Talk:Physical oceanography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for Physical oceanography: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
Re-instated article. Re-write or expand as needed, don't just re-direct to a category. -Vsmith 14:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Collab. of the week - nominee
OK - so it just got nominated, mis-read that one. Anyway, I've added an outline of sorts for your filling or chopping or whatever.
I feel the Chemical oceanography article could easily be merged here, but this if developed via this collab. should be separate from the Oceanography overview article. Enjoy - I may be back later to do some fill-in, providing no one strenuously objects to the organization. Vsmith 00:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Suggest that we remove the seafloor spreading. This belongs in geological oceanography.--Agnana 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Geological oceanography or marine geology, the study of the geology of the ocean floor including plate tectonics;
RJBurkhart 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ocean currents
This section seems to be getting a bit too tactical in nature, and I though it would be better to merge the specific current entries with the Ocean current page. This section could then just be a general overview of what is in the main article. Thoughts? — RJH 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Possibly ... This sub-domain article lacks high-impact visual learning graphics and it's already included by cross-referencing.
What's the optimum length for an overview article?
- ocean currents, including:
- wind-driven surface currents (see Upwelling)
- geostrophic currents (see Coriolis effect, secondary circulation)
RJBurkhart 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dimensions
Removed the following from section:
- The biosphere concept concerns life-supporting zones impacted by physical oceanography factors. The thickness of the biosphere on earth is hard to measure. Birds typically fly at altitudes of 650 to 2000 meters and fishes that live deep underwater can be found down to -8,372 meters in the Puerto Rico Trench.
Not sure that it fits here - esp with the depth limit of the PR trench. Seems more appropriate for Marine biology. Vsmith 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. This is *physical* oceanography! William M. Connolley 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
-
- This was added for interdisciplinary middle school (8th grade) earth science programs to help answer SO WHAT challenge questions and make static tabular ocean basin facts more memorable or personally relevant!
RJBurkhart 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- We're not writing a curriculuum for 8th grade science. We're writing an encyclopedia. Those 8th grade teachers need to provide the so what challenges. Not for us to write in riddles. Vsmith 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] SLR
I took out:
- Rejecting some IPCC assumptions, Mörner (2004) has argued that sea level rise will not exceed 200 mm, within a range of either +100±100 mm or +50±150 mm depending on assumptions. and These sea level rises could lead to difficulties for shore-based communities: for example, many major cities such as London already need storm-surge defences, and would need more if sea level rose. TAR chapter 11.
Morner is a definite minority (of about one) viewpoint and doesn't deserve to be in a summary like this (plus the abs of Morner 2004 [1] doesn't support the text). The communities stuff I removed on the grounds that this is *physical* oceanography. William M. Connolley 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
- Hmmm... OK, so I got the wrong Morner 2004. The correct one is [2] and its totally wacky. William M. Connolley 19:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
-
- I agree! Thanks for simplifying this section's abstract! However, what's memorable and relevant to a middle-school student that relates (ramaining) factoids to global impacts or causes to consequences? RJBurkhart 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree! Thanks for simplifying this section's abstract! However, what's memorable and relevant to a middle-school student that relates (ramaining) factoids to global impacts or causes to consequences? RJBurkhart 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Well done!
Congratulations to everyone involved. This article has really amazingly improved since becoming Science Collaboration of the Week. Keep it smart, and let us know when you come across other articles similarly needing help! Best, Samsara contrib talk 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
