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

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Jem'Hadar, something strange about their life expectancy

Is "inadequate referencing" a euphemism for plagiarism?

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

Should a narrator ever describe things based on a characters view instead of fact?

Do I need to convey a moral for each of my blog post?

Have any astronauts/cosmonauts died in space?

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

How can I query the supported timezones in Apex?

Extraneous elements in "Europe countries" list

Homology of the fiber

Would it be believable to defy demographics in a story?

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

label a part of commutative diagram

Do people actually use the word "kaputt" in conversation?

is this saw blade faulty?

Difficulty understanding group delay concept

Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?

How do researchers send unsolicited emails asking for feedback on their works?

Weird lines in Microsoft Word

Why is this tree refusing to shed its dead leaves?

Hackerrank All Women's Codesprint 2019: Name the Product

When should a starting writer get his own webpage?

Help with identifying unique aircraft over NE Pennsylvania



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
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    3 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
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Animals could evolve to make use of the storm, maybe.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    3 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 5 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
    4 hours ago










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












  • 1




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










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







1




1




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




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












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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$




















    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









        5












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$

















          5












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            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 3 hours ago









            NosajimikiNosajimiki

            2,072116




            2,072116





















                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 3 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 3 hours ago









                            JBHJBH

                            46.2k698221




                            46.2k698221



























                                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

                                How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

                                Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

                                inputenc: Unicode character … not set up for use with LaTeX The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEntering Unicode characters in LaTeXHow to solve the `Package inputenc Error: Unicode char not set up for use with LaTeX` problem?solve “Unicode char is not set up for use with LaTeX” without special handling of every new interesting UTF-8 characterPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character ² (U+B2)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. acroI2C[I²C]package inputenc error unicode char (u + 190) not set up for use with latexPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char u8:′ not set up for use with LaTeX. 3′inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeX with G-BriefPackage Inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ́ (U+301)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. includePackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ̂ (U+302)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. … $widehatleft (OA,AA' right )$Package inputenc Error: Unicode char â„¡ (U+2121)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]Package inputenc Error: Unicode char − (U+2212)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character α (U+3B1) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode characterError: ! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char ⊘ (U+2298)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX