Talk:Oceanography/Archive 1

International history

It would be nice to have more of an international perspective on the history of Oceanography (e.g. how does Britain or Australia approach Oceanography? Do they have grant sytems? Major scientific stations?). Also, a technical overview of the science would be nice.

• First (briefly) yes, there are Federal grants to support oceanography in Britain and every major country. Most basic oceanography is "basic science," and requires either a federal grant or a very rich oceanographer.

• I notice that most of your oceanography links are to Woods Hole or to Scripps. Those are great places. You might also add links to a host of other institutions, many of which are given on following web page on the lower section:
• ... http://gulf.ocean.fsu.edu <- (InOp GulfLink-URL)

• warning: several of the links on the top half of the page (to specific projects) are no longer working, as that programmer moved away and has not yet been replaced.

===Exploring Sea Lanes of Communicaton=== so to study about lower part of sea.--119.158.43.193 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)--119.158.43.193 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The knarr was less reliant on oars as a means of propulsion and more on the use of sails.

>>The knarr is a merchant vessel with a large cargo carrying capacity.
The replica Saga Siglar of Norway made a circumnavigation of the globe, but was lost in a hurricane in the Mediterranean Sea.
Snorri of USA voyaged from Greenland to Newfoundland.<< Source: Viking Ships

>>The 11th century wreck found at Skuldedev in Denmark’s Roskilde fjord is often adduced as a superior example: probably a Greenland knarr, a custom-built vessel designed for Atlantic crossings, the ship is thought to have had a cargo capacity of 12 or 13 tons, and served as the model for the replica Saga Siglar, which sailed around the world in the 1980s.<< Source: NorwayOnline

British federalism

Does the word "federal" make sense when applied to Britain? – Mike Hardy

Clean

Added Clean Status ... geological oceanography, which is marine geology, line produces self-referenced loop...

(So much for my kid's eigth grade SCIENCE PROJECT and my ability to impress him with Wiki!!!) <G> Fabartus 18:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)~

Modified Oceanography Clean Status to reflect revisions since June 2005 <G>
RJBurkhart 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Plan of Action

Here is a proposed plan to make the article better.

Introduction: Shorten the introduction to a description of oceanography and what oceanographers do.

Branches: Move the present section on the branches of oceanography into a separate part and extend the description of each.

History of Oceanography: Included a timeline for oceanography

Present issues and theories: Included several issues such as effects of global warming on the oceans, pollution and the deep sea drilling projects etc.

Famous Oceanographers: Small section with the most notable oceanographers.

Wikipedia links: links to other articles with a link to the ocean and other subjects.

External Links and resources: List of links to societies and oceanography centres

AlexD 09:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to merge

I have requested the merging of the chemical and physical oceanography entries into the oceanography article as the entries are not informative enough and would provided more information when viewed in with the whole article on oceanography.

AlexD 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... silence. Anyway, if the nom. for Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week for Physical oceanography is adopted then that article should see improvement and stay as a stand alone article. Seems that the chemical oceanography article could easily be merged with it rather than here. Keep this an introductory overview. Vsmith 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The amount of content available to the physical oceanography article exceeds the limitations of Wikipedia's individual article size standards. If there is anything to oppose, I oppose such a merge. Oceanography should really only serve as an overview of oceanography as a whole whereas the individual articles physical oceanography, biological oceanography, chemical oceanography, etc., should remain standalone to serve as further elaborations on the topic of oceanography. These other articles do have enough content available for use. There just doesn't seem to be a great interest in oceanography here in Wikipedia. Adraeus 12:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Expansion is planned for physical oceanography. Merging doesn't seem necessary. Deryck C. 14:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Two Requests for Help

Hello - I have two articles I could really use some help on - both of which have some relation to Oceanography.

1. In the process of working on Hurricane Katrina, I came across the term Atlantic Basin. I've seen that term defined in different ways in different sources, but I can't find a source I would consider definitive as to what bodies or water are/are-not included in its definition.
2. Also, at United States, we say that the Territorial waters of the United States border the Bahamas and Russia. Since territorial waters extend 12 miles from a nations coast, and since the bodies of water seperating the US from each of those countries seem to be bigger than 24 miles, I am uncertain of this claims veracity. However, it is possible there is some little bitty island that does not appear on my maps, which would push out the limit. Can anyone find worthwhile sources? Johntex 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Atlantic Ocean seems to have a map with its basin shaded in darker blue. Your web browser can probably search on the page for the word "basin". (SEWilco 05:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

Hi SEWilco, Yes, I have seen that we have that map on our article, but we give no source for it, so I can't be confident it is actually correct. (It wouldn't be the first time a mistake has made it into Wikipedia, and it may be that there is a fine nuance between the two terms) Johntex 15:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles. Geography of the United States says there are 12, 24, and 200 mile claims. CIA World Factbook for Bahamas says "have not been able to agree on the alignment of a maritime boundary with the US", so whatever the details there apparently is enough proximity of the boundaries that it is relevant to both countries. I don't know the situation with Russia, although Extreme points of the United States shows a western US island which may be an issue. (SEWilco 05:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

Thanks SEWilco - this is helpful information. Johntex 15:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Atlantic basin is defined by the NHC as a region of tropical cyclone formation. – jdorje (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chemical oceanography

Chemical oceanography is linked to in the Branches of Oceanography section. Is it really necessary to have a separate section called Chemical Oceanography, or can this section be removed? Punkmorten 14:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Reverted bold merge with no consensus. Vsmith 14:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing template (Global Bias et. al.)

• Today I boldly removed (globalize template— as an improvement!) as I cannot even find when it was installed or by whom. There needs to be a talk note when this kind of unilateral decision occurs so it can be discussed if need be (like this one). The article is 'trashed' by it's inclusion, and all due respect to the anti-systemic Bias folks, but you're chasing an unreachable ideal.
• While non-anglophile content might be worthwhile EVENTUALLY, if you go around placing this sort of template tag on every article it applies to (e.g. history of various battles, history in general), Wiki will never get any useful work out of you and will be cluttered by crappy boxes like this one suggesting to casual readers that wiki is UNTRUSTWORTHY. I really don't think that's the message we want to be sending. Additional input does not invalidate what is already in the article. It can be internationalized when some international input is added, if ever. IMHO, this template and Clean and NPOV etc. properly belong on TALK pages, not Article pages. Why create mistrust?

FrankB 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• As a follow on to the above, after just re-reading the article, surely someone in the field can consult with some professional journals and fill in the lists of institutions offering/specializing in Oceanographic research beyond those in the USA and Britain (Which probably has more than one???). Heck - make it an 'extra-credit' project for an undergrad needing a few more points! FrankB 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

FrankB - Mahlo for kudos & BOLD removal comments about having an inteim gloabl bias note!

 – RJBurkhart 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Mirror Site Disclosures?

Unable to find full & fair disclosures about commercial Wikipedia mirror sites.

Argo (oceanography)

Article from FactBug.org with quick search for Wikipedia content

... The fast Wikipedia mirror site with quick search. ...

• Oceanography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• digg search With wiki-mirror.be
  • Launched Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:24:43 GMT

RJBurkhart 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Contrasts in Blue: Life on the Caribbean Coral Reef and the Rocky Coast of Maine" is available for free at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/contrast/cover.html

It includes a background essay and lesson plans. If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention

Added during external links categorization using DIKW classification process.

* Exploring Marine Ecosystems - Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History permanent exhibit
-- geoWIZard-Passports 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovelock an oceanographer ?

Although Lovelock contribution to earth sciences is to say the least controversial, one thing is sure : he is not an oceanographer. If you go to his biography, you find no trace of real oceanography, i.e. going to sea and studying it... So I would propose to remove his name from the Oceanographer list --Daniel Vaulot 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a knowledge management social engineer, Lovelock contributed to NASA's bioneering memes about interdependence that were advanced by notable US Navy oceanographers - Matthew F. Maury and Homer A. McCrerey
--geoWIZard-Passports 08:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovelock also challenged underlying earth science assumptions about cumulative impacts of chemicals on our biosphere
--geoWIZard-Passports 09:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think his contributions are clearly more at the global earth level (biogeochemical cycles) than as an oceanographer. A biosphere scientist, not an oceanographer... --Daniel Vaulot 10:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir James Lovelock is Marine Biological Association (MBA) President:

... MBA has diversified its educational, communication and public understanding of science activities ...

Please review and reconsider FULL description overview of this topic:

Oceanographers study a wide range of topics such as plate tectonics to ocean currents to marine organisms ... reflect(ing) multiple disciplines that oceanographers blend to help us understand Earth's INTERdependencies:
biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and physics. – geoWIZard-Passports 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

With such a broad definition you could also define any atmospheric or terrestrial scientist as an oceanographer... Scientific disciplines have boundaries and connections. It is critical to set clearly where the boundaries are, as well as important to be aware and develop connections. The primary focus of an oceanographer should be the ocean, not the global earth... Mixing everything in a single bag, does not help anyone.--Daniel Vaulot 06:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir James Lovelock (NASA Biosphere) - removed from list – geoWIZard-Passports 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In his recent book (The Revenge of Gaia), Lovelock cites a future history novel (State of Fear) as an example of Forecasts for the Twenty-first Century ... The public is much more likely to be influenced by writers like Michael Crighton than they are by scientists.(p.48) --geoWIZard-Passports 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Marine Biology vs Biological Oceanography

There is in my opinion an important difference between Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography.

• Marine Biology is the study of marine organisms, often completely out the ocean context. For exemple people that are studying the division of the sea urchin egg in order to understand the fundamental processes of cell division are marine biologists (typically this the sense used in the name of Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole).
• In contrat, Biological Oceanography is the study of the biological component of the ocean in context, and in particular in relation with other environmental factors such as light, nutrients and ocean physics.

So I would propose this distinction be implemented in the article, or rather just to indicate Biological Oceanography. It is very unfortunate that Biological Oceanography article redirects to Marine Biology.--Daniel Vaulot 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Marine ecology met the same fate ... prevailing usage directs which term takes precedence.
 – geoWIZard-Passports 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what "prevailing usage takes precedence" means. Is there a wiki page explaining? I would like to second the suggestion to set up a separate biological oceanography page distinct from marine biology.Picosaur (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume that it means that if a topic has a commonly used name then that name sticks, even when is not the most obvious or accurate one to describe that topic. If you do create a Biological oceanography page, then be sure that its distinction from Marine biology is very clearly expressed. As geoWIZard-Passports mentions, there have been previous attempts to create such a page. In passing, this thread is more than 3 years old — I wouldn't count on getting a huge response here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Meteorologic sex

Google for "Meteorological oceanography/Meteorologic oceanography" gives a miniscule number of non-wikipeidic references, so I guess hardly it is an established separate discipline. As I see, supposedly its topics are discussed in Physical oceanography#Ocean - atmosphere interface, so I guess the classification into "main branches" given here is also suspicious. I noticed that the term was in-article piped to oceanography or to Meteorology, so its strange (non)existence was missed (that's why I hate link-piping of terms).

Something must be done with this term. Where are solid references about it? Experts, what is your opinion? `'mikkanarxi 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Meteorology has a way of dealing with land masses and large bodies of water, and the atmospheric interactions between each... Heck, ask the Navy. --Hard Raspy Sci 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oceanography is important in meteorology and climatology, especially in regions of or near oceans "directly", but also on a global scale "indirectly". The weather is driven by differential solar heating, and the oceans are very important given physical and chemical properties such as heat capacity and albedo. I need not say that SST, currents, and land-sea-atmosphere interactions are extremely important. There is no field of meteorological oceanography though, it's addressed by physical oceanography, atmospheric sciences itself, and interdisciplinary fields like earth system sciences. Evolauxia 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved redlined notable oceanographers

Unable to confirm notability without Wikipedia articles:

• M. Ilham Artuz HAE
• Mikkalai
• Osman El-Rayis

geoWIZard-Passports 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJBurkhart3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Chopping links

You removed a bunch of links and left only links to UK and US oceanography !! this is a very biased view of science as if finnish or french oceanography had no value. So before doing this, post the links you want to remove in the discusssion page and open discussion BEFORE removing them !--Daniel Vaulot 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if your fav. links got the axe - simply put 'em back. I really wasn't paying much att'n to geographic origin - just reducing the pile. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Will revisit the ext links and chop those with little relevance or limited helpful content. Vsmith 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please do chop the list down, but with some sense to it. One site is listed twice, as an on-line textbook, and as the glossary to the text-book. Absurd. However, there are some important international links, for example, the French do extensive ocean research in some areas, as do the Swedish. The links really do need seriously reduced. Thanks, Vsmith, for agreeing to look over them, please note in edit summary why a particular link is removed. Again, thanks for volunteering to do the tedious work. KP Botany 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the brutal reversal of last night... but the new approach is more sensitive. What I would propose is to set up a special section, listing major World Oceanography Insitutions with links and the leaving in the links other sources about oceanography. I started a bit, this can be reverted if necessary --Daniel Vaulot 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go your way and just add any link whatsoever, after all, this isn't an encyclopedia. KP Botany 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about creating List of oceanogrphy institutions and programs, moving these links to that page, and simply having the link to the list here in the See Also section here? Johntex\^talk 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, create any page and put any links anywhere. I'm not really following what is going on here, though. Marine mammals aren't oceanography, surely there's a marine mammal article? Should we add Sweden's phycology research? Portugal's fisheries? The links still have to be directly related to the article. Ifremer is for marine resources, not purely oceanography, also do we want government organizations and institutes of higher learning all together? If government organizations, then shouldn't it be a list of all the world's oceanography governmental bodies? In which, case is NOAA listed, or just Scripp's and Woods Hole? Ultimately oceanography is a core science, and if we don't strictly focus on that one topic, we could create page with a million links. Just Scripps and Woods Hole is fine for US institutions, but it can't really be a list of institutions of higher learning, NGOs and GOs, it has to be sensible. It's often frustrating as a user of Wikipedia that articles are senseless lists of everything. KP Botany 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you tone down your sarcasm, please? It doesn't lend you credit and it does not help the discussion. Johntex\^talk 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll tone down my sarcasm, and how about you tone up your Wikipedia policies and tie your suggestions in to them? If the links don't belong in an article on oceanography, why and how do they merit their own page? KP Botany 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Let me know exactly when you are planning to tone down your sarcasm. It seems like you are only stepping it up a notch. I'll answer your question anyway - articles written in summary style can spawn other articles on particular details of the subject. If you will refer our policies, you will see that Lists are perfectly acceptable here. I think it might be you who should tone your suggestions to our policies. I suggest you start with WP:CIVIL. Johntex\^talk 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no sarcasm in it. It's a question, "If the links don't belong in an article on oceanography, why and how do they merit their own page?" Possibly I should add their insertion in a "list of oceanography institutions and programs?" "Marine mammals" has its own page, and if a link is more properly related to "Marine mammals" than to "oceanography" it should go in a "list of marine mammal institutions and programs" rather than a "list of oceanography institutions and programs." Nothing in your answer addresses the question as to why a link not directed related to a topic should go in a list of the topic. If it's not properly an oceanography link it simply doesn't belong. And I don't see how "articles written in summary style" has anything to do with whether the link is more properly part of an article or list on oceanography or marine mammals. Let's both turn to the topic. KP Botany 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia - that means adding and improving content - NOT just adding external links to our favorite sites. Wikipedia is not just a list of links. That's why I decided to cut the bloated external links section. Now we have another list of external links - and no, it is not appropriate. Wikipedia lists are acceptable, but the list should be linked to Wikipedia articles about the subject institutions - not external links. If there is no article covering an institution, then either create it or leave it off as lacking notability. We certainly do not need a separate list article consisting soley of external links. Now, more link chopping is in order as the lists remain bloated. If there is limited relevant content - national institution or not - then the link needs to go. Let's stop bickering and get on with weeding the chaf and building an encyclopedia. Cheers, Vsmith 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means, carry on! If NOAA isn't linked, though, it should be added, the list was a bit bloated for searching, though. Cheers, KP Botany 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed Scripps and Woods Hole to Wikilinks rather than ext links - more to follow as I get a round toit :-) Vsmith 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh, that's a good idea. I'll check next time I'm around. KP Botany 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think that's the way to go... It would be necessary to create pages about these Institutions of they do not exist (I have done a bit more looking around to add a few more Wiki links. By the way, I agree with Vsmith, no need bickering, just let us work to better a better article... I think Vsmith chopping which I reverted was indeed an excellent move because it forced us to move forward --Daniel Vaulot 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Underwater Lake

This is a question I hope some Marine Oceanographer might know. Awhile back I saw a documentary about the top ten most amazing ocean discoveries and one of them had to do with an underwater lake discovered. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was discovered in a tropical climate (I'm positive it is in the ocean and not a lake with in a lake). This 'underwater lake' was comprised of a different chemical more dense than water. The most fascinating part of it was that it had shores with tidal activity. Along its shores was a variety of marine life. I found an article about Carbon Dioxide Lakes but its not it. Does anyone know more about this 'underwater lake', where I might be able to find out more about it, and ideally some pictures? Thanks a bunch, I know its kind of vague but I think you guys can answer it, hopefully! Mkdw^talk

Oceanography WikiProject ?

Oceanography is an important subject requiring attention on Wikipedia. Many articles require cleaning up and expansion, and there are many missing articles. Some standardization would be helpful. Is there any interest in forming an Oceanography WikiProject? It would be an undertaking, so it's important that there be enough interest to maintain it, but it is something that should happen when possible. Looking to other WikiProjects for ideas and for illustrating the power of projects to improve areas is helpful, some related WikiProjects I'm involved in that have improved things greatly are Meteorology, Tropical cyclones, and Climate change. Evolauxia 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The project is proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceanography. Evolauxia 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oceanography in Mexico

I add the CICESE, as one of the most important oceanography institutions in Mexico. The website is: http://www.cicese.mx/

193.144.197.163 17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Quetzal

Subsurface currents

There's an article of the above title which appears to fall under the banner of oceanography. It looks in need of some work, so I thought I'd comment here to inform people more expert in the area. --The Brown Bottle 09:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do Oceanographers acutally Scuba Dive?

Do oceanographers actually get in the water? I don't see why not but I did not see anything about it. If they do, it needs to be added to the article.--Loving the ocean (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Loving the ocean ^-^ == --206.116.136.234 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Jaxi<3

I don't see why every tool which might be used in oceanography has to be mentioned. Some oceanographers might scuba dive, some might mountain climb, some might spacewalk, depending upon skills and what is being studied. – SEWilco (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

oceanography is very hard to understand and i should know im one my self and its a hard juob to learn about and itd a hard education to go trough so just know everybody can BE A OCEANOGRAPHER if they just go trough the process of going trough school probably again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.81 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oceanography in Spain

I've added CASEM, the Marine Sciences Faculty of the University of Cádiz--Feministo (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

truyiiu yuiuiytui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.196.49 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Devastating ocean waves

This hurricane on Aurelia would generate enormous waves in the ocean and the waves would migrate outwards. Oceanographers should test how high these waves would be in the postulated nearby swamps and delta area. They would be wind driven waves and would not reach from the top of an ocean to the bottom like a Tsunami. None the less waves that Earthlings call freak waves might be regular. Simple bacterial and algal life would not be threatened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxima Centauri 2 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers game

"4417 new species were discovered"? This page said 4717 (til I changed it to 4700, before seeing this page)... Which is it? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oceanographer / marine researcher

Is that the same or are they different? Could s.o. put a phrase about it into the article? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Timelines service has been withdrawn In 2009 all Intute services were re-aligned to map more directly to courses taught in UK Higher Education, in response to funding agreements, market research findings and user-consultation. As a result we have withdrawn a number of services. Nz1d09 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oceanography

this page should talk about the task Oceanographers do daily. the things they complete and the things they work on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.17.14 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)