gravity), wind can generally not produce a wave taller than 10m because as the wind whips it up bigger and bigger, the wave will begin to crest and gravity will force it to collapse in on itself. For this reason, waves bigger than 10m are almost always causes by seismic activity or from being pressed up on by a continental shelf. So, in your world, even if you had massive super storms constantly raging at the surface, just 5m down you'd have relatively calm water without any continental shelves to exasperate things giving you a 195m save zone for photosynthetic life.



      So to answer your question, storms will not inhibit life.



      That said, with no readily available access to ground minerals, your world may not be able to sustain life for completely different reasons. If your planet does not have underwater mountains that reach within 200m of sunlight or some other mechanism for uplifting significant mineral content into the upper layers of the ocean, it's unlikely for you to have the diversity of elements you would need for life.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
        $endgroup$
        – Keith Morrison
        16 mins ago













      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$

      Photosynthesis can take place at depths of about 200m; so, as long as sustained storms do not significantly disturb life at those depths, then life would be fine.



      To understand your risks, a wave only causes major disturbances down to about 1/2 the height of the wave, meaning you'd need storms to consistently produce 400m waves to kill off all life. However, in the open ocean (under Earth's gravity), wind can generally not produce a wave taller than 10m because as the wind whips it up bigger and bigger, the wave will begin to crest and gravity will force it to collapse in on itself. For this reason, waves bigger than 10m are almost always causes by seismic activity or from being pressed up on by a continental shelf. So, in your world, even if you had massive super storms constantly raging at the surface, just 5m down you'd have relatively calm water without any continental shelves to exasperate things giving you a 195m save zone for photosynthetic life.



      So to answer your question, storms will not inhibit life.



      That said, with no readily available access to ground minerals, your world may not be able to sustain life for completely different reasons. If your planet does not have underwater mountains that reach within 200m of sunlight or some other mechanism for uplifting significant mineral content into the upper layers of the ocean, it's unlikely for you to have the diversity of elements you would need for life.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Photosynthesis can take place at depths of about 200m; so, as long as sustained storms do not significantly disturb life at those depths, then life would be fine.



      To understand your risks, a wave only causes major disturbances down to about 1/2 the height of the wave, meaning you'd need storms to consistently produce 400m waves to kill off all life. However, in the open ocean (under Earth's gravity), wind can generally not produce a wave taller than 10m because as the wind whips it up bigger and bigger, the wave will begin to crest and gravity will force it to collapse in on itself. For this reason, waves bigger than 10m are almost always causes by seismic activity or from being pressed up on by a continental shelf. So, in your world, even if you had massive super storms constantly raging at the surface, just 5m down you'd have relatively calm water without any continental shelves to exasperate things giving you a 195m save zone for photosynthetic life.



      So to answer your question, storms will not inhibit life.



      That said, with no readily available access to ground minerals, your world may not be able to sustain life for completely different reasons. If your planet does not have underwater mountains that reach within 200m of sunlight or some other mechanism for uplifting significant mineral content into the upper layers of the ocean, it's unlikely for you to have the diversity of elements you would need for life.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 6 hours ago









      NosajimikiNosajimiki

      2,082116




      2,082116











      • $begingroup$
        Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
        $endgroup$
        – Keith Morrison
        16 mins ago
















      • $begingroup$
        Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
        $endgroup$
        – Keith Morrison
        16 mins ago















      $begingroup$
      Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Keith Morrison
      16 mins ago




      $begingroup$
      Just as a minor note, satellite measurements have shown that transient rogue waves of 20 meters or more happen all the time. It's estimated that at any given moment there are at least ten 25-30 meter waves somewhere on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Keith Morrison
      16 mins ago











      1












      $begingroup$

      The climate of a planet is primarily driven by the energy imparted to it by its parent star and the difference in atmospheric circulation driven by the poles not rotating and the equator rotating at high speed. The most serious storms would probably occur on rapidly rotating planets with high solar input, but there is a limit to how high wind blown waves can get.



      If there is no need to surface to breathe creatures on such a world would be able to avoid the effects of storms simply by diving down a few hundred metres and in most cases by diving just a few tens of metres.



      It is hard to believe that wind-blown waves would be able to build to such intensity that this strategy would not work. Adding too much energy to the atmosphere would have the effect creating chaotic conditions in which it would be difficult for sufficiently large well-formed waves to exist as they would be hit by many other waves and variable wind conditions.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        The climate of a planet is primarily driven by the energy imparted to it by its parent star and the difference in atmospheric circulation driven by the poles not rotating and the equator rotating at high speed. The most serious storms would probably occur on rapidly rotating planets with high solar input, but there is a limit to how high wind blown waves can get.



        If there is no need to surface to breathe creatures on such a world would be able to avoid the effects of storms simply by diving down a few hundred metres and in most cases by diving just a few tens of metres.



        It is hard to believe that wind-blown waves would be able to build to such intensity that this strategy would not work. Adding too much energy to the atmosphere would have the effect creating chaotic conditions in which it would be difficult for sufficiently large well-formed waves to exist as they would be hit by many other waves and variable wind conditions.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          The climate of a planet is primarily driven by the energy imparted to it by its parent star and the difference in atmospheric circulation driven by the poles not rotating and the equator rotating at high speed. The most serious storms would probably occur on rapidly rotating planets with high solar input, but there is a limit to how high wind blown waves can get.



          If there is no need to surface to breathe creatures on such a world would be able to avoid the effects of storms simply by diving down a few hundred metres and in most cases by diving just a few tens of metres.



          It is hard to believe that wind-blown waves would be able to build to such intensity that this strategy would not work. Adding too much energy to the atmosphere would have the effect creating chaotic conditions in which it would be difficult for sufficiently large well-formed waves to exist as they would be hit by many other waves and variable wind conditions.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The climate of a planet is primarily driven by the energy imparted to it by its parent star and the difference in atmospheric circulation driven by the poles not rotating and the equator rotating at high speed. The most serious storms would probably occur on rapidly rotating planets with high solar input, but there is a limit to how high wind blown waves can get.



          If there is no need to surface to breathe creatures on such a world would be able to avoid the effects of storms simply by diving down a few hundred metres and in most cases by diving just a few tens of metres.



          It is hard to believe that wind-blown waves would be able to build to such intensity that this strategy would not work. Adding too much energy to the atmosphere would have the effect creating chaotic conditions in which it would be difficult for sufficiently large well-formed waves to exist as they would be hit by many other waves and variable wind conditions.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          SlartySlarty

          11.1k42664




          11.1k42664





















              1












              $begingroup$

              No.



              • Earth has storms of biblical proportions that happen over its oceans. Perhaps a dolphin or whale is occasionally affected, but that's it. Those storms are a much greater danger to those of us dependent on its surface. Generally speaking, I doubt it matters how big a storm gets.


              • Your ocean bottom won't be smooth just because there's no surface land. You'll have ridges, sinkholes, canyons, areas of shallow water and areas of deep water. You'll have currents, waves, and tides (assuming a moon). You'll (presumably, it's your world) have coral reefs. If you draw a shape encompassing our own oceans starting at a depth of, say, 2 meters and encompassing everything deeper, you'd have your world in a nutshell. In other words, there will be plenty of places to hide if you can't get deep enough.


              • Your sea life will have evolved on that planet (I assume, you didn't say if they were transplanted or not). They will have adapted to whatever storms your world can throw at them just as all life on Earth has done. Can Mother Nature throw a curve ball that takes out a few creatures (like a wildfire on land)? Sure! But I don't think that's what you're asking about. I believe you're asking about within-the-statistical-norm storms — the kind life would have adapted to. (This is why I don't believe it matters how large your storms get.)


              • Earth has depths were no life can live, but it also has a very wide band of depth where life thrives, and at the bottom of that band are depths that wouldn't know a storm was raging no matter how biblical its proportions. Frankly, I'd doubt anything deeper than 100 meters would ever now a storm was in process.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                No.



                • Earth has storms of biblical proportions that happen over its oceans. Perhaps a dolphin or whale is occasionally affected, but that's it. Those storms are a much greater danger to those of us dependent on its surface. Generally speaking, I doubt it matters how big a storm gets.


                • Your ocean bottom won't be smooth just because there's no surface land. You'll have ridges, sinkholes, canyons, areas of shallow water and areas of deep water. You'll have currents, waves, and tides (assuming a moon). You'll (presumably, it's your world) have coral reefs. If you draw a shape encompassing our own oceans starting at a depth of, say, 2 meters and encompassing everything deeper, you'd have your world in a nutshell. In other words, there will be plenty of places to hide if you can't get deep enough.


                • Your sea life will have evolved on that planet (I assume, you didn't say if they were transplanted or not). They will have adapted to whatever storms your world can throw at them just as all life on Earth has done. Can Mother Nature throw a curve ball that takes out a few creatures (like a wildfire on land)? Sure! But I don't think that's what you're asking about. I believe you're asking about within-the-statistical-norm storms — the kind life would have adapted to. (This is why I don't believe it matters how large your storms get.)


                • Earth has depths were no life can live, but it also has a very wide band of depth where life thrives, and at the bottom of that band are depths that wouldn't know a storm was raging no matter how biblical its proportions. Frankly, I'd doubt anything deeper than 100 meters would ever now a storm was in process.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  No.



                  • Earth has storms of biblical proportions that happen over its oceans. Perhaps a dolphin or whale is occasionally affected, but that's it. Those storms are a much greater danger to those of us dependent on its surface. Generally speaking, I doubt it matters how big a storm gets.


                  • Your ocean bottom won't be smooth just because there's no surface land. You'll have ridges, sinkholes, canyons, areas of shallow water and areas of deep water. You'll have currents, waves, and tides (assuming a moon). You'll (presumably, it's your world) have coral reefs. If you draw a shape encompassing our own oceans starting at a depth of, say, 2 meters and encompassing everything deeper, you'd have your world in a nutshell. In other words, there will be plenty of places to hide if you can't get deep enough.


                  • Your sea life will have evolved on that planet (I assume, you didn't say if they were transplanted or not). They will have adapted to whatever storms your world can throw at them just as all life on Earth has done. Can Mother Nature throw a curve ball that takes out a few creatures (like a wildfire on land)? Sure! But I don't think that's what you're asking about. I believe you're asking about within-the-statistical-norm storms — the kind life would have adapted to. (This is why I don't believe it matters how large your storms get.)


                  • Earth has depths were no life can live, but it also has a very wide band of depth where life thrives, and at the bottom of that band are depths that wouldn't know a storm was raging no matter how biblical its proportions. Frankly, I'd doubt anything deeper than 100 meters would ever now a storm was in process.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  No.



                  • Earth has storms of biblical proportions that happen over its oceans. Perhaps a dolphin or whale is occasionally affected, but that's it. Those storms are a much greater danger to those of us dependent on its surface. Generally speaking, I doubt it matters how big a storm gets.


                  • Your ocean bottom won't be smooth just because there's no surface land. You'll have ridges, sinkholes, canyons, areas of shallow water and areas of deep water. You'll have currents, waves, and tides (assuming a moon). You'll (presumably, it's your world) have coral reefs. If you draw a shape encompassing our own oceans starting at a depth of, say, 2 meters and encompassing everything deeper, you'd have your world in a nutshell. In other words, there will be plenty of places to hide if you can't get deep enough.


                  • Your sea life will have evolved on that planet (I assume, you didn't say if they were transplanted or not). They will have adapted to whatever storms your world can throw at them just as all life on Earth has done. Can Mother Nature throw a curve ball that takes out a few creatures (like a wildfire on land)? Sure! But I don't think that's what you're asking about. I believe you're asking about within-the-statistical-norm storms — the kind life would have adapted to. (This is why I don't believe it matters how large your storms get.)


                  • Earth has depths were no life can live, but it also has a very wide band of depth where life thrives, and at the bottom of that band are depths that wouldn't know a storm was raging no matter how biblical its proportions. Frankly, I'd doubt anything deeper than 100 meters would ever now a storm was in process.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 5 hours ago









                  JBHJBH

                  46.3k698221




                  46.3k698221



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141763%2fwould-storms-on-an-ocean-world-harm-the-marine-life%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                      Partai Komunis Tiongkok Daftar isi Kepemimpinan | Pranala luar | Referensi | Menu navigasidiperiksa1 perubahan tertundacpc.people.com.cnSitus resmiSurat kabar resmi"Why the Communist Party is alive, well and flourishing in China"0307-1235"Full text of Constitution of Communist Party of China"smengembangkannyas

                      ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result