![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Be nice to see some recent research into the history of oceans: how they came to be, how old they are, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.249.80 ( talk) 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Could anyone help me identify the strange creatures in this picture? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 23:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
There should be a paragraph discussing and linking to Abyssal zone and other ecological zones within the oceans, but I'm not up to trying to write it right now. 216.240.37.31 04:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a link to Ocean Software Ltd since in many articles it is referred to as Ocean. I will try to cleanup those pages. Meanwhile should a disambiguation page should be created? Felsir 13:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Coming here from an AfD discussion, I wonder if any ocean expert(s) here could do something about the section on Origins. There ought to be something in Wikipedia on that topic, but I'm not convinced a separate article is necessary until at ledhgcast a section's been written here. I'm not, however, the one to write it, at least not now. - GghbTBacchus( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. -- Fenice 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article to see a definition of ocean, but I failed to find one. Or, even worse, I found one which is followed by sentence "From this point of view, there are three "oceans" today: the World Ocean, and the Black and Caspian Sea..." which is not what the most common sence of the word in question is. I'm not being bold and inserting a definition myself because I don't have one, but I really feel this article could use a decent definition of ocean... -- Dijxtra 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you talk about fish?
--Sam Wang 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand why the image next to the opening paragraph was place here--it's a rather unique view. But I think it should be replaced, or at least removed. First of all, and most importantly, by the admission in the caption, it is simply out of date--the Southern Ocean needs to be represented. Even without that, I can't figure out for the life of me why the South China Sea is demarcated. Seems to make the image even more confusing. Unschool 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arctic Ocean takes up approximately 17% of the Earth's surface. The Pacific takes up about 32%, The Atlantic takes up close to 27%, and The Indian ocean takes up 24%.
if you add all those up: 17 + 32 + 27 + 24 = 100%. that seems to me to mean that it is referring only to the % of the Earth's water surface (whatever the correct phrase for that is), and not to the entire surface. Otherwise this statement seems to indicate that the entire surface of the planet is covered in Ocean. unless I'm missing something of course, which is entirely possible. Sahuagin 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's 70%
I added a bit to the existing section. So far, we have a confirmed case of a planet with 'hot ice', a disputed case of water vapour and a planet that could have oceans if the composition is right. The first two 'transit', so there is evidence what they are made of, whereas the third is not in line-of-sight with the Earth and its sun and its nature is unknown.
Still, there are more worlds being found all the time and the section could grow. Or be separated off, with a shorter paragraph and a link to the main article.-- GwydionM 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the section title. Now that Oceans Beyond Earth exists, should we reduce what's said here? Mention just Mars and Europa, which are the best cases? Say that exoplanets with oceans are expected but there are none yet found?-- GwydionM 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The first source doesn't appear to be very authoritative, though the argument it propounds is fairly compelling. The second source is an academic article but I don't have the resources to asses its reliability. I reckon the information does have a place within the article, probably Ocean#Physical properties. Leobh 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not reverting right now, because I avoid edit wars at almost all costs, but I ask you to re-read what you have reverted this to. The current opening sentence reads: An ocean . . . is a principal part of the hydrosphere: a major body of saline water that, in totality, covers about 70% of the Earth's surface.
Okay, now first of all, I completely agree with your desire to make it clear that the ocean/oceans covers/cover 70% of the earth's surface, regardless of whether they are seen as one ocean or several. We're in agreement on that point. But your version actually fails to make this clear.
You start off using the singular indefinate article, "an", which, when combined with the next phrase "is a principal part of the hydrosphere", is perfectly fine. No problems thus far. Then you go on to say (after a rather undesireable colon—but I'll leave that alone today) "a major body of saline water". I've got some minor problems with this (due to the colon), but there are no overt errors thus far.
But then you say, "in totality". Of what are you speaking here? Sure, sure, neither of us are idiots, and we both know that what you mean is the totality of all of the world's oceans. But that's not what you are saying, because you have only referred to "an ocean". You've never told us that there are multiple oceans, and, even if you had, since within the same sentence you were defining a non-specific single ocean, if strict logic is followed, you are telling us that "an ocean covers 70% of the world's surface," because you've made the amount of the earth's surface covered by "an ocean" part of the definition of "an ocean". By further extension, if there do happen to be as many as two oceans in the world (assumable since you did not refer to "the ocean", then together they must cover 140% of the world's surface. If you're thinking that this sounds absurd, you're right. But I didn't write it; it is at the bare minimum one possible interpretation of the verbiage that you've chosen to employ. I won't argue that this is the only way to interpret the wording (though I believe it to be the most logically sound—thus absurd), but it's certainly better to find a way to word it that doesn't lead to this interpretation.
Now look at the verbiage that you eliminated. An ocean . . . is a major body of saline water and a principal part of the hydrosphere. In totality, the world's oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface (or an area of some 361 million square kilometers).
As I see it, you have one principal point of contention with this that may merit revision. There is no mention of the fact that the world's oceans can very correctly be considered to be a single body of water. Personally, I think that the fact that this issue is addressed in the first sentence of the second paragraph is more than adequate. (Indeed, if it is to be covered in this introductory paragraph, it will necessitate a re-writing of the second paragraph's opening sentence, or it will sound stupidly redundant.) But all that is besides the point, because, as I read it, your edit does not address this issue any better than the one you just got rid of. Why? Because, for the grammatical issues mentioned above, you have have not made clear to the reader whether there is one ocean or multiple oceans or (as the case of course is) that both views are viable.
In summation, you use a verb of the third person singular while rendering the definition of an indefinate subject, but include a statement that only makes sense either with a set of plural indefinite subjects or a definate singular subject. You can't have it both ways—it is grammatically nonsensical. The previous edit was grammatically sound. It only failed to make clear that many sources regard the World Ocean as a single entity. And since this is addressed moments later, in a section that, for Pete's sake, is labeled "Overview", is that so bad?
Please give this some serious consideration. I may be away for a while (perhaps for as long as two or three weeks), so I can't promise that I'll respond quickly. I do feel that the current edit simply cannot stand, for grammatical reasons alone. But I don't need to have the previous version reinstated, as long as what we get is both factual (something that I know from your history that you value greatly) and correct from technical standpoint. Cheers. Unschool 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please be advised that an 'oceanography' wikiproject is being proposed. I encourage any editors of this page to enroll. Thanks! Quizimodo 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in joining a project to deal with the oceans is free to indicate their support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceans. John Carter ( talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
have you ever thought of how the ocean got to where it is now? well some people say that there was just one lake or pond that evaporated them made rain clouds and it rained on and on till it was the ocean.of course this would have taken millions or billions of years in the process, but it still has the point in how the ocean came to be. well imagine that the world looks like how mars looks today,"blank." (well it would have bumps and mountains of course or else there would be no land today.)it could be like that but it is almost imposible for that to be.well now imagine that the earth was all water to begine with.there could be underwater volcanoes to create the land that we live on now.for all we know we could be living on millions of extict volcanoes right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.168.10 ( talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder, does this page mention the legal status how the oceans are treated by countries? Should it? I added a link to the Law of the Sea in the see also. – b_jonas 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
huh? what are talking about? *dream on*dance on* 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane ( talk • contribs)
The page says "The oceans cover ¾ of the earth’s surface". If we're going to round to fractions then two-thirds would be (slightly) more accurate! <ducks> 82.9.170.24 ( talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
there is a sorts of oceans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.144.19 ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
if you think about it there is only one ocean it the world becuse all of the "oceans" are connected to each other in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.215.210 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why there are two sections here, I think they should be merged. Utaneus ( talk) 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it ture that pondand lakes is fresh water and is it cold and hot or both.
I am doing a projet on ponds and lakes so i need some imformunter about ponds and lakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 ( talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A lake is a large boby of fresh water. Lakes can range in size from small ponds to huge bodies of water such the Great Lakes in the U.S.
Lakes and rivers are closely tied. Some lakes are the source for some rivers. Imporant rivers,most often,originate from lakes. Some rivers end in lakes.
Since both rivers and lakes are fresh water and flow in and out of each ohter. They share similar Characteristics and many species reside in both habitate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 ( talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Oceans in The Times - advice please - check how to add this reference. 86.12.18.104 ( talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There is lots of New Material - but not entered specifically! I don't know! Perhaps dump it, or is that the easwy way out. The article is such a massive one in its subject matter ....Osborne 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder about the appropriateness of making this article separate from oceanography. Michael Hardy 01:36 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
i looked at this page to see what makes it salty for school and i dont see my answer. if the answer is there please tell me where, and if not please give me my answer and i think you should write about what makes it salty in the article. thanx *dream on*dance on* 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
someone has tampered with the info under the maps, making reference to ugly men! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.89.54.198 ( talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone notice the ocean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent the Dawg ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The disclaimer on this page on the Southern Ocean bullet point ("...generally not considered...") is not consistent with the explanation on the topic's own page, which I think is definitive. Unless there is argument to the contrary, I will replace the disclaimer with a blurb saying that S.O. is a new definition. Sharkford 04:17, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
hi my name is sheila and i don't like what u did to my article about the oceans .
Why is the Southern Ocean listed as larger than the Arctic ocean? The Arctic is clearly larger. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.87.229.18 (
talk)
22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
i'd like for someone to contact me -username thesurfer - who is editing this page. you need to include the music artist, Ocean, into the music list. i would be happy to contribute this. the gospel group, Ocean, had disbanded in the early 1970's and yet they are listed.
I contacted the record company that distributes her CDs and asked for information to create my article about her.Her career warrants being included on this page and i am a supporter of her work, and her amazing contributions to saving life in the oceans too.
also, i've noticed that many bands or performers are listed in wiki who are not nearly as accomplished or well-known as is Ocean, and i wonder why whomever edits this page has not included her or so far allowed me to include her and to keep the edits i've made. please explain to me why you are displaying this sort of prejudice? cite - the page for "cosmic", and many other pages. the artists in music holding these otherwise generic names are always listed at wikipedia, regardless whether they are household names yet. Larger music sites had stopped listing the old gospel group of the same name a few years ago and have Ocean, the singer-songwriter-producer i would like to add the information on, as an additional listing for Ocean on the page we are discussing. I can also cite references and listings where needed.
The ocean is a world; amazing, unexplained, simple, extreme, strange, normal, wonderful. Can one define the word ocean?
The ocean is often poluted, such as the world we live in. The ocean contains different creatures, and different ways of surviving; fighting, harmony, chaos, peace. It is not that different from what we would call "our world".
Watching the waves crash, and the moonlight reflect off the water, its the unexplained, desirable, world of water.
this article should explain how and why oceanic currents are formed. Is it the rotation of the earth? 205.155.15.1
Uhh, this may be a stupid question, but why is there no pic of an ocean in the article? All the charts and graphs are very informative, but they dont give you a sense of what the ocean IS.
does the volume paragraph need to be updated in light of http://www.global-adventures.us/2010/05/19/average-ocean-depth/ ? -- 109.186.109.219 ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!
Add Image to Ocean Zones and Depths section - Zones of the Ocean Image
Source: One of the zones of the ocean : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neritic_zone
98.114.128.183 ( talk) 03:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?)
OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a...
Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones.
Date: May 6, 2010
Source: Self-Made
Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht
Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide.
To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
{{editsemiprotected}}
I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!
I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....?
I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?) OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a... Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones. Date: May 6, 2010 Source: Self-Made Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide. To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
98.114.128.183 ( talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I had to do a biomes book for school and needed to include a photo of the zones of the ocean. I could an image to use so I made one and would like to upload it here for them to use, and others. I made this image. Can you please put the image in the Zones/Depths section. Thanks! (This image is different from the other one because it shows the zones going out.
To cite, these images from my text-book verify that the zones are right. :)
The file to put in the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_Zones.jpg#file
The reference images: http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/201005May#
Photoguy2801 ( talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Not done: per the previous editor.
Spigot
Map
15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I am wondering if we can get some feedback on these images? the one on the right is now in the article. It does display a lot of info, and in the opinion of some editors, is kind of "bland." The image on the left shows similar information, though it is lacking a little compared to the other version, and is more vibrant. Photoguy2801 has expressed a desire to add the image to the article, however I am not sure it contributes anything. (Being "pretty" is not really what we aim for in an encyclopedia.) It does give a better visual about what life lives in these areas, however.
that being said, does anyone think we should add the image to the article? If not, what changes might the image on the left need before it might be added? Any other feedback? Avic enna sis tb? @ 16:58, 3 Tamuz 5770 / 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has responded yet so... I thought my image was good, but I do understand why you would not want to give that info up, but like the color of this image. I decided to merge some of the info from the other image into this one so.... would you accept it now? If so I will update the image on Wikimedia. http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/Downloads#5483058709539193138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy2801 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the other graphic so if they need detailed info about the ocean depths/zones they have it but. But also think we should add this other image in as a 2nd image for this section. It adds something very important that the other graphic does not have, what type of animals/plants live in that area. Why do we need to replace the current graphic, both are nice, just add another (the colorful one). -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I updated the image, in the article adding a new one. Win-Win. Doesn't take away anything, people can still get the detailed image (that one is even bigger) but can also look at this one. Win-Win. The more info the better. If anyone thinks the edit is super, super, bad leave me a message on my talk page. Doesn't takes anything away at all, adds info like the plants/animals. (@Plumbago - Yeah I sorta-agree. The image was never meant to be anything about the vertical zones, it was about the horizontal zones. I reverted the image back to its original version.) -- Photoguy2801 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Given up. If that's how you want it, have it that way. -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
How it get rid of this stupid interlanguage link: new:चमुत्तिरम् (सन् २००२या संकिपा)? I have to remove it from Wikipedia every language to make it stop re-appearing? Hellerick ( talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In the intro it is stated that more than half of the oceans have a depth of at least 3000 km while later in the physical properties it is stated that a little less than of marine waters is 3000 km or more in depth. Just wondering... Samoojas ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't large oceans of liquid water "under their thick atmospheres" be on the planets' surfaces, thereby contradicting the statement that Earth is certainly the only planet in our Solar System with liquid water on its surface? Also, since Uranus and Neptune are s..s..so c..c..cold, could we possibly have a few words here explaining how on Earth (or even on Uranus/Neptune) it is possible for liquid water to be present in those places? 86.177.104.235 ( talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
May I make the background blue? It seems appropriate, and the World Book encyclopedia does the same thing. Pinguinus ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Article needs a section on pollution. Such as http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded by the United States Department of Commerce, the average depth of the ocean is 4,267 Meters and the maximum depth is 11,030 Meters. Please see source at:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html
Mikeehale (
talk)
18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I have read the whole second paragraph in the description, and the second sentence about the surfaces of Jupiter and Saturn fits nowhere in the topic, and I shall remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There have always been only 3 oceans - the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. Now some people are trying to sell us this crap with the Arctic and the Southern Oceans. What's up with that? That is just a load of crap. So, what's next? the Norwegian Sea is gonna be turned into the Great European Ocean?.... Norum 05:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article says only about subsurface ocean on Titan (moon), presumingly saying about Europa (moon). Titan is known for its extensive system of rivers and lakes (or oceans depending on point of views), but on the surface (and presumingly under as well, just like ground water on Earth). Elk Salmon ( talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The references listed in the section Dwarf Planets and trans-Neptunian objects produce errors in the references list because they are not properly created. Are the names/years significant or just made up? — Jonadin (talk) @ 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The word "billion" should not be used... How can the reader know if this is using short scale (1000 000 000) or long scale (1000 000 000 000)? Undead Herle King ( talk) 05:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Just how large by volume does a body of water have to be to qualify as an ocean ? Does it need to be a global or worldwide body ?? This is not defined. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that we're not lexicologists or whatever, but the hundreds of years old defintion of "ocean" presented here - ie a large body of seawater - basically renders any contemporary astronomical use of the term unfairly specious. Its far too narrow and raises so many more questions than it answers. We have the quandary where the word "sea" or "lake" is instead used in reference to extraterrestrial bodies of liquid, but the same problems exist - they aren't seawater either. How can we measure the saltiness of for example Europa's ocean without drilling hundreds of kilometres through the crust. Assuming that size is not defined then just how salty does it have to be to qualify as an ocean ? The Caspian Sea is a large body of saline water, yet it is somehow too small to be an ocean. So are we to assume that an ocean is any body of salt water larger than the Caspian Sea ? Earth's earlier oceans likely contained less salts than they do now therefore how can we know how old the "ocean" in fact is ? If aquifers like the Great Artesian Basin turned salty, would it indeed be re-classified as a sea or ocean ? -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) [1] is a body of saline water that is a geographical subdivision of the World Ocean. [2] [3]
An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) [4] is a body of saline water that composes a large part of a planet's hydrosphere. [5] In the context of Earth, it also refers to major divisions of the planet's World Ocean, such as the Atlantic Ocean. [6] [7] The word " sea" is often used interchangeably with "ocean", but a sea is a body of saline water in a more inland location rather than a location in which it encompasses the land around it. [8]
The opening paragraph defines an ocean as a body of "saline water". But it is directed to the seawater article, which is defined as "water from a sea or ocean". So I have relinked it to saline water article. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Some info from seagrass article: The ocean currently absorbs 25% of global carbon emissions.
Perhaps include to article 81.242.237.143 ( talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"Earth's global ocean is the largest confirmed surface ocean on all observable planets. Approximately 72% of the planet's surface (~3.6x108 km2) is covered by saline water that is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas, although some sources prove that the ocean only covers approximately 71% of the Earth's surface.[6] In terms of the hydrosphere of the Earth, the ocean contains 97% of the Earth's water. Oceanographers have stated that out of 97%, only 5% of the ocean as a whole on Earth has been explored."
For example, if there is disagreement on whether 72% or 71% of the surface is covered, we should give the approximate coverage that is more widely accepted and then state the alternate view as an alternate view (assuming, of course, that there is sufficient controversy on this fact to even justify a comment that alters an approximation by 1%). Also, if the other source really "proves" that it is 71%, then there would be no need to state the 72% at all. For these reasons, the sentence could be substantially improved with a little rework.
There are similar improvements that we should consider for the other three sentences as well.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ismarkat (
talk •
contribs)
00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oceans exist elsewhere other than earth and contains liquid methane. So the definition should not claim oceans contain saline water, it should claim oceans contain liquid compound (and saline water, in the context of earth). -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This article gives the volume of the world's oceans as "1.3 billion cubic kilometres". The article on the Pacific gives its total volume as "2.8 billion cubic kilometres". What gives? Neither reference is terrible but the one for this article is a secondary source compiled by "students". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.37.201 ( talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I am quite puzzled by the definition of the Southern Ocean. If I understand the article about it correctly, its definition and boundaries are not universally agreed upon. It appears on some maps, but definitely not on all maps. Why, then, do quite a lot of Wikipedia articles refer to it as a fact? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ocean's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NASA-20140403":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the ancients ever used the phrase "World Ocean". "Ocean" means "Outer", so "World Ocean" means "World Outer" and doesn't make sense. See /info/en/?search=Talk:Ocean_Sea#The_Ocean_Sea_-_a_page_of_its_own. -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@ MarkFilipak: How is the word "Ocean" related to the word "outer"? Jarble ( talk) 07:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The mixing time of the ocean's water is not the residence time of a dissolved constituent, and so the article's implication that the two terms are synonymous is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.0.31 ( talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What's up with calling the pacific ocean peaceful? 24.218.161.224 ( talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to NOAA it is 4265m -
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC).
Intrigued by this definition of a sea as "a body of saline water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land". Strictly speaking, all the oceans are partly enclosed by land, so they are all seas! Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a picture of the sea -- well, the Atlantic Ocean apparently, captioned: "Surface of the Atlantic Ocean meeting Earth's planetary boundary layer and troposphere, a range view which varies depending on the assumed surface elevation." Something seems to have gone wrong: this makes no sense to me. Since the article is about oceans, mention of different layers of the atmosphere seems unnecessary. Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
the ocean is an ecosystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.103.42 ( talk) 14:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A Ocean is a body of saline water that composes much of the Earth's hydrosphere.On Earth,an Ocean is one of the major convectional divisons of the world ocean.There are FIVE[5] oceans on our planet ,namely The Pacific Ocean ,The Atlantic Ocean ,The Indian Ocean ,The Artic Ocean. However, many countries including the U.S.A ,Africa ,North America ,South America ,etc.Due to the vast expanse of water that exists on the Earth ,our planet is called a Water Planet.Scintists believe that life originated in the Hydrosphere. The Ocean is made up of seas ,Bays ,Gulfs ,Straits ,Lakes ,etc.Rivers and the areas covered under ice also form a part of the Hydrosphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.183.7 ( talk) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is based too much on science and not on other subjects related to the ocean. For example, what does the literature of poetry say about the ocean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.77.235 ( talk) 01:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Over 75 percent of the water is from the ocean Folsomprince ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Please sea here!!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what exactly is the difference supposed to be between the Ocean and Sea articles, because the Sea article starts with, “The sea, the world ocean or simply the ocean” User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 15:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
what lives in oceans?
for many years, fishes, sharks, whales...have lived in oceans. However, people destroy them. S201501105 ( talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please change the area or Arctic Ocean to 106,460,000 sq KMs under Oceanic divisions section Cspatnaik.wiki ( talk) 06:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Are we able to add a Wikipedia book to this and say the other oceans? -- Julianstout ( talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: I realize that your insistence that "ocean is often used interchangeably with sea in American English but not in British English" only makes sense if you do not understand what the word "interchangeably" means. It does not mean "instead of". It does not mean that American English speakers say "ocean" while British speakers say "sea". "Interchangeably" means that both words can be employed to refer to the same object.
The Oxford Learner's Dictionary mentions ocean vs sea here: [7], and this is also located at their "sea" article. I quote: "In British English, the usual word for the mass of salt water that covers most of the earth’s surface is the sea. In North American English, the usual word is the ocean"
If the usual word for "mass of salt water that covers most of the earth's surface" in British English is "sea", then the word "usual" implies that "ocean" can also be employed in British English to refer to the same object. If both words can be used to refer to the same object, then the words can be used interchangeably in British English. If they can be used interchangeably in British English and in American English, then it does not make sense to specify that the word can be used interchangeably in American English only.
We should not give readers the false impression that only American English speakers use the word "sea" when referring to the ocean. Therefore, your insisted phrasing is misleading and should be removed.
In fact, consider the following: the Ocean article is distinct from the Sea article; on Wikipedia, the Ocean article is meant to specifically refer to the world's five oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.). If, as you insist, the Ocean article should specify that only American English speakers use the phrase interchangeably, but not British English speakers, then the impression is given that American English speakers would be apt to say, e.g. "Pacific Sea" or "Atlantic Sea". As an American English speaker myself, I can attest that I have never heard anyone say those phrases. The phrase "Pacific Sea" is certainly not used "often".
The sentence should be deleted entirely. It is immediately followed by the sentence "Strictly speaking, a sea is a body of water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land,[6] though "the sea" refers also to the oceans"; the final clause should be enough for the lede. BirdValiant ( talk) 02:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Use of ocean resourses. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The claim that only 5% of the ocean has been explored is oft-repeated but rarely backed up by actual evidence. There is an extensive discussion in this article as to why this claim is (1) completely ambiguous and (2) incorrect, and NOAA (which the claim I have now removed referenced) now only states that "more than eighty percent [of the ocean]... remains unmapped". I have therefore replaced the previous claim that "less than 5% of the World Ocean has been explored" to "less than 20% of the World Ocean has been mapped". I am still unhappy about this though, because it gives the impression that we do not know anything about the other 80% of the ocean. This is not true, as gravimetry-derived data products like SRTM+ provide global coverage at a course (kilometre-scale) resolution.
Побережья морей и океанов усеяны жидами пархатыми. Достаточно треугольных масонских крыш. Везде крипты. Вырожденцы народы-уроды мира. Жулики и воры, грязные подонки. Свободного места, природы не осталось. Плохо твари кончат. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812F:7262:9452:AABE:ED39:10C5 ( talk) 10:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
what is marine environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.118.114.182 ( talk) 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a citation to the line "A magma ocean is thought to be present on Io." in section 4.2. The appropriate citation is either the NASA press release on the subject ( https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2994) or the publication itself ( https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201425).
Thank you. Cdkharris ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
From the intro: "As a general term, "the ocean" is mostly interchangeable with "the sea" in American English, but not in British English."
This doesn't make a lot of sense, and isn't really in tune with what the footnote says: "Unlike Americans, speakers of British English do not go swimming in "the ocean" but always "the sea"."
What is accurate: In speaking of ocean waters, particularly from the perspective of someone on the shore, British English tends to speak of "the sea", whereas American English tends to refer to "the ocean"—e.g. swimming in the sea (British) or the ocean (American).
Lynneguist1 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) lynneguist1
The average temperature of the Ocean is 3.5 °C, not 3.9. The citation is: Bereiter, B., Shackleton, S., Baggenstos, D., Kawamura, K., & Severinghaus, J. (2018). Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition. Nature, 553(7686), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25152 See figure 1 caption. Also about this article: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/oceans-average-temperature-is-3-5-degree-celsius/articleshow/62363696.cms 81.61.9.17 ( talk) 00:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I've just moved some content to astrooceanography as we had already provided a link to there saying "Main article" but then went into too much detail here. So I've only left the bare minimum information and am sending the reader to the related article for more information. I was a bit unsure if it should go there or to Extraterrestrial liquid water and have asked on the other talk page. (I had mentioned this in my talk message a few days ago, and didn't see any objections; hope people agree). EMsmile ( talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The article uses both "the oceans" and "the ocean". I want to propose to change all cases of "the ocean" more in line with how the article is established at the moment by the introduction. This would involve changing most "the ocean" into "the oceans" or clarify that the system of the oceans is meant, but in such cases they might be moved to world ocean (or maybe sea). Nsae Comp ( talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to make some improvements where I move excessive detail into the relevant sub-articles, and then use the excerpt function from that sub-article. I'll start with the section on oceanic zone now. Perhaps if we apply this concept more rigorously (only leave summaries when sub-articles exist) we'll gain greater clarity what this article really does contain that's different from other articles. EMsmile ( talk) 23:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the first two sentences using the definitions found in Merriam Webster which I find quite useful here. I have done an equivalent edit at sea. So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "oceans" does. EMsmile ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I came to this article because I am working on a range of articles related to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water). See project description here. I don't understand how this article can have a section heading called "Travel" and one called "Earth's global ocean". Also I am missing sections on important threats to oceans, such as ocean acidification. I notice those other two related and overlapping articles called sea and World ocean. I saw some of the previous discussions about changing the structure or perhaps merging and would support these processes (see on talk page of World Ocean here). It can't stay how it is now, as it's quite messy. I don't see why we would need three articles on the same topic; or if we do need all three then they need to be more clearly separated from each other. The one on World Ocean starts with "The World Ocean or Global Ocean (colloquially the sea or the ocean) is the interconnected system" giving those other two terms as if they're synonyms but then linking to the other articles. That's very confusing. If they are synonyms then they don't need separate articles. And I feel that with regards to climate change topics at least, the word "ocean" is more dominant than "sea", or example ocean acidification, Effects of climate change on oceans, Oceanic carbon cycle. On the other hand we have sea level rise and Sea surface temperature. Curious. @ User:ASRASR @ User:Johnbod @ User:oknazevad @ User:Nsae Comp EMsmile ( talk) 06:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, since I was pinged, the fact is whether the whole interconnected body of salt water is called "the sea" or "the ocean" is really an ENGVAR thing, with British use defaulting to "the sea" and others defaulting to "the ocean". Frankly, we had this sufficiently organized years ago until someone steamrolled through a rescoping that ignored that fact and ENGVAR without prior discussion. We should undo that rescoping post haste, because in the time since there has been nothing but confusion and redundancy. oknazevad ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
A "proper" proposal is not needed. Firstly, because you cannot demand work from others. Don't be rude. Secondly, because hashing things out in ongoing discussion is just as valid as a formal proposal per WP:NOTBURO. No, we don't need a formal merge template and all that if discussion and consensus are already emerging. oknazevad ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: The article "world ocean" has now been merged into "ocean" and a redirect has been put in place. Remaining two articles out of the group of formerly three interrelated articles are now sea and ocean. EMsmile ( talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There are several tables in this article which are not accompanied by any prose. I wonder if we really want to keep them or if they ought to be moved to a sub-article (or if we need to add prose to go with them). Also I am surprised that the table "Generalized characteristics of ocean surface by latitude" requires 7 references. I checked the first two but could not easily verify if the content of those references matches the content of the tables. What do you think about this?
Gas | Concentration of seawater, by mass (in parts per million), for the whole ocean | % Dissolved gas, by volume, in seawater at the ocean surface |
---|---|---|
Carbon dioxide (CO2) | 64 to 107 | 15% |
Nitrogen (N2) | 10 to 18 | 48% |
Oxygen (O2) | 0 to 13 | 36% |
Temperature | O2 | CO2 | N2 |
---|---|---|---|
0 °C | 8.14 | 8,700 | 14.47 |
10 °C | 6.42 | 8,030 | 11.59 |
20 °C | 5.26 | 7,350 | 9.65 |
30 °C | 4.41 | 6,600 | 8.26 |
Characteristic | Oceanic waters in polar regions | Oceanic waters in temperate regions | Oceanic waters in tropical regions |
---|---|---|---|
Precipitation vs. evaporation | P > E | P > E | E > P |
Sea surface temperature in winter | −2 °C | 5 to 20 °C | 20 to 25 °C |
Average salinity | 28‰ to 32‰ | 35‰ | 35‰ to 37‰ |
Annual variation of air temperature | ≤ 40ªC | 10 °C | < 5 °C |
Annual variation of water temperature | < 5ªC | 10 °C | < 5 °C |
Constituent | Residence time (in years) |
---|---|
Iron (Fe) | 200 |
Aluminum (Al) | 600 |
Manganese (Mn) | 1,300 |
Water (H2O) | 4,100 |
Silicon (Si) | 20,000 |
Carbonate (CO32−) | 110,000 |
Calcium (Ca2+) | 1,000,000 |
Sulfate (SO42−) | 11,000,000 |
Potassium (K+) | 12,000,000 |
Magnesium (Mg2+) | 13,000,000 |
Sodium (Na+) | 68,000,000 |
Chloride (Cl−) | 100,000,000 |
EMsmile ( talk) 02:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
References
There is a table in the article for which the current reference given is not correct. I don't have the textbook in front of me but one of the authors, Tim Jickells, told me the table is not in his book:
Color (wavelength in nm) | Depth at which 99 percent of the wavelength is absorbed (in meters) | Percent absorbed in 1 meter of water |
---|---|---|
Ultraviolet (310) | 31 | 14.0 |
Violet (400) | 107 | 4.2 |
Blue (475 | 254 | 1.8 |
Green (525) | 113 | 4.0 |
Yellow (575) | 51 | 8.7 |
Orange (600) | 25 | 16.7 |
Red (725) | 4 | 71.0 |
Infrared (800) | 3 | 82.0 |
Two options: either we hunt down the source for this table: A quick Google search for “Oceanic absorption of light at different wavelengths” took me to this page:
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-5-light/
which seems to be an open access book on oceanography by Paul Webb:
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/ but it doesn't have the table either. I haven't yet searched further. Option 2 would be to replace the table with a couple of sentences. Tim suggested: "I'm not sure the table itself is needed and the exact values must depend on the turbidity of the water. How about saying something like this after the first sentence of this section:
Red light is absorbed most strongly so penetrates least in the ocean (to less than 50 m generally) while blue light is absorbed less well and can penetrate to up to 200 m.
and then cite that nice Webb book you found. The table then is deleted because there isn't a source for it."
EMsmile (
talk)
08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I have been in e-mail contact with a content expert on oceans and will incorporate the suggestions received from the expert (via a marked-up Word document) in the next few days. Here is the overall feedback from the expert: Hi, I have been working away on the Ocean wikipedia article for the last couple of weeks on and off. [Regarding the] the Sea article, [...] there is some very good material in that article and I have suggested some links to it, particularly over the history of human use of the ocean and seas. There are areas of ocean science that I know very little about so I can't really offer much on those. Elsewhere I have been through the article and tried to do three things:
The global pattern of winds (also called atmospheric circulation) creates a global pattern of ocean currents. These are not only driven by the wind but also by the effect of the circulation of the earth ( coriolis force).I hope this is correct. EMsmile ( talk) 00:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up on the Microplastics article, which contains the original text used in the microplastics excerpt, but haven't heard so I thought I'd try here. The beginning of this section reads: "Due to their ubiquity in the environment, microplastics are widespread among the different matrices." I think the word "matrices" is confusing. Even "environmental matrices" I think would be a bit esoteric for the general reader, and there is no Wikilink I can think of that would explain to a general reader what is meant by "matrices" in this context. Does anyone with knowledge of this terminology have any suggestions? Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "Relationship of currents and climate", line 2, there is a typo 'thermoahline'. Please change it to "Thermohaline". Pbajpai07 ( talk) 20:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The article claims, and cites a source whi which claims, that there is some dialectical difference between US and GB English in that GB speakers never speak of swimming in "the ocean", but always "the sea".
I really don't think this is a reflection of different varieties of English. Common sense, upon looking at a map, would indicate it's a consequence of geography: American coasts are flanked by "oceans" (Pacific and Atlantic), British coasts by "seas" (North, Irish, &c). (There ARE still a great many of folks who consider seas to be distinct from oceans, and would therefore consider it wrong to refer to a sea as "the ocean", despite scientific terminology; science hath no authority over language, whether it thinks it does or not). So, I recommend that claim be removed: it is trivial, and even though it is sourced, common sense, as I have shown, renders it suspect. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:14D5:5FC9:8C5F:AB3A ( talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Be nice to see some recent research into the history of oceans: how they came to be, how old they are, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.249.80 ( talk) 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Could anyone help me identify the strange creatures in this picture? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 23:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
There should be a paragraph discussing and linking to Abyssal zone and other ecological zones within the oceans, but I'm not up to trying to write it right now. 216.240.37.31 04:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a link to Ocean Software Ltd since in many articles it is referred to as Ocean. I will try to cleanup those pages. Meanwhile should a disambiguation page should be created? Felsir 13:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Coming here from an AfD discussion, I wonder if any ocean expert(s) here could do something about the section on Origins. There ought to be something in Wikipedia on that topic, but I'm not convinced a separate article is necessary until at ledhgcast a section's been written here. I'm not, however, the one to write it, at least not now. - GghbTBacchus( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. -- Fenice 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article to see a definition of ocean, but I failed to find one. Or, even worse, I found one which is followed by sentence "From this point of view, there are three "oceans" today: the World Ocean, and the Black and Caspian Sea..." which is not what the most common sence of the word in question is. I'm not being bold and inserting a definition myself because I don't have one, but I really feel this article could use a decent definition of ocean... -- Dijxtra 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you talk about fish?
--Sam Wang 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand why the image next to the opening paragraph was place here--it's a rather unique view. But I think it should be replaced, or at least removed. First of all, and most importantly, by the admission in the caption, it is simply out of date--the Southern Ocean needs to be represented. Even without that, I can't figure out for the life of me why the South China Sea is demarcated. Seems to make the image even more confusing. Unschool 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arctic Ocean takes up approximately 17% of the Earth's surface. The Pacific takes up about 32%, The Atlantic takes up close to 27%, and The Indian ocean takes up 24%.
if you add all those up: 17 + 32 + 27 + 24 = 100%. that seems to me to mean that it is referring only to the % of the Earth's water surface (whatever the correct phrase for that is), and not to the entire surface. Otherwise this statement seems to indicate that the entire surface of the planet is covered in Ocean. unless I'm missing something of course, which is entirely possible. Sahuagin 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's 70%
I added a bit to the existing section. So far, we have a confirmed case of a planet with 'hot ice', a disputed case of water vapour and a planet that could have oceans if the composition is right. The first two 'transit', so there is evidence what they are made of, whereas the third is not in line-of-sight with the Earth and its sun and its nature is unknown.
Still, there are more worlds being found all the time and the section could grow. Or be separated off, with a shorter paragraph and a link to the main article.-- GwydionM 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the section title. Now that Oceans Beyond Earth exists, should we reduce what's said here? Mention just Mars and Europa, which are the best cases? Say that exoplanets with oceans are expected but there are none yet found?-- GwydionM 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The first source doesn't appear to be very authoritative, though the argument it propounds is fairly compelling. The second source is an academic article but I don't have the resources to asses its reliability. I reckon the information does have a place within the article, probably Ocean#Physical properties. Leobh 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not reverting right now, because I avoid edit wars at almost all costs, but I ask you to re-read what you have reverted this to. The current opening sentence reads: An ocean . . . is a principal part of the hydrosphere: a major body of saline water that, in totality, covers about 70% of the Earth's surface.
Okay, now first of all, I completely agree with your desire to make it clear that the ocean/oceans covers/cover 70% of the earth's surface, regardless of whether they are seen as one ocean or several. We're in agreement on that point. But your version actually fails to make this clear.
You start off using the singular indefinate article, "an", which, when combined with the next phrase "is a principal part of the hydrosphere", is perfectly fine. No problems thus far. Then you go on to say (after a rather undesireable colon—but I'll leave that alone today) "a major body of saline water". I've got some minor problems with this (due to the colon), but there are no overt errors thus far.
But then you say, "in totality". Of what are you speaking here? Sure, sure, neither of us are idiots, and we both know that what you mean is the totality of all of the world's oceans. But that's not what you are saying, because you have only referred to "an ocean". You've never told us that there are multiple oceans, and, even if you had, since within the same sentence you were defining a non-specific single ocean, if strict logic is followed, you are telling us that "an ocean covers 70% of the world's surface," because you've made the amount of the earth's surface covered by "an ocean" part of the definition of "an ocean". By further extension, if there do happen to be as many as two oceans in the world (assumable since you did not refer to "the ocean", then together they must cover 140% of the world's surface. If you're thinking that this sounds absurd, you're right. But I didn't write it; it is at the bare minimum one possible interpretation of the verbiage that you've chosen to employ. I won't argue that this is the only way to interpret the wording (though I believe it to be the most logically sound—thus absurd), but it's certainly better to find a way to word it that doesn't lead to this interpretation.
Now look at the verbiage that you eliminated. An ocean . . . is a major body of saline water and a principal part of the hydrosphere. In totality, the world's oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface (or an area of some 361 million square kilometers).
As I see it, you have one principal point of contention with this that may merit revision. There is no mention of the fact that the world's oceans can very correctly be considered to be a single body of water. Personally, I think that the fact that this issue is addressed in the first sentence of the second paragraph is more than adequate. (Indeed, if it is to be covered in this introductory paragraph, it will necessitate a re-writing of the second paragraph's opening sentence, or it will sound stupidly redundant.) But all that is besides the point, because, as I read it, your edit does not address this issue any better than the one you just got rid of. Why? Because, for the grammatical issues mentioned above, you have have not made clear to the reader whether there is one ocean or multiple oceans or (as the case of course is) that both views are viable.
In summation, you use a verb of the third person singular while rendering the definition of an indefinate subject, but include a statement that only makes sense either with a set of plural indefinite subjects or a definate singular subject. You can't have it both ways—it is grammatically nonsensical. The previous edit was grammatically sound. It only failed to make clear that many sources regard the World Ocean as a single entity. And since this is addressed moments later, in a section that, for Pete's sake, is labeled "Overview", is that so bad?
Please give this some serious consideration. I may be away for a while (perhaps for as long as two or three weeks), so I can't promise that I'll respond quickly. I do feel that the current edit simply cannot stand, for grammatical reasons alone. But I don't need to have the previous version reinstated, as long as what we get is both factual (something that I know from your history that you value greatly) and correct from technical standpoint. Cheers. Unschool 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please be advised that an 'oceanography' wikiproject is being proposed. I encourage any editors of this page to enroll. Thanks! Quizimodo 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in joining a project to deal with the oceans is free to indicate their support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceans. John Carter ( talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
have you ever thought of how the ocean got to where it is now? well some people say that there was just one lake or pond that evaporated them made rain clouds and it rained on and on till it was the ocean.of course this would have taken millions or billions of years in the process, but it still has the point in how the ocean came to be. well imagine that the world looks like how mars looks today,"blank." (well it would have bumps and mountains of course or else there would be no land today.)it could be like that but it is almost imposible for that to be.well now imagine that the earth was all water to begine with.there could be underwater volcanoes to create the land that we live on now.for all we know we could be living on millions of extict volcanoes right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.168.10 ( talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder, does this page mention the legal status how the oceans are treated by countries? Should it? I added a link to the Law of the Sea in the see also. – b_jonas 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
huh? what are talking about? *dream on*dance on* 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane ( talk • contribs)
The page says "The oceans cover ¾ of the earth’s surface". If we're going to round to fractions then two-thirds would be (slightly) more accurate! <ducks> 82.9.170.24 ( talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
there is a sorts of oceans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.144.19 ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
if you think about it there is only one ocean it the world becuse all of the "oceans" are connected to each other in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.215.210 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why there are two sections here, I think they should be merged. Utaneus ( talk) 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it ture that pondand lakes is fresh water and is it cold and hot or both.
I am doing a projet on ponds and lakes so i need some imformunter about ponds and lakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 ( talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A lake is a large boby of fresh water. Lakes can range in size from small ponds to huge bodies of water such the Great Lakes in the U.S.
Lakes and rivers are closely tied. Some lakes are the source for some rivers. Imporant rivers,most often,originate from lakes. Some rivers end in lakes.
Since both rivers and lakes are fresh water and flow in and out of each ohter. They share similar Characteristics and many species reside in both habitate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 ( talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Oceans in The Times - advice please - check how to add this reference. 86.12.18.104 ( talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There is lots of New Material - but not entered specifically! I don't know! Perhaps dump it, or is that the easwy way out. The article is such a massive one in its subject matter ....Osborne 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder about the appropriateness of making this article separate from oceanography. Michael Hardy 01:36 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
i looked at this page to see what makes it salty for school and i dont see my answer. if the answer is there please tell me where, and if not please give me my answer and i think you should write about what makes it salty in the article. thanx *dream on*dance on* 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
someone has tampered with the info under the maps, making reference to ugly men! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.89.54.198 ( talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone notice the ocean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent the Dawg ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The disclaimer on this page on the Southern Ocean bullet point ("...generally not considered...") is not consistent with the explanation on the topic's own page, which I think is definitive. Unless there is argument to the contrary, I will replace the disclaimer with a blurb saying that S.O. is a new definition. Sharkford 04:17, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
hi my name is sheila and i don't like what u did to my article about the oceans .
Why is the Southern Ocean listed as larger than the Arctic ocean? The Arctic is clearly larger. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.87.229.18 (
talk)
22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
i'd like for someone to contact me -username thesurfer - who is editing this page. you need to include the music artist, Ocean, into the music list. i would be happy to contribute this. the gospel group, Ocean, had disbanded in the early 1970's and yet they are listed.
I contacted the record company that distributes her CDs and asked for information to create my article about her.Her career warrants being included on this page and i am a supporter of her work, and her amazing contributions to saving life in the oceans too.
also, i've noticed that many bands or performers are listed in wiki who are not nearly as accomplished or well-known as is Ocean, and i wonder why whomever edits this page has not included her or so far allowed me to include her and to keep the edits i've made. please explain to me why you are displaying this sort of prejudice? cite - the page for "cosmic", and many other pages. the artists in music holding these otherwise generic names are always listed at wikipedia, regardless whether they are household names yet. Larger music sites had stopped listing the old gospel group of the same name a few years ago and have Ocean, the singer-songwriter-producer i would like to add the information on, as an additional listing for Ocean on the page we are discussing. I can also cite references and listings where needed.
The ocean is a world; amazing, unexplained, simple, extreme, strange, normal, wonderful. Can one define the word ocean?
The ocean is often poluted, such as the world we live in. The ocean contains different creatures, and different ways of surviving; fighting, harmony, chaos, peace. It is not that different from what we would call "our world".
Watching the waves crash, and the moonlight reflect off the water, its the unexplained, desirable, world of water.
this article should explain how and why oceanic currents are formed. Is it the rotation of the earth? 205.155.15.1
Uhh, this may be a stupid question, but why is there no pic of an ocean in the article? All the charts and graphs are very informative, but they dont give you a sense of what the ocean IS.
does the volume paragraph need to be updated in light of http://www.global-adventures.us/2010/05/19/average-ocean-depth/ ? -- 109.186.109.219 ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!
Add Image to Ocean Zones and Depths section - Zones of the Ocean Image
Source: One of the zones of the ocean : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neritic_zone
98.114.128.183 ( talk) 03:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?)
OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a...
Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones.
Date: May 6, 2010
Source: Self-Made
Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht
Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide.
To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
{{editsemiprotected}}
I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!
I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....?
I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?) OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a... Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones. Date: May 6, 2010 Source: Self-Made Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide. To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
98.114.128.183 ( talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I had to do a biomes book for school and needed to include a photo of the zones of the ocean. I could an image to use so I made one and would like to upload it here for them to use, and others. I made this image. Can you please put the image in the Zones/Depths section. Thanks! (This image is different from the other one because it shows the zones going out.
To cite, these images from my text-book verify that the zones are right. :)
The file to put in the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_Zones.jpg#file
The reference images: http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/201005May#
Photoguy2801 ( talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Not done: per the previous editor.
Spigot
Map
15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I am wondering if we can get some feedback on these images? the one on the right is now in the article. It does display a lot of info, and in the opinion of some editors, is kind of "bland." The image on the left shows similar information, though it is lacking a little compared to the other version, and is more vibrant. Photoguy2801 has expressed a desire to add the image to the article, however I am not sure it contributes anything. (Being "pretty" is not really what we aim for in an encyclopedia.) It does give a better visual about what life lives in these areas, however.
that being said, does anyone think we should add the image to the article? If not, what changes might the image on the left need before it might be added? Any other feedback? Avic enna sis tb? @ 16:58, 3 Tamuz 5770 / 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has responded yet so... I thought my image was good, but I do understand why you would not want to give that info up, but like the color of this image. I decided to merge some of the info from the other image into this one so.... would you accept it now? If so I will update the image on Wikimedia. http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/Downloads#5483058709539193138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy2801 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the other graphic so if they need detailed info about the ocean depths/zones they have it but. But also think we should add this other image in as a 2nd image for this section. It adds something very important that the other graphic does not have, what type of animals/plants live in that area. Why do we need to replace the current graphic, both are nice, just add another (the colorful one). -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I updated the image, in the article adding a new one. Win-Win. Doesn't take away anything, people can still get the detailed image (that one is even bigger) but can also look at this one. Win-Win. The more info the better. If anyone thinks the edit is super, super, bad leave me a message on my talk page. Doesn't takes anything away at all, adds info like the plants/animals. (@Plumbago - Yeah I sorta-agree. The image was never meant to be anything about the vertical zones, it was about the horizontal zones. I reverted the image back to its original version.) -- Photoguy2801 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Given up. If that's how you want it, have it that way. -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
How it get rid of this stupid interlanguage link: new:चमुत्तिरम् (सन् २००२या संकिपा)? I have to remove it from Wikipedia every language to make it stop re-appearing? Hellerick ( talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In the intro it is stated that more than half of the oceans have a depth of at least 3000 km while later in the physical properties it is stated that a little less than of marine waters is 3000 km or more in depth. Just wondering... Samoojas ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't large oceans of liquid water "under their thick atmospheres" be on the planets' surfaces, thereby contradicting the statement that Earth is certainly the only planet in our Solar System with liquid water on its surface? Also, since Uranus and Neptune are s..s..so c..c..cold, could we possibly have a few words here explaining how on Earth (or even on Uranus/Neptune) it is possible for liquid water to be present in those places? 86.177.104.235 ( talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
May I make the background blue? It seems appropriate, and the World Book encyclopedia does the same thing. Pinguinus ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Article needs a section on pollution. Such as http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded by the United States Department of Commerce, the average depth of the ocean is 4,267 Meters and the maximum depth is 11,030 Meters. Please see source at:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html
Mikeehale (
talk)
18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I have read the whole second paragraph in the description, and the second sentence about the surfaces of Jupiter and Saturn fits nowhere in the topic, and I shall remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There have always been only 3 oceans - the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. Now some people are trying to sell us this crap with the Arctic and the Southern Oceans. What's up with that? That is just a load of crap. So, what's next? the Norwegian Sea is gonna be turned into the Great European Ocean?.... Norum 05:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article says only about subsurface ocean on Titan (moon), presumingly saying about Europa (moon). Titan is known for its extensive system of rivers and lakes (or oceans depending on point of views), but on the surface (and presumingly under as well, just like ground water on Earth). Elk Salmon ( talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The references listed in the section Dwarf Planets and trans-Neptunian objects produce errors in the references list because they are not properly created. Are the names/years significant or just made up? — Jonadin (talk) @ 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The word "billion" should not be used... How can the reader know if this is using short scale (1000 000 000) or long scale (1000 000 000 000)? Undead Herle King ( talk) 05:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Just how large by volume does a body of water have to be to qualify as an ocean ? Does it need to be a global or worldwide body ?? This is not defined. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that we're not lexicologists or whatever, but the hundreds of years old defintion of "ocean" presented here - ie a large body of seawater - basically renders any contemporary astronomical use of the term unfairly specious. Its far too narrow and raises so many more questions than it answers. We have the quandary where the word "sea" or "lake" is instead used in reference to extraterrestrial bodies of liquid, but the same problems exist - they aren't seawater either. How can we measure the saltiness of for example Europa's ocean without drilling hundreds of kilometres through the crust. Assuming that size is not defined then just how salty does it have to be to qualify as an ocean ? The Caspian Sea is a large body of saline water, yet it is somehow too small to be an ocean. So are we to assume that an ocean is any body of salt water larger than the Caspian Sea ? Earth's earlier oceans likely contained less salts than they do now therefore how can we know how old the "ocean" in fact is ? If aquifers like the Great Artesian Basin turned salty, would it indeed be re-classified as a sea or ocean ? -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) [1] is a body of saline water that is a geographical subdivision of the World Ocean. [2] [3]
An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) [4] is a body of saline water that composes a large part of a planet's hydrosphere. [5] In the context of Earth, it also refers to major divisions of the planet's World Ocean, such as the Atlantic Ocean. [6] [7] The word " sea" is often used interchangeably with "ocean", but a sea is a body of saline water in a more inland location rather than a location in which it encompasses the land around it. [8]
The opening paragraph defines an ocean as a body of "saline water". But it is directed to the seawater article, which is defined as "water from a sea or ocean". So I have relinked it to saline water article. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Some info from seagrass article: The ocean currently absorbs 25% of global carbon emissions.
Perhaps include to article 81.242.237.143 ( talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"Earth's global ocean is the largest confirmed surface ocean on all observable planets. Approximately 72% of the planet's surface (~3.6x108 km2) is covered by saline water that is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas, although some sources prove that the ocean only covers approximately 71% of the Earth's surface.[6] In terms of the hydrosphere of the Earth, the ocean contains 97% of the Earth's water. Oceanographers have stated that out of 97%, only 5% of the ocean as a whole on Earth has been explored."
For example, if there is disagreement on whether 72% or 71% of the surface is covered, we should give the approximate coverage that is more widely accepted and then state the alternate view as an alternate view (assuming, of course, that there is sufficient controversy on this fact to even justify a comment that alters an approximation by 1%). Also, if the other source really "proves" that it is 71%, then there would be no need to state the 72% at all. For these reasons, the sentence could be substantially improved with a little rework.
There are similar improvements that we should consider for the other three sentences as well.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ismarkat (
talk •
contribs)
00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oceans exist elsewhere other than earth and contains liquid methane. So the definition should not claim oceans contain saline water, it should claim oceans contain liquid compound (and saline water, in the context of earth). -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This article gives the volume of the world's oceans as "1.3 billion cubic kilometres". The article on the Pacific gives its total volume as "2.8 billion cubic kilometres". What gives? Neither reference is terrible but the one for this article is a secondary source compiled by "students". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.37.201 ( talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I am quite puzzled by the definition of the Southern Ocean. If I understand the article about it correctly, its definition and boundaries are not universally agreed upon. It appears on some maps, but definitely not on all maps. Why, then, do quite a lot of Wikipedia articles refer to it as a fact? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ocean's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NASA-20140403":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the ancients ever used the phrase "World Ocean". "Ocean" means "Outer", so "World Ocean" means "World Outer" and doesn't make sense. See /info/en/?search=Talk:Ocean_Sea#The_Ocean_Sea_-_a_page_of_its_own. -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@ MarkFilipak: How is the word "Ocean" related to the word "outer"? Jarble ( talk) 07:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The mixing time of the ocean's water is not the residence time of a dissolved constituent, and so the article's implication that the two terms are synonymous is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.0.31 ( talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What's up with calling the pacific ocean peaceful? 24.218.161.224 ( talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to NOAA it is 4265m -
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC).
Intrigued by this definition of a sea as "a body of saline water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land". Strictly speaking, all the oceans are partly enclosed by land, so they are all seas! Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a picture of the sea -- well, the Atlantic Ocean apparently, captioned: "Surface of the Atlantic Ocean meeting Earth's planetary boundary layer and troposphere, a range view which varies depending on the assumed surface elevation." Something seems to have gone wrong: this makes no sense to me. Since the article is about oceans, mention of different layers of the atmosphere seems unnecessary. Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
the ocean is an ecosystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.103.42 ( talk) 14:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A Ocean is a body of saline water that composes much of the Earth's hydrosphere.On Earth,an Ocean is one of the major convectional divisons of the world ocean.There are FIVE[5] oceans on our planet ,namely The Pacific Ocean ,The Atlantic Ocean ,The Indian Ocean ,The Artic Ocean. However, many countries including the U.S.A ,Africa ,North America ,South America ,etc.Due to the vast expanse of water that exists on the Earth ,our planet is called a Water Planet.Scintists believe that life originated in the Hydrosphere. The Ocean is made up of seas ,Bays ,Gulfs ,Straits ,Lakes ,etc.Rivers and the areas covered under ice also form a part of the Hydrosphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.183.7 ( talk) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is based too much on science and not on other subjects related to the ocean. For example, what does the literature of poetry say about the ocean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.77.235 ( talk) 01:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Over 75 percent of the water is from the ocean Folsomprince ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Please sea here!!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what exactly is the difference supposed to be between the Ocean and Sea articles, because the Sea article starts with, “The sea, the world ocean or simply the ocean” User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 15:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
what lives in oceans?
for many years, fishes, sharks, whales...have lived in oceans. However, people destroy them. S201501105 ( talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please change the area or Arctic Ocean to 106,460,000 sq KMs under Oceanic divisions section Cspatnaik.wiki ( talk) 06:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Are we able to add a Wikipedia book to this and say the other oceans? -- Julianstout ( talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: I realize that your insistence that "ocean is often used interchangeably with sea in American English but not in British English" only makes sense if you do not understand what the word "interchangeably" means. It does not mean "instead of". It does not mean that American English speakers say "ocean" while British speakers say "sea". "Interchangeably" means that both words can be employed to refer to the same object.
The Oxford Learner's Dictionary mentions ocean vs sea here: [7], and this is also located at their "sea" article. I quote: "In British English, the usual word for the mass of salt water that covers most of the earth’s surface is the sea. In North American English, the usual word is the ocean"
If the usual word for "mass of salt water that covers most of the earth's surface" in British English is "sea", then the word "usual" implies that "ocean" can also be employed in British English to refer to the same object. If both words can be used to refer to the same object, then the words can be used interchangeably in British English. If they can be used interchangeably in British English and in American English, then it does not make sense to specify that the word can be used interchangeably in American English only.
We should not give readers the false impression that only American English speakers use the word "sea" when referring to the ocean. Therefore, your insisted phrasing is misleading and should be removed.
In fact, consider the following: the Ocean article is distinct from the Sea article; on Wikipedia, the Ocean article is meant to specifically refer to the world's five oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.). If, as you insist, the Ocean article should specify that only American English speakers use the phrase interchangeably, but not British English speakers, then the impression is given that American English speakers would be apt to say, e.g. "Pacific Sea" or "Atlantic Sea". As an American English speaker myself, I can attest that I have never heard anyone say those phrases. The phrase "Pacific Sea" is certainly not used "often".
The sentence should be deleted entirely. It is immediately followed by the sentence "Strictly speaking, a sea is a body of water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land,[6] though "the sea" refers also to the oceans"; the final clause should be enough for the lede. BirdValiant ( talk) 02:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Use of ocean resourses. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The claim that only 5% of the ocean has been explored is oft-repeated but rarely backed up by actual evidence. There is an extensive discussion in this article as to why this claim is (1) completely ambiguous and (2) incorrect, and NOAA (which the claim I have now removed referenced) now only states that "more than eighty percent [of the ocean]... remains unmapped". I have therefore replaced the previous claim that "less than 5% of the World Ocean has been explored" to "less than 20% of the World Ocean has been mapped". I am still unhappy about this though, because it gives the impression that we do not know anything about the other 80% of the ocean. This is not true, as gravimetry-derived data products like SRTM+ provide global coverage at a course (kilometre-scale) resolution.
Побережья морей и океанов усеяны жидами пархатыми. Достаточно треугольных масонских крыш. Везде крипты. Вырожденцы народы-уроды мира. Жулики и воры, грязные подонки. Свободного места, природы не осталось. Плохо твари кончат. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812F:7262:9452:AABE:ED39:10C5 ( talk) 10:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
what is marine environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.118.114.182 ( talk) 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a citation to the line "A magma ocean is thought to be present on Io." in section 4.2. The appropriate citation is either the NASA press release on the subject ( https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2994) or the publication itself ( https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201425).
Thank you. Cdkharris ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
From the intro: "As a general term, "the ocean" is mostly interchangeable with "the sea" in American English, but not in British English."
This doesn't make a lot of sense, and isn't really in tune with what the footnote says: "Unlike Americans, speakers of British English do not go swimming in "the ocean" but always "the sea"."
What is accurate: In speaking of ocean waters, particularly from the perspective of someone on the shore, British English tends to speak of "the sea", whereas American English tends to refer to "the ocean"—e.g. swimming in the sea (British) or the ocean (American).
Lynneguist1 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) lynneguist1
The average temperature of the Ocean is 3.5 °C, not 3.9. The citation is: Bereiter, B., Shackleton, S., Baggenstos, D., Kawamura, K., & Severinghaus, J. (2018). Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition. Nature, 553(7686), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25152 See figure 1 caption. Also about this article: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/oceans-average-temperature-is-3-5-degree-celsius/articleshow/62363696.cms 81.61.9.17 ( talk) 00:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I've just moved some content to astrooceanography as we had already provided a link to there saying "Main article" but then went into too much detail here. So I've only left the bare minimum information and am sending the reader to the related article for more information. I was a bit unsure if it should go there or to Extraterrestrial liquid water and have asked on the other talk page. (I had mentioned this in my talk message a few days ago, and didn't see any objections; hope people agree). EMsmile ( talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The article uses both "the oceans" and "the ocean". I want to propose to change all cases of "the ocean" more in line with how the article is established at the moment by the introduction. This would involve changing most "the ocean" into "the oceans" or clarify that the system of the oceans is meant, but in such cases they might be moved to world ocean (or maybe sea). Nsae Comp ( talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to make some improvements where I move excessive detail into the relevant sub-articles, and then use the excerpt function from that sub-article. I'll start with the section on oceanic zone now. Perhaps if we apply this concept more rigorously (only leave summaries when sub-articles exist) we'll gain greater clarity what this article really does contain that's different from other articles. EMsmile ( talk) 23:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the first two sentences using the definitions found in Merriam Webster which I find quite useful here. I have done an equivalent edit at sea. So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "oceans" does. EMsmile ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I came to this article because I am working on a range of articles related to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water). See project description here. I don't understand how this article can have a section heading called "Travel" and one called "Earth's global ocean". Also I am missing sections on important threats to oceans, such as ocean acidification. I notice those other two related and overlapping articles called sea and World ocean. I saw some of the previous discussions about changing the structure or perhaps merging and would support these processes (see on talk page of World Ocean here). It can't stay how it is now, as it's quite messy. I don't see why we would need three articles on the same topic; or if we do need all three then they need to be more clearly separated from each other. The one on World Ocean starts with "The World Ocean or Global Ocean (colloquially the sea or the ocean) is the interconnected system" giving those other two terms as if they're synonyms but then linking to the other articles. That's very confusing. If they are synonyms then they don't need separate articles. And I feel that with regards to climate change topics at least, the word "ocean" is more dominant than "sea", or example ocean acidification, Effects of climate change on oceans, Oceanic carbon cycle. On the other hand we have sea level rise and Sea surface temperature. Curious. @ User:ASRASR @ User:Johnbod @ User:oknazevad @ User:Nsae Comp EMsmile ( talk) 06:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, since I was pinged, the fact is whether the whole interconnected body of salt water is called "the sea" or "the ocean" is really an ENGVAR thing, with British use defaulting to "the sea" and others defaulting to "the ocean". Frankly, we had this sufficiently organized years ago until someone steamrolled through a rescoping that ignored that fact and ENGVAR without prior discussion. We should undo that rescoping post haste, because in the time since there has been nothing but confusion and redundancy. oknazevad ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
A "proper" proposal is not needed. Firstly, because you cannot demand work from others. Don't be rude. Secondly, because hashing things out in ongoing discussion is just as valid as a formal proposal per WP:NOTBURO. No, we don't need a formal merge template and all that if discussion and consensus are already emerging. oknazevad ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: The article "world ocean" has now been merged into "ocean" and a redirect has been put in place. Remaining two articles out of the group of formerly three interrelated articles are now sea and ocean. EMsmile ( talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There are several tables in this article which are not accompanied by any prose. I wonder if we really want to keep them or if they ought to be moved to a sub-article (or if we need to add prose to go with them). Also I am surprised that the table "Generalized characteristics of ocean surface by latitude" requires 7 references. I checked the first two but could not easily verify if the content of those references matches the content of the tables. What do you think about this?
Gas | Concentration of seawater, by mass (in parts per million), for the whole ocean | % Dissolved gas, by volume, in seawater at the ocean surface |
---|---|---|
Carbon dioxide (CO2) | 64 to 107 | 15% |
Nitrogen (N2) | 10 to 18 | 48% |
Oxygen (O2) | 0 to 13 | 36% |
Temperature | O2 | CO2 | N2 |
---|---|---|---|
0 °C | 8.14 | 8,700 | 14.47 |
10 °C | 6.42 | 8,030 | 11.59 |
20 °C | 5.26 | 7,350 | 9.65 |
30 °C | 4.41 | 6,600 | 8.26 |
Characteristic | Oceanic waters in polar regions | Oceanic waters in temperate regions | Oceanic waters in tropical regions |
---|---|---|---|
Precipitation vs. evaporation | P > E | P > E | E > P |
Sea surface temperature in winter | −2 °C | 5 to 20 °C | 20 to 25 °C |
Average salinity | 28‰ to 32‰ | 35‰ | 35‰ to 37‰ |
Annual variation of air temperature | ≤ 40ªC | 10 °C | < 5 °C |
Annual variation of water temperature | < 5ªC | 10 °C | < 5 °C |
Constituent | Residence time (in years) |
---|---|
Iron (Fe) | 200 |
Aluminum (Al) | 600 |
Manganese (Mn) | 1,300 |
Water (H2O) | 4,100 |
Silicon (Si) | 20,000 |
Carbonate (CO32−) | 110,000 |
Calcium (Ca2+) | 1,000,000 |
Sulfate (SO42−) | 11,000,000 |
Potassium (K+) | 12,000,000 |
Magnesium (Mg2+) | 13,000,000 |
Sodium (Na+) | 68,000,000 |
Chloride (Cl−) | 100,000,000 |
EMsmile ( talk) 02:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
References
There is a table in the article for which the current reference given is not correct. I don't have the textbook in front of me but one of the authors, Tim Jickells, told me the table is not in his book:
Color (wavelength in nm) | Depth at which 99 percent of the wavelength is absorbed (in meters) | Percent absorbed in 1 meter of water |
---|---|---|
Ultraviolet (310) | 31 | 14.0 |
Violet (400) | 107 | 4.2 |
Blue (475 | 254 | 1.8 |
Green (525) | 113 | 4.0 |
Yellow (575) | 51 | 8.7 |
Orange (600) | 25 | 16.7 |
Red (725) | 4 | 71.0 |
Infrared (800) | 3 | 82.0 |
Two options: either we hunt down the source for this table: A quick Google search for “Oceanic absorption of light at different wavelengths” took me to this page:
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-5-light/
which seems to be an open access book on oceanography by Paul Webb:
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/ but it doesn't have the table either. I haven't yet searched further. Option 2 would be to replace the table with a couple of sentences. Tim suggested: "I'm not sure the table itself is needed and the exact values must depend on the turbidity of the water. How about saying something like this after the first sentence of this section:
Red light is absorbed most strongly so penetrates least in the ocean (to less than 50 m generally) while blue light is absorbed less well and can penetrate to up to 200 m.
and then cite that nice Webb book you found. The table then is deleted because there isn't a source for it."
EMsmile (
talk)
08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I have been in e-mail contact with a content expert on oceans and will incorporate the suggestions received from the expert (via a marked-up Word document) in the next few days. Here is the overall feedback from the expert: Hi, I have been working away on the Ocean wikipedia article for the last couple of weeks on and off. [Regarding the] the Sea article, [...] there is some very good material in that article and I have suggested some links to it, particularly over the history of human use of the ocean and seas. There are areas of ocean science that I know very little about so I can't really offer much on those. Elsewhere I have been through the article and tried to do three things:
The global pattern of winds (also called atmospheric circulation) creates a global pattern of ocean currents. These are not only driven by the wind but also by the effect of the circulation of the earth ( coriolis force).I hope this is correct. EMsmile ( talk) 00:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up on the Microplastics article, which contains the original text used in the microplastics excerpt, but haven't heard so I thought I'd try here. The beginning of this section reads: "Due to their ubiquity in the environment, microplastics are widespread among the different matrices." I think the word "matrices" is confusing. Even "environmental matrices" I think would be a bit esoteric for the general reader, and there is no Wikilink I can think of that would explain to a general reader what is meant by "matrices" in this context. Does anyone with knowledge of this terminology have any suggestions? Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ocean has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "Relationship of currents and climate", line 2, there is a typo 'thermoahline'. Please change it to "Thermohaline". Pbajpai07 ( talk) 20:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The article claims, and cites a source whi which claims, that there is some dialectical difference between US and GB English in that GB speakers never speak of swimming in "the ocean", but always "the sea".
I really don't think this is a reflection of different varieties of English. Common sense, upon looking at a map, would indicate it's a consequence of geography: American coasts are flanked by "oceans" (Pacific and Atlantic), British coasts by "seas" (North, Irish, &c). (There ARE still a great many of folks who consider seas to be distinct from oceans, and would therefore consider it wrong to refer to a sea as "the ocean", despite scientific terminology; science hath no authority over language, whether it thinks it does or not). So, I recommend that claim be removed: it is trivial, and even though it is sourced, common sense, as I have shown, renders it suspect. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:14D5:5FC9:8C5F:AB3A ( talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)