Talk:Ocean/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Keyriverz (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC) let me editthis page

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed an image about air temperatures - unclear relevance

Air temperatures (degrees C) in New York, San Francisco, Maine, and the French Riviera show different influence of the ocean on local climates.

Hi User:Jturner20, I've removed the image on the right from the article as it wasn't clear to me how this is relevant (especially putting myself into the shoes of a lay person reader). Also, is this adding more to the US- and Europe-centric nature of Wikipedia? My suggestion is to either improve the caption to make it very clear what this is showing. Or to move this to a relevant sub-article - maybe the one on ocean currents. EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good!

- Jturner20 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs a bit of content on pH value and alkalinity

While looking at alkalinity, in particular the section on "ocean alkalinity" it occurred to me that this article is missing some short content (and links) about pH value and alkalinity. Content could be copied from ocean acidification for pH value and from alkalinity for the ocean alkalinity. I am undecided if this would fit better under physical properties or under chemical composition? Maybe it belongs better in the chemical composition section? EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of ocean

EMsmile (talk · contribs) changed in a recent edit some capitalization of "the ocean" that I had added. I am ok about the change, but a discussion is worth it in my opinion. I think I used the capitalized version because I had the Moon in my head and the change into capitalization there. But that case is somewhat different, since we know many moons and dont speak (yet) of other extraterrestrial oceans. That said, maybe it is worthwhile to underline the difference between the particular oceans of Earth and particularly the world-spaning nature of it. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Nsae Comp: I am not sure about this. For me it's just ocean with a small "o" all the time, except for names like "Antarctic Southern Ocean". Not sure where else you would want to capitalise the word ocean in this article? (the English language is funny how it gives so much freedom; in German - my native tongue - it's clearer: nouns (and names) have a capital letter, other words don't.) EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I can relate to that, since my first language is also german. I wonder what native speakers say. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023

Under Geography, Oceanic Divisions, #4 on the table says Antartic instead of Antarctic (missing the "c") CurlyHairPear (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

Per a discussion at the Vital-2 Talk page, I added a hatnote here to match the one at Sea. Does everyone feel it is okay? Thanks :)

LightProof1995 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you send the link to the discussion at the Vital-2 Talk page (oh wait, I found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2)? I am curious. I am undecided if we really need a hatnote. The hatnote at Sea is more important and it says "This article focuses on human experience, history and culture of the collective seas of Earth. For natural science aspects, see more at Ocean. For individual seas, see List of seas. For other uses, see Sea (disambiguation) and The Sea (disambiguation).". I am saying "more important at Sea" because the "Sea" article has to justify its existence more than the "ocean" article does (I had once proposed to redirect and merge Sea to Ocean but was not successful with my proposal; that split into cultural (Sea) versus natural sciences (Ocean) kind of works, I guess).

If there is consensus to have a hatnote at Ocean, I would use the About template as follows: {{About|Natural science aspects of oceans|more on human experience, history and culture of oceans|Sea|Other uses|Ocean (disambiguation)}} which would convert to This article is about natural science aspects of oceans. For more on human experience, history and culture of oceans, see Sea. For other uses see Ocean (disambiguation).

Compared with the current proposal of LightProof1995 which is This article focuses on the science aspects of oceans, both on Earth and on other planets. While it covers some historical and cultural aspects, more can be found at Sea. For other uses, see Ocean (disambiguation). EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

LightProof1995's hatnote reflects the status quo, but the status quo is untenable. User:Oknazevad's comment at Talk:Sea#The section on environmental issues is on point. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How many oceans?

The content saying that there are five oceans (on earth), has two refs. I don't have access to the OED one, but the Webster's ref. does not name or give a number for the number. The simple English, Russian and German Wikipedia articles all agree; however, I have heard the number seven also given, with the Pacific and Atlantic both being divided into north and south. This pretty authoritative source gives one world ocean and five commonly accepted ones but notes that not all countries have moved beyond the traditional four: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html . This site is pretty much consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica, which says, "Functionally speaking, there is really only one ocean, since every demarcated ocean is connected to at least two others" after talking about the 4+1 that NOAA discusses. And https://encounteredu.com/cpd/subject-updates/learn-more-how-many-oceans-are-there says it depends, citing 1-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-ocean interpretations. I think our article should present at least some of this. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:C86B:40D2:FD06:529A (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Protection - Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

Hi EMsmile,

I saw that you had deleted my little paragraph the "protection" section. I was talking about the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the UN Decade of Marine Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the GOOS and UNESCO Global Geoparks. I understand that it is important to get to the point, but I think it is also important and interesting for this article to mention at least the IOC and the Convention. The IOC is the UN body responsible for supporting oceanography and ocean services since 1960. The IOC is helping UN member states to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Would you agree that we should add it to the article?

Thank you very much, I am at your disposal for any discussion on this subject! E.poul (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi E.poul, that content is important but keep in mind that the ocean article is a very high level overview article, so we cannot dive into detail on every topic. That's what all the connected sub-articles are for. This was your text that I had deleted: Through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), UNESCO is supporting global ocean sciences. The Organization is also leading the implementation of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). The Convention on the protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Global Ocean Observing System and UNESCO's Global Geoparks are also ways to protect the marine ecosystem. Consider adding it to Marine conservation rather? In general, rather look for the sub-articles if you want to add content that is related to UNESCO's work. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

References

"Ocean and Oceanography" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ocean and Oceanography has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19 § Ocean and Oceanography until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ocen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ocen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19 § Ocen until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ga is unclear

“By 3.5 Ga”, something something ocean started cooling. This is the only instance of Ga being used on page instead of billions of years. No nearby billions of years includes (Ga) for reference. Detspek (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you. I've deleted that sentence now. I think we don't need it here. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Added more content about pH, temperature and stratification

I've just added some more content to explain how the whole pH and temperature issues is connected, how it varies over the depth, what "surface" means in this context, how it's related to stratification and so forth. I am not an expert though and have no professional background in this. I've been discussing this article with Tim Jickells and he's been helpful with suggesting suitable text and sentences (with reference to his textbook and other textbooks and publications). If you have additional ideas or suggestions for making this clearer and more succinct or for adding more accessible sources (not behind a paywall), I am all ears. I think pH is important to explain here (because of ocean acidification) but I am also mindful of not making the pH section too long in this kind of overview article. Perhaps what I have added could be condensed a bit. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Quite suprising I only realized now that the lesser oceans have infoboxes, but not the Ocean it self. So here I will put together based on the Atlantic Ocean infobox the appropriate data.

World Ocean
Coordinates	Center: 47°24′42″S 177°22′45″E (see also Water Hemisphere), in the South Pacific Ocean Pole of inaccessibility: "Point Nemo", in a region known as spacecraft cemetery of the South Pacific Ocean, at 48°52.6′S 123°23.6′W, approximately 2,688 km (1,670 mi) from the nearest land
Basin countries	List of countries by length of coastline
Surface area	361,000,000 km2 (139,382,879 sq mi) (71% of Earth's surface area)
Average depth	3.688 km (2 mi)
Max. depth	Deepest point: Challenger Deep, at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, 11.034 km (7 mi) below sea level; Lowest point: Litke Deep, in the Arctic Ocean, at 6,351.704 km (3,947 mi) from Earth's centre, 5.449 km (3 mi) below sea level, 14.726 km (9 mi) closer to Earth's centre than the Challenger Deep
Water volume	1,370,000,000 km3 (328,680,479 cu mi) (99% of Earth's water)
Shore length1	Low interval calculation: 356,000 km (221,208 mi) High interval calculation: 1,634,701 km (1,015,756 mi)
Islands	List of islands
Trenches	List of oceanic trenches
Settlements	List of ports
1 Shore length is not a well-defined measure.

Nsae Comp (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Improving readability

Hello, I am currently editing this article to improve its readability. My work is part of a project focusing on improving the readability of climate change articles on Wikipedia. To learn more about the project, visit: Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication of environment SDGs. Bradextw (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Unclear term in introduction

I just edited a little in the second half of the second paragraph of the introduction, which I felt read unevenly. One additional thing I would like to rephrase is the "1% of the surface light depth" thing. However, I am not exactly sure what it means, which is why I think it should be clarified or rewritten.

Just reading what is says, my best guess is 1% of the total depth that light reaches. However, it continues to state that "1% of the surface light depth" is about 200m in the ocean. Now by my guess, that would mean that light reaches (200 * 100)m = 20000m, and there simply is not that much ocean. What seems more likely is that it is the depth at which only one 1% of light remains, which really is not obvious from the statement itself. So yeah.. could someone who knows clarify what it's supposed to mean? Ribidag (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is unclear. I'll check with Tim Jickells who has been helpful with this article in the past. EMsmile (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I got the following answer from Tim: "Sorry for any ambiguity over the 1% light thing. I quote below a sentence from Grant Bigg's book which I hope is unambiguous. "The euphotic zone is defined to be the depth at which light intensity is only 1% of the surface value" p36 The Oceans and Climate Grant R Bigg Cambridge University Press. I don't know if you want to actually use this reference or simply edit the existing text to be unambiguous, I'll leave that up to you. The basic concept is that with that little light photosynthesis is unlikely to achieve any net growth over respiration. The actual optics of light reflecting and penetrating at the ocean surface are complex, but I think this approach to the euphotic zone is pretty universal. " I'll try to improve the wording accordingly. EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made the edits to this statement now accordingly in two places: in the lead and also in the main text where the photic zone is explained. Is it OK like this now? Thanks Ribidag for pointing out this problematic sentence. EMsmile (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, clear like water now. Ribidag (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Photic zone ends at the depth at which the light intensity drops to 1% of surface intensity, which can vary a lot as the clarity of water can vary enormously. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter Southwood, I am a little bit unsure of this edit of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocean&diff=prev&oldid=1160773618 . As I had included the sentence in quotation marks, it's a direct quote from the book so we cannot change it in the way you have changed it. Maybe we leave the quoted sentence as is but we rather add your additional explanation after the quote (but maybe not in the lead but in the main text). The quoted sentence was: The [[photic zone]] starts at the surface and is defined to be "the depth at which light intensity is only 1% of the surface value". Your wording was ... is defined to be "the depth at which light intensity is at least 1% of the surface value". Or we drop the quotation marks and write it in a way that is not copyright violation, i.e. paraphrase (?). For it me would sound clearer as ... the depth at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value". EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile, ... the depth at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value" is not actually correct. It is the depth range (i.e. a continuous region of all depths from the surface down to the bottom limit) at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value, The depth at which light intensity is 1% of the surface value is the bottom limit of the photic zone, and is a dynamic 3-dimensionally curved surface. When I edited I didn't notice it was a quote, as it was not very well expressed and needed clarification, and why would we want to use a quote that does not make things clear? The important points are that the natural light level continuously decreases with increase of depth, depends on several variables, and it can fluctuate quite rapidly at times. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We could say: The euphotic zone is the layer of water in which the natural light intensity is at least 1% of the surface value. (correct, but maybe not sufficiently clear to all readers) It extends continuously from the surface to the depth at which intensity has dropped to 1%, typically at about 200 m in the open ocean, and light intensity decreases continuously with increasing depth. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds OK. So we leave off the quotation marks but keep the reference and page number? (some people would put the quote into the ref so that it appears in the ref list at the end) Perhaps it would also be good to state that photic zone and euphotic zone are the same thing (they are, aren't they?). - The reason why I had originally used quotation marks is because I was scared of either being hit with WP:close paraphrasing or that I would change the exact meaning by mistake... But I agree that quotation marks look inelegant here. - Make sure to change it not just in the lead but also in the main text. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

More content on ocean density or even a separate article?

I'd like to bring to your attention a proposal by Peter Southwood to have a separate article on density of seawater, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean_stratification#Density_of_seawater . This makes me wonder if we need a bit more content on the density of ocean water also here. Density is mentioned 10 times but perhaps it needs its own dedicated section, like we have a section for pH? Or one could argue that it's only a sub-topic at seawater. I am not sure but am leaning towards a new (short) section about density which could then link out to another article where more detail is provided. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've asked Tim Jickells about that and here's his input: "Hi Elizabeth, I'm not quite sure what to say about the density questions. It's really an issue for physical oceanographers. Density is really fundamental to ocean circulation, it ultimately drives the whole thermohaline circulation. The section in "seawater" wiki is nice and short but doesn't really tell you much about how the density changes (with temperature and freshwater/salt mixing) which is really important. The section in the Ocean stratification wiki starts well in explaining density, why it matters and what drives changes in it. There are then that rather daunting set of equations. I assume these are correct but I'm not the person to ask that. However, I suspect they may frighten off many wiki readers. I think this is an editorial issue for you and your colleagues but personally I'd leave the "ocean circulation" section much as it is but perhaps just add a bit of text that says for those interested in the mathematical representation of this, here's the relevant equations but make clear that they don't need these to go on to the next section. Here speaks a chemist not a physicist or mathematician!" EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)