15

At the moment there are deep seas and high mountains. But imagine that the land elevation of the Earth is equal everywhere. How deep would the ocean be in that case?

Pont
  • 5,429
  • 2
  • 27
  • 43
Marijn
  • 2,513
  • 5
  • 19
  • 35

2 Answers2

19

An approximation can be obtained quite simply by dividing the volume of water in the oceans by the surface area of an ellipsoid with a smooth surface representing the idealized Earth in your question.

The volume of Earth's oceans, seas and bays is $1.332 \times 10^9 \text{ km}^3$.

The equatorial radius of Earth (semi-major axis of the spheroid) is $a = 6378.1 \text{ km}$. The polar radius of Earth (semi-minor axis) is $c = 6356.8 \text{ km}$.

The surface area of the oblate ($c < a$) spheroid is:

$$S = 2 \pi a^2 \left( 1 + \frac{1 - e^2}{e}\tanh^{-1} e \right)$$

where $e^2 = 1 - \frac{c^2}{a^2}$.

Which gives us $\approx 0.51 \times 10^9 \text{ km}^2$.

Dividing the volume of the oceans by this results gives us $\approx 2.6 \text{ km}$.

Note: Earth is not a sphere. An ellipsoid is a better representation of our Earth. Nevertheless, the answer to your question would have been approximately the same had I used a sphere instead, as suggested in the title of your question.

uhoh
  • 7,076
  • 2
  • 30
  • 91
carnendil
  • 377
  • 1
  • 11
  • 1
    Do you think that because of all the mountains and seadephts the sizes you used (6378 and 6356) are wright? – Marijn Feb 03 '16 at 20:27
  • These are average numbers, and the "true figure of Earth" is actually more complicated. On the other hand, consider that the highest mountains and the deepest chasms under the sea are actually small in comparison to the size of our planet. – carnendil Feb 03 '16 at 20:34
  • Ok, it should be al little deeper than? about 2.7km? When I compare it with snowball earth, where is told that the ice was about 3km thick, we are close to it?! – Marijn Feb 03 '16 at 20:44
  • 1
    You can try and add the water of all lakes and lagoons, as well as the water in rivers and ice in glaciers and mountaintops, and see how much a variation you get. I am not much familiarized with the Snowball Earth hyphotesis. – carnendil Feb 03 '16 at 20:54
  • The 3KM estimate for snowball earth is that, an estimate, also, it's important to remember, at least during the more recent snowball earths, there were already continents and oceans. 3 KM thick ice was likely over the oceans with some ocean remaining liquid on the bottom, the growing salt concentration would prevent freezing all the way down. On land, there were glaciers, likely less thick. It probably wasn't a smooth 3K all the way around. – userLTK Feb 04 '16 at 04:00
  • 6
    @userLTK -- It's the other way around. If this hypothesis is correct, ice sheets up to 3 km thick ice covered the continents, but not the oceans. The oceans would have been covered by a much thinner layer of ice, possibly with partially open water near the equator. – David Hammen Feb 07 '16 at 14:15
  • 1
    @DavidHammen Thanks, and that makes sense. Ice would build up on land but perhaps stay liquid in the salty oceans, with, as you said, a thinner ice layer on top. Sea level must have dropped perhaps as much as a mile in that case. – userLTK Feb 08 '16 at 04:40
  • 2
    Even with a smooth Earth, the oceans wouldn't be a uniform depth. For the same reason Earth is an oblate spheroid, the Earth + water would be a slightly larger oblate spheroid. The ocean would be shallower at the poles and deeper at the equator by the same ratio as the Earth's axes, so 1/290. – kwknowles Apr 11 '16 at 03:43
  • 1
    Without digging into the math, would've thought it might be easier and slightly more correct to set the integral that makes a spherical shell equal to the volume. Doubt the answers are much different at all, I guess. – JeopardyTempest Aug 15 '17 at 05:33
  • 1
    +1 I think it's great you've included a better representation of the shape of the Earth than a sphere. But the assumption of uniform depth may not then be compatible with this level of detailed treatment. Would it not be better to use a second ellipsoid to represent the shape of the potential due to variations of gravity and centrifugal force as well? (sorry, I don't know the precise term for this). Wouldn't there be a relative difference in depth between the poles and the equator at least of order the parts-per-thousand variation in radius and area the ellipsoid treatment evokes? – uhoh Aug 16 '17 at 03:39
  • 1
    I've just asked What would be the depth variation of a “water ellipsoid” above a reference ellipsoid Earth? I'm beginning to think that the uniform depth assumption is based in reality and not just a shortcut, but not sure yet, so I've added a new question to make more space to address this. – uhoh Aug 16 '17 at 03:47
5

510,100,000 square kilometers of surface area, and a total of 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers of water gives you a 2.717 kilometer column of water across the whole planet if it was billiard ball smooth, but the same basic shape.

Ash
  • 4,260
  • 13
  • 24