Talk:Humboldt Current

From NOAA

This entry appears to be possibly plagarized. The exact same phrasing appears on a NOAA site, http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/lme/text/lme13.htm. Unless the authors of both pieces are one and the same or the NOAA piece is in the public domain (unlikely), there should at the very least be some attribution on the Wikipedia entry.

65.207.39.189 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The user who copied the text did not mention the source(diff). Looks like the parent document is http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/lme/project.htm You could have checked if the text is in the public domain: http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/ where the "About us" page includes http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm (SEWilco 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

I removed the following from the article:

The Humboldt Current LME is considered a Class I, highly productive (>300 gC/m2-yr), ecosystem. It is the most productive marine ecosystem in the world, as well as the largest upwelling system. The cold, nutrient-rich water brought to the surface by upwelling drives the system’s extraordinary productivity. The Humboldt’s high rates of primary and secondary productivity support the world’s largest fisheries. Upwelling occurs off Peru year-round but off Chile only during the spring and summer, because of the displacement of the subtropical center of high pressure during the summer.

Approximately 18-20% of the world’s fish catch comes from the Humboldt Current LME. The species are mostly pelagic: sardines, anchovies and jack mackerel. The LME’s high productivity supports other important fishery resources as well as marine mammals. Periodically, the upwelling that drives the system’s productivity is disrupted by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event. When this occurs, fish abundance and distribution are significantly affected, often leading to stock crashes and cascading social and economic impacts. These events have led to sequential changes, where sardines and anchovies have replaced each other periodically as the dominant species in the ecosystem. These species changes can have negative consequences for the fishing industry and the economies of the countries that fish the system.

Providing a source is not sufficient in this case when every single sentence was copied word for word from the website. This material needs to be reworded substantially before being readded. Ufwuct 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Text restored. Public domain text may be used without modification (or with modification). (SEWilco 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

We need confirmation and verification of PUBLIC DOMAIN here. Additionally, it should still be listed as a quote. Somehow bracekted to indicate taken as is form source. Dachande (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The text is being reused as text, not as a statement of what someone at NOAA states, so quotation is not needed. Whether the text was copied from the NOAA site or another site doesn't matter much, but it can be recopied from the NOAA site if you want to ensure the bits all originated from there. Otherwise, just edit whatever needs to be improved in it. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

nutrients

Can someone tell me where the nutrients come from? I always hear the Humbolt current described as a nutrient-rich upwelling. So presumably the water is coming from somewhere deeper in the ocean...where are the nutrients coming from down there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.196.193.91 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Tropical waters do not have many nutrients. This current comes from the South Pole and the poles contain the most nutrient rich waters. How do you edit this? the article is just hard to read obv (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Name Peru (Humboldt)

I was confused when I found modern academic texts naming this the "Peru Current" and, after further research, found that most texts use the term "Peru (Humboldt) Current."--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not have changed the title of this article without first gaining consensus here. This is particularly the case since you are a member of WikiProject Peru, you should therefore avoid the suggestion you are POV pushing. It is simply not true, as you claim in your edit summary, that the Peru Current is "the accepted term". Whether in academic circles or otherwise, the primary term is Humboldt Current.

	Google web	Books	Scholar
Humboldt current	128,000	25,200	4,780
Peru current	58,500	10,900	2,600

--Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim of POV pushing is a personal attack which I do not appreciate. A policy does exist regarding neutral article titles ([1]). Your comparisson of the sources shows that the term "Peru current" is fairly common, and I have seen plenty of modern academic texts using the terms "Peru (Humboldt) Current" and "Peru-Humboldt Current." Both of those titles are far better for this article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The current is also sometimes called the "Peru-Chile Current". I did not claim you were POV pushing, I said you should avoid the suggestion of it. There might be a point to an unwieldy title like "Peru (Humboldt) Current" if disambiguation was needed because there were more than one Humboldt Current(s). But there is no such confusion here, and someone looking for Peru Current will find it redirects unambiguously to Humboldt Current. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the name "Peru-Chile Current" is a spin-off title from the "Peru-Chile Trench", and used rarely as scientists prefer not to confuse themselves. Your POV statement is inappropiate and I do not find your explanation sufficient. The point of having a title such as "Peru-Humboldt Current" would be to help out readers not get confused.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Peru-Chile Current is not a "spin-off title" from the Peru-Chile Trench. Please don't make things up. Nor is the term "used rarely as scientists prefer not to confuse themselves." The term is used 575 times in Google Scholar, and over 37,000 times on the web. The "Peruvean Humboldt Current" often just refers to the component of the Humboldt Current off the Peruvean coast,[2] just as the "Chilean Humboldt Current" often just refers to the component of the Humboldt Current off the Chilean coast.[3] I apologise if I hit a raw nerve when I pointed out how you could avoid the suggestion you are POV pushing. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When comparing the 575 times used in Scholar, and 16,700 (not 37,000 as you claim), to the "Peru Current" and "Humboldt Current", it shows that the term "Peru-Chile Current" is used rarely. A mere change for Peru-Chile Trench changes the number to 60,000 articles. Your accusation of me "making things up" is yet another personal attack. The historical names for the oceanic current have either been the "Peru Current" or the "Humboldt Current", and both are used to refer to the current on the coasts of both Peru and Chile. The term "Chile Current" and any of its derivates is another rarely-used term; a simple google search gets "Peru Current" directly to the Oceanic current, while the search for "Chile Current" causes differen topics to come up. The term "Peru-Chile Trench" has also been historically used to define the continental plate rift, while the term "Peru-Chile Current" is a modern term based from the trench. As I mentioned, "Peru Current" and "Humboldt Current" are the historical names.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Google from my end of the world gives 40,500 results for "Peru-Chile Current". Either way, the term is certainly not "used rarely" as you claim. Nor do you offer evidence for your rather odd claim that the Peru-Chile Current is a "spin-off title" after the discovery of the Peru-Chile Trench. If you didn't make this idea up, then where did you get it from? Unless you can back your claim with reliable sources, you are engaged in original research. The Humboldt Current is a current which comes from the Antarctic and runs in a northward direction along the coast of Chile and Peru. It can be identified by the upwelling of cool and nutrient rich water that occurs when it hits the continental shelf. It is sometimes referred to as the "Peru-Chile Current", because it runs along the Peru-Chile coast. The current is also sometimes called the "Peru Current", perhaps because Humboldt discovered it while he was in Peru. But since Humboldt's time, several currents other than the Humboldt one have been found operating along the Peruvian coast, and also the Humboldt current itself has been found to operate down the Chilean coast, way beyond Peru. As a result, since 1936, the use of the term "Peru Current" has become ambiguous and controversial. See for example

• Wust G (1936) "Humboldt-Strom, nicht Peru-Strom!", International Hydrographic Review 8: 105–108. (English title: "Humboldt Current, not Peru Current!").
• Schott G (1937) "Zur frage: Peru-Strom oder Humboldt-Strom?" Annalen der Hydrographie und Maritimem Meteorologie, 65: 73–75. (English title: "The question: Peru Current or Humboldt Current?").

Sometimes the term "Peru Current" is used to refer just to the Humboldt component along the Peruvian coast, while at other times the term is used to refer to the system of currents that actually operates along the coast. The Humboldt is only a component current in what is better referred to as the Peru Current System. The issue is mentioned, for example, in this recent review paper on eastern tropical Pacific oceanography and also here. If you are really determined to work Peru somehow into the title of an article on currents, why don't you start a new article on the Peru Current System? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone explain the mechanism behind the subtropical high pressure system mitigating the upwelling off the coast of Chile, as in the phrase "Upwelling occurs off Peru year-round but off Chile only during the spring and summer, because of the displacement of the subtropical center of high pressure during the summer".

Map?

Seriously, no map? That's a bare minimum expectation when it comes to currents, isn't it? Unschool 23:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)