2007-12-11 16:18:41 · 7 answers · asked by Maple Sugar 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
edit** I mean covered 70% in water.
2007-12-11 16:55:19 · update #1
Even scientists are wondering how the water was formed on this earth ? water is the one of most important material like oxygen to support life on earth ! even if the 50% of earth's surface was covered by water it will support life !!! not less.
2007-12-11 19:38:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
We would be a very dry place. It is doubtful that life as we know it would be sustainable.
Remember, that 70% includes oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, and the underground water.
If we reduced the amount of water by 40% and replaced it with hard earth we would have at least 40% less trees...resulting in at least 40% less oxygen.
This would be a perpetual cycle. It doesn't mean we would have 40% more CO2 because we probably wouldn't have as many O2 breathing lifeforms to give off the CO2...we can only speculate there.
Much of the land would most likely be very arid...too arid for vegitation, so the global population would be much smaller (animals and people alike.)
2007-12-11 16:34:01 · answer #2 · answered by Willie D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
70% of the Earth is NOT water. Re-read your textbook again.
Only 0.022% of the Earth is water. The Earth's SURFACE is about 70% covered with water. Good thing that it is. If it were evenly spread over the Earth's surface , we'd all be under about 1.7 miles of water.
If the same amount of water were only distributed over 30% of the Earth's surface, then the Earth would be a much hotter place, since rock and soil don't reflect sunlight as well as water. However, the world would also be considerably more humid, as the water that is exposed would evaporate faster.
2007-12-11 16:42:32 · answer #3 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Earth isn't made out of 70% water. It's not even made out of 1% water.
70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water, and if it was only 30% covered in water, there would be much less hurricanes, and much less weather. Also, crustal plates wouldn't move as fast because there wouldn't be as much ocean to lubricate the midocean ridges, and there would probably be many more earthquakes and vocanoes.
2007-12-11 16:45:51 · answer #4 · answered by straightshooter 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Im guessing that its made of 70 % water because water accumulated in craters, and thats what the ocean is. one big crater that keeps growing. if it was the other way around, it would be 30 % water. lol. just kidding..well thats obvious. I'm guessing that that would mean that there would be more land space and less water. There would probably be less water to support earth.
2007-12-11 16:30:26 · answer #5 · answered by adrian o 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a theory that says water came from the comet´s ice. If it was the other way around there wouldn´t be enough water to keep the balance of life on earth.
2007-12-11 18:27:50 · answer #6 · answered by Asker 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would lose water supply and die and it would change weather. Basically we would die.
2007-12-11 16:26:45 · answer #7 · answered by Drabo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋