National Geographic Recognizes New 5th Ocean (nationalgeographic.com) 64
On World Oceans Day, Nat Geo cartographers say the swift current circling Antarctica keeps the waters there distinct and worthy of their own name: the Southern Ocean. National Geographic reports: Since National Geographic began making maps in 1915, it has recognized four oceans: the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. Starting on June 8, World Oceans Day, it will recognize the Southern Ocean as the world's fifth ocean. "The Southern Ocean has long been recognized by scientists, but because there was never agreement internationally, we never officially recognized it," says National Geographic Society Geographer Alex Tait. Geographers debated whether the waters around Antarctica had enough unique characteristics to deserve their own name, or whether they were simply cold, southern extensions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans.
While the other oceans are defined by the continents that fence them in, the Southern Ocean is defined by a current. Scientists estimate that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) was established roughly 34 million years ago, when Antarctica separated from South America. That allowed for the unimpeded flow of water around the bottom of the Earth. The ACC flows from west to east around Antarctica, in a broad fluctuating band roughly centered around a latitude of 60 degrees south -- the line that is now defined as the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean. Inside the ACC, the waters are colder and slightly less salty than ocean waters to the north.
Extending from the surface to the ocean floor, the ACC transports more water than any other ocean current. It pulls in waters from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, helping drive a global circulation system known as the conveyor belt, which transports heat around the planet. Cold, dense water that sinks to the ocean floor off Antarctica also helps store carbon in the deep ocean. In both those ways, the Southern Ocean has a crucial impact on Earth's climate. [...] For now, by fencing in the frigid southern waters, the ACC helps keep Antarctica cold and the Southern Ocean ecologically distinct. Thousands of species live there and nowhere else. By drawing attention to the Southern Ocean, the National Geographic Society hopes to promote its conservation.
While the other oceans are defined by the continents that fence them in, the Southern Ocean is defined by a current. Scientists estimate that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) was established roughly 34 million years ago, when Antarctica separated from South America. That allowed for the unimpeded flow of water around the bottom of the Earth. The ACC flows from west to east around Antarctica, in a broad fluctuating band roughly centered around a latitude of 60 degrees south -- the line that is now defined as the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean. Inside the ACC, the waters are colder and slightly less salty than ocean waters to the north.
Extending from the surface to the ocean floor, the ACC transports more water than any other ocean current. It pulls in waters from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, helping drive a global circulation system known as the conveyor belt, which transports heat around the planet. Cold, dense water that sinks to the ocean floor off Antarctica also helps store carbon in the deep ocean. In both those ways, the Southern Ocean has a crucial impact on Earth's climate. [...] For now, by fencing in the frigid southern waters, the ACC helps keep Antarctica cold and the Southern Ocean ecologically distinct. Thousands of species live there and nowhere else. By drawing attention to the Southern Ocean, the National Geographic Society hopes to promote its conservation.
We are meant to be unifying the planet. (Score:3)
Re:We are meant to be unifying the planet. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember being in grade school wondering why Europe was considered a separate continent from Asia. There;s the Indian "subcontinent" as that's separated off by mountains. Sometimes I'll see China also described as a subcontinent. There's a subcontinent that is called Southeast Asia, Arabian Peninsula, or some variation on those. I can see Europe as an Asian subcontinent but that dividing line would be at the Ural Mountains, not some political border. Should Africa even be distinct from Asia?
We divide things up all the time as a matter of convenience. We can't have a nation as large as the USA managed by one government. Even when the federal government could simply lump the whole nation under one jurisdiction for something it tends to break it up into zones for circuit courts, NRC regions, radio call sign groups, independent sub-national grids (including one now (in)famous state grid in Texas), and more divisions for different reasons.
One unifying act was a bunch of separate nations coming together to form the United States of America. People forget that the USA is a federation of independent nations. People think the USA is a nation divided into administrative areas for the convenience of the national government to enforce rules they decide upon in DC. DC exists to enforce rules in distinct areas of law carved out for the benefit of these independent nations. The states unified on a defined federal border, then the federal government divided that responsibility off to DHS, and further divided that into enforcement by land, sea, and air. The TSA protects the border at airports. The USCG at seaports. On land that's Customs and Border Protection. There's more to DHS than that too. DHS has a training center, infrastructure protection (which seems to be dropping the ball plenty lately), cyber protection, Secret Service to protect high profile federal employees, etc. We could lump all federal law enforcement into one group but the FBI under Justice has a different enough job than TSA under DHS, which is distinct from State, Commerce, etc.
If we are going to divide this out then why not "Antarctic Ocean"? It is defined by the flow of cold and low salt water around the continent. No doubt from the glacial melt as it flows off the land.
If these division bother you then don't look at all the "seas" that the oceans are divided into. There are not "seven seas" as told in old folklore, more like dozens.
Re: We are meant to be unifying the planet. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We are meant to be unifying the planet. (Score:4, Insightful)
People forget that the USA is a federation of independent nations.
And this is for a good reason: it isn't. States are nowhere close from being "independent nations". First, they are not independent, and last, they are not nations.
Re:We are meant to be unifying the planet. (Score:4, Insightful)
What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been called the Southern Ocean for at least 200 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You can call it whatever you want. You can call bees "eoiuaoefaiuodsausaois" for what I care for a millenia.
If there's no international agreement, it's worthless whatever you choose to call things as we use the word to communicate between us and words have specific means that has been agreed to.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can call it whatever you want. You can call bees "eoiuaoefaiuodsausaois" for what I care for a millenia.
If there's no international agreement, it's worthless whatever you choose to call things as we use the word to communicate between us and words have specific means that has been agreed to.
Let me know why a bunch of map writers, should be prioritized over scientists on the world's stage. Is it somehow our fault that National Geographic wants to be purposely defiantly ignorant about a name that has been in use for literally hundreds of years?
In other words, this is a pointless non-issue for paper pushers who pretend they still have a relevant job. And pretending there are borders in our oceans to justify more labels, is like pretending there are sides in a Swamp.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me know why a bunch of map writers, should be prioritized over scientists on the world's stage.
Why is the agreement not scientific in the first place? I mean we didn't rely on map writers to demote Pluto into a Kuiper belt object, that as an agreement of scientists.
I think the fundamental problem is we have the wrong people on the table doing the agreeing.
Re: (Score:1)
An agreement of four scientists who were the only ones left at the end of a long day of discussions, presentations and voting on stuff when the rest had gone off to join the after party. But that number was considered quorate, so now Pluto is a trans-Neptunian minor planet that was originally a Kuiper Belt object. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. A vote by four scientists. An agreement by an overwhelmingly large portion of scientists who adopted the nomenclature without complaint or protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
is like pretending there are sides in a Swamp
You must be referring to marshes or wetlands - I had in mind the Pentagon. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Marshes, bogs, fens and swamps are all types of wetlands.
Types of Wetlands [epa.gov]
Essentially, a swamp has woody vegetation (trees, shrubs), while a marsh is mostly reeds and grasses.
Re: (Score:2)
is like pretending there are sides in a Swamp
You must be referring to marshes or wetlands - I had in mind the Pentagon. ;)
You were close. Just down the street from the Pentagon.
In that building where people pretend to deserve the title of Representative, while trying to claim they're different from the creatures on the other "side" of a Swamp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there's no international agreement, it's worthless whatever you choose to call things as we use the word to communicate between us and words have specific means that has been agreed to.
Yeah, right. Sailors have been using a term for centuries but there was just complete confusion until there was "international agreement". Bullshit. International agreement is about ownership and territory, not some strange semantic scenario in your head.
Re: What the fuck? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oceanographers consider Earth to have but one ocean.
Those other places are seas; not oceans.
NG can do what it wants.
Re: (Score:2)
I had never even HEARD of the "Southern Ocean" until about a year ago. Literally it had never been mentioned in any class I'd taken, any book I'd read, or any TV Show or Movie I had ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when I heard the term for the first time. That was probably several years before I started to formally study geography and geology (as in, there were slots in my time table labelled "Geology, room this" and "Geography, room that". So, say, about 1975, maybe a year or two earlier. So, call it about 10 years of not hearing (or noticing) the term, and 45-odd years
Sounds logic. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have for over 200 years, This is like Finally labeling the USA on maps rather than the Thirteen Colonies .,
Re: (Score:1)
They are a well respected organisation and these arguments sound logic
They *were* a well respected organisation, until they got woke and started apologising for past accurate comments and depictions.
Logic and truth now run a distant second to inclusiveness and equity.
It's a wonder they dictate definitions at all. Who are we to say one person's pond is not an ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
Science is ruining my education! (Score:3)
The world used to be so simple. Ever since I was a kid, "science" class taught that there was four oceans and nine planets. But no! Now it's five oceans and eight planets!
So help me, if "science" decides tomorrow that there's an eighth continent, I swear I'm going to start burning some books!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Atlantis. Now it's the ninth continent. Pray I do not alter the amount further.
Re: (Score:2)
47 deg 9 min S 123 deg 43 min W forever!
They're a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Point made. They are not valid.
Re:They're a joke (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody 'bought out a highly respected organization'. The National Geographic Society is a charitable organization made up of scientists and educators. The National Geographic CHANNEL is a joint operation between the NGS (27%) and Disney (73%). Disney runs the channel, with SOME of the content provided by NGS.
Re: (Score:2)
I care what they say because why?
Because intelligent argument is based on the message rather than ad hominem attacks?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Murdoch hasn't owned it for 2 years. Disney is the majority holder.
Re: (Score:3)
Murdoch hasn't owned it for 2 years. Disney is the majority holder.
Just the other side of the same coin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disney herded lemmings off a cliff and claimed it was natural behaviour in a "documentary", so not really seeing a benefit here.
Re:They're a joke (Score:5, Informative)
We need to distinguish between National Geographic Partners LLC with the National Geographic Society. The former is majority owned by Disney and is responsible for all commercial products. This includes TV, print, and events.
The National Geographic Society is a separate non-profit entity, although what their actual purpose is now seems unclear. They may just be a shell organization who owns part of National Geographic Partners LLC.
Where? (Score:2)
That allowed for the unimpeded flow of water around the bottom of the Earth.
Someone needs to be slapped for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Locked into a room with two Aussies and a flat of beer.
They must hate ants (Score:2)
Re: They must hate ants (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As it's less salty, you're more likely to drink it (unless your thing is, umm, imbibing salty fluid). Not sure there's much difference in viscosity.
Resist Boreocentricism! (Score:2)
Bottom of the earth? What the hell?
Cartographers print maps with North towards top of the map and south towards the bottom of the page. Folks, it is just a convention. Australia and Antartica are NOT below the equator. Whats below the equator is ocean and continent and earth crust all the way to the center 6400 km away.
We have enough bigotry and discrimination in the world, let us not add boreocentrists vs austrocentrists cultur
Re: (Score:2)
We have enough bigotry and discrimination in the world, let us not add boreocentrists vs austrocentrists culture war to the already long list.
Those are genders aren't they?
Bring back Pluto! (Score:5, Funny)
We don't want a new ocean; we want Pluto back.
Re: (Score:2)
Pluto hasn't left, just sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, a 5-digit UID. So there's a reasonable chance that we spent somewhat similar periods of times familiar with "9 planets" and so on. But for some reason, you attach more importance to it than I did.
The writing was on the wall for Pluto long before Brown's identification of Eris (and his amusing choice of a name). Really, it was Christy's recogniti
There is only one ocean. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Define "fish". I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
This feels like a trap...
Generally I would mean members of bone-fish Osteichthyes, but there are a couple of other groups as well. (e.g Sharks and rays are in a cartilage group and there is a group of boneless fish too but damned if I can remember the name of them.)
Stretching way way back (it's been a while) the criteria are Animals with a spinal chord in a backbone, paired gills, hard segmented endoskeleton, a tail behind their vent, and spend most or all of their lives in water.
From context you should al
Re: (Score:2)
Fish are tetrapod craniate gnathostome vertebrates with oral teeth (sometimes secondarily lost) containing enamel and cartilage. Some have secondary growth of bone (in either endodermal rods or mesodermal plates), and the bone and teeth have some historical connection.
It is an unsettled question whether conodont-animals with their pharyngyal tooth-like structures are "fish", or
Re: (Score:2)
But but but... seven seas! (Score:2)
I thought we were supposed to be sailing the seven seas.
Clicks (Score:2)
Nat geo suits: we need more clicks. Clicks drive donations.
Mine goes up to ... (Score:2)
Did we lose 3? (Score:1)
For hundreds of year people have referred to the 7 oceans as "The Seven Seas"
Did we lose three along the way?
Finally, on the way to all Seven Seas! (Score:2)
Now we just need to find the other two, and our collection will be complete!
Who? (Score:1)
Their name is National Geographic.
And that nation is the USA.
Which has no physical connection to any ocean anywhere near Antarctica.
Why would they have any say over this?
Can Australia or Malaysia or Botswana have an equivalent say over what the Great Lakes in the US are called.
On the other hand, we have this map which includes the Southern Ocean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Which was taken from the IHO 23-3rd: Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special Publication 23, 3rd Edition 1953, published by the Intern