at the same time how much would the sea level go down?
2007-01-26 04:05:42 · 15 answers · asked by nettyone2003 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
It depends if you ring out all of the sponges! HAHAHAHAHAAH get it sponges...because they absorb water...HAAHAHAHAAHAH man I crack me up! HAHAHahahahah ehehehehehehe *Ahem* well anyway to be honest I dont know, but I couldn't resist a good sponge joke.
2007-01-26 04:12:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's really simple. Here's how. To know the answer you have first to measure the total volume of the sea, deduct from it the volume of all the creatures you took out, add the volume of all the rivers pouring into the sea, then add the total volume of all the rain falling into the sea at that moment, deduct the volume of all the ships and boats that are sinking at that moment (as well as the volume of the odd airplane crashing in the sea). Deduct the volume of water evaporated. Account for any meteorite splashing down. And finally deduct the volume of all sewers or other waste dumped into the sea. Once you got the volume you have to equate it with the total length of all the shorelines of the world by using the famously simple three-equation. You then devide that by the length of shoreline, bearing in mind that you have to account for variation in temperature as water expands when heated. Easy, no?
2007-01-26 06:35:30 · answer #2 · answered by Alain M 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The sun has so much energy, it would still make plants even if there are no fish or other critters to eat the plankton. Might not go up or down all that much at all.
2007-01-26 08:02:26 · answer #3 · answered by Perseus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i like how christians make up the stupidest crap to purpose and make the bible that looks spectacular. If salt and sparkling water fish got here after flood then one million you suspect in evolution (that's stable) and a couple of ways will we've fossils and bones of dinosaurs interior the water that mandatory the salt or sparkling water to proceed to exist earlier the meant flood. additionally if the flood got here approximately why is it we don't have the different money owed of a worldwide flood happenning?
2016-11-27 20:06:39 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
marginally, not significant enough so make a big impact. At the rate of over fishing I believe we might be able to see that soon.
2007-01-26 04:14:44 · answer #5 · answered by Shuggy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm interesting question make me thinking about it!
what a wonderful question!
Well I think if you took everthing and also the ships and bots in my opinion the level of the water gonna be down not at all but the level gonna be a little bit down!
what you think give your own opinion about!
2007-01-26 04:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Thiago D 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
None...all the waterways in da world would compensate the action.
2007-01-26 04:17:18 · answer #7 · answered by quassy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By my calculations 0.000003727% if done on a Wednesday
2007-01-26 04:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by clive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
14 metres
2007-01-26 04:10:30 · answer #9 · answered by oOmaundOo 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not much. Are you including plankton, coral and bacteria?
2007-01-26 04:13:36 · answer #10 · answered by Pseudo Obscure 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋