This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
I would like to nominate this article to be elevated to class B. I am in a position to claim good accuracy in the sections relating to the satellite measurements of SST. There is still a lot to be done regarding the style of writing and relevancy.
Objections? Javit15:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be accurate, this article has neither a reference section nor inline references, so it would be difficult for someone else to validate its accuracy. It will have to stay start until references (preferably inline) can be added. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparently of some debate whether sea surface temperature should be capitalized (Sea Surface Temperature). See here. Since it is not capitalized, I changed all link texts to here to also be uncapitalized. — jdorje (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite stuff is all a bit NOAA/NASA-centric, isn't it? Why mention of MODIS (2000), but none of (A)ATSR? This series has been running since 1991 and is the reference dataset standard within GHRSST. The discussion of how the SST is estimated should at least mention the split-window method, and link to a suitable reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.166.233 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is now being used as a subarticle to the improved numerical weather prediction article, it was time to bring it into wikipedia compliance on a number of issues, which got it upgraded to C class. Created a lead for the article, added referencing, added appropriate images, added wikilinks, and reduced what appeared to be a large NOAA/NASA advertisement in the satellite section of the article (which was against MoS anyway). The only major upgrade left is the referencing of the satellite section. Let me know what you all think of the changes. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of reviewing this article. I have made some minor improvements to style, spelling and other details as a part of the review.
This is my first GA review, article is of good quality, but would benefit from some additional copy-editing and assessment of scope.
Thanks for the review. I replaced the image with questionable parentage within the lead, and for now, removed the vertical temperature profile images until suitable replacements can be found. This should satisfy your concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Very well written and provides a well balanced view without deviating into a NPOV debate on Global Warming. One concern and the reason for a hold are the two images with the diurnal SST curves. The images are possibly OR provided by a research scientist. The measurement header and lead do not site sources to help support the images. With a little sourcing the images could be used without further issues in my opinion Inomyabcs (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be dealt with. I went through a couple images before finding one that was appropriate from a public domain source. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references for the measurement header have been taken care of. However, all the lines of the lead are already referenced in the main body of the article. Why would it need references? And why is this review not showing up within the SST talk page, anywhere, not even within the GA template? I keep having to go back to my talk page to find your link to it.Thegreatdr (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Recommend pass. Comments posted after GA approval but placed here to remove potential questions on whether there was still open items.Inomyabcs (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some good links for the article include more links to oscillations that involve SST-atmosphere temperature changes, more information on the effects of SST/salinity on sea ice freezing/melting and coral bleaching. ~AH1(TCU)03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can an article on sea surface temperature achieve GA status without a discussion of ENSO??!!?? This only reinforces that the GA tag is meaningless as an indicator of content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an absolute necessity to an overview of SSTs, actually. There are many large-scale and small-scale factors that influence SST values across the globe, ENSO being merely one of them. Since the article seems to focus on the concept of SSTs and their meteorological effects rather than the patterns that change them, I don't think it's really a glaring omission. Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boris, if you see a problem on here, be bold and fix it. Don't rail against the system and not even bother, because you obviously care or you wouldn't bitch about it. Your mama (in this case, me or some other wikipedian) isn't going to be there to fix every problem on here every time you cry your eyes out about it. It is this type of attitude that drives people away from wikipedia and the met projects, and frankly I'm getting sick of it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't mean to criticize you guys and apologize if that's how it came across. What I'm upset about is the whole GA /FA system because it purports to judge completeness and accuracy of content when it really doesn't -- it only reliably judges writing style and formatting. I wouldn't have railed so vociferously if the article didn't wear the GA tag; I'd have just fixed it.
I'd be much happier to contribute to meteorology articles in general if there wasn't such an emphasis on reaching GA/FA. The way I've put it before is that I'd rather write good articles than Good Articles. Just do the best job we can and screw all this GA/FA business. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point, this page isn't the proper forum for that kind of input...the GA/FA talk page is. There was a 2007 review of the met articles, which pretty much told us what we knew, that the content is sub-par in the met project. I'm just following wikipedia criteria and logical article progression, normally stopping at GAN because FAC is so draining of a process, but sometimes aspects of a topic will be missed. I'm not perfect, and neither are reviewers. Peer review on here is even worse than GAN or FA. If nupedia had worked, there wouldn't be a need for wikipedia. If there had been a climate project that focused on more than global warming sniping over the past several years, or a tropical cyclone project which focused on more encyclopedia-related met articles rather than storm articles, issues like this would have been taken care of years ago (my issues with wikipedia). But as I've learned, it's very hard to direct people to do/edit anything more than they're comfortable doing on here. However, recommending people avoid editing within the met/climate/TC project because it is a waste of time is not a good idea, hurts our cause as a whole, and rubs some of us the wrong way. Overall, it's better to be inclusive, which is why I invited you to provide input within the NWP article. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Sea surface temperature. 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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Sea surface temperature. 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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chidgk1, GA review was in 2011. There have been about 190 edits since then, so article has not been entirely neglected, but it could indeed be out of date. More concrete problem specifications would be needed to delist. Feel free to be specific about the suspected shortcomings, and also feel free to fix any easily fixable specific problems you may find. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know the subject so cannot be specific about which of the 12 cites with warnings (they show yellow with User:Headbomb/unreliable.js) are actually not good enough - some or all may be OK. That is why I raised this for community reassessment rather than just deciding for myself with an individual reassessment. I don't want to spend time updating as incorporating info from the SROCC (for example https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/) would be a lot of work I suspect. But I am sure info from the SROCC should be added just due to the reputation of the IPCC. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood I have asked at the oceans project for more comments. I see you have taken a close look and made some changes - what do you think now - is the article still good? If not is anyone willing to fix it? (by the way there is a harv error on cite 3 - I don't like that harvard style cite myself - maybe we don't need that cite?) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, The harvbn ref was fairly easy to fix with a google search and a bit of formatting, which is always better than simply discarding a reference because the format is poor or it is incomplete. I consider that reference to be adequately reliable for its purpose. I am not familiar with Headbombs script, but its documentation page warns users to examine the references personally and use their discretion, as they may or may not be acceptable depending on the details of the publication and what content they are used to support. Have you made any such checks? I do not have sufficient information to make a judgement call here.
Which of the GA criteria would you fail it on? A cursory examination suggests that it could be expanded and updated, with some more detail to clarify a few points, which by itself is desirable but not obligatory, as there is no indication of how much is missing or how important it is, and you have raised the issue of verifiability, but not made any claims about specific sources or the content they are intended to support. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 16:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community reassessment not an individual one so it is not my sole decision. Unless others advised that they were bad I would NOT vote for failing it on the cites as they are shown yellow (warning that human judgement required) by the tool not red (unreliable source). However I would consider voting to fail it on "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" but I would need to take a closer look at the SROCC and might well be persuaded by more expert arguments from people such as yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories." This is simply a reminder to make sure you're not citing crap. Here it highlights stuff with links to Google books. Google Books will have things from reputable publishers like Springer Science+Business Media, but also things like Alphascript and Lulu.com. If the books have reputable publishers (which they all seem to have), there's no real problem. See the 'General repository' and 'Google Books' examples in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases for more information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to leave this community reassessment open in the hope that other people will comment. Also I see from the instructions that "Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no evidence that it is out of date to an extent that would justify delisting. Opinion not supported by evidence or logical argument carries no weight in Wikipedia discussions. As I consider myself marginally involved I will refrain from closing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 18:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting - the article currently does not have sufficient information and recent data regarding the impacts of climate change on sea surface temperature (including linking it well with other related articles on this topic). This needs to be worked in at the very least before the article can be regarded as being a WP:GA.EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should have a clear section regarding climate change impacts
I think we should have a section that is visible from the table of contents that explains succinctly the impact that climate change has on sea surface temperature (i.e. warming). We might not need a lot of new text but ensure people can find the relevant information (perhaps by using an excerpt from ocean heat content or effects of climate change on oceans). EMsmile (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my sarcasm, I'm about 50–50 that this is the better solution, as opposed to shifting the redirect directly to ocean heat content. Because a lot of people looking up "ocean temperature" are concurrently packing a suitcase. Tourists, first. We aim to please. — MaxEnt21:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed/updated the sentence in question. A hatnote has also recently been added (I was wondering the same thing if "ocean temperature" is correctly redirecting to here or not). EMsmile (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add a better explanation to the article on how sea surface temperature relates to ocean temperature? Currently we only say "Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content. The increase of ocean temperature is an important effect of climate change on oceans.". Perhaps User:Baylorfk can help? Presumably the two are roughly proportional, i.e. if the sea surface temperature goes up then the ocean temperature also goes up (on average). But perhaps sea surface temperature makes up only a tiny proportion of the entire ocean temperature? EMsmile (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Baylorfk. I've moved your new sentence to the third paragraph of the lead and I've also added a new section called "definition" (as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article). Is this correctly worded?: Deeper ocean temperatures (more than 20 metres below the surface) also vary by region and time, and they contribute to variations in ocean heat content and ocean stratification. The increase of both, ocean surface temperature and deeper ocean temperature, is an important effect of climate change on oceans.. What's a good reference that we can cite for this kind of content? A textbook or something that is not behind a paywall? EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(We've had a related discussion about this just before (May 2022) but I felt it's better to start this new thread.) I've just changed the redirect that was redirecting ocean temperature to here. I felt it didn't work so well to cover both of those terms in the same article. I've changed the redirect to a sub-section within effects of climate change on oceans now, which includes the latest data on ocean temperature changes. I can imagine that at a later stage, the article ocean temperature might also become a stand alone article. In the context of climate change, it is becoming more and more important. Because of the changed redirect, I've also changed the hatnote and I've changed the definitions sections a bit. EMsmile (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I had also started a discussion on the talk page of ocean temperature about this. In hindsight, I should have started that discussion on this page. I had actually forgotten about the conversation we had about this here in May. EMsmile (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently no single article on Wikipedia that concerns ocean temperature at all depths, so a redirect to a climate change sub-article "through" an "Ocean temperature" redirect is narrow and inappropriate. Also, it misses what readers would be looking for after clicking on an internal link to OT. (I've just changed OT to a disambiguation page so readers can choose their specific destination.) Meanwhile, here, the earlier distinguishing hatnote re Ocean heat content at least made sense, since temperature is ~roughly ~heat divided by volume and the two concepts could be confused by some readers. —RCraig09 (talk)00:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page for "ocean temperature" is an OK interim solution but the real solution will be a stand-alone (short) article where updated information about temperatures in the ocean further down (more than 50 m below the surface) can be placed. The kind of content from IPCC reports that is currently at Effects of climate change on oceans#Ocean temperature (why do you want to hide that one under "see also"?). EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I envision a short stand-alone article, a bit like marine resources. That one also started out as a disambiguation page and then we converted it into a stub. This has the advantage that when people want to wikilink the term from other articles they don't have to choose a specific type of marine resource but just wikilink to marine resources. This would also be better for ocean temperature. E.g. if I want to wikilink "ocean temperature" in this sentence: At depths of around 500 m, depletion of oxygen is becoming more common to due rising ocean temperatures. Where do I wikilink "ocean temperature" to? I am not meant to wikilink to a disambiguation page. So I'd probably wikilink to Effects of climate change on oceans#Ocean temperature which is not even in your "main" list but which currently contains the most up to date info about temperature profiles at depth. EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write now at the WikiProject CC talk page as there are surely more than just two people who care about ocean temperature deeply (pardon the pun). EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— I did not "hide" Effects of climate change on oceans#Ocean temperature. The subject of the EoCC article is effects of CC, not OT per se.. If users want to learn about the Effects of CC on Oceans (broadly), they will not search for "OT" (temperatures, narrowly).
— A standalone OT article may indeed develop. Alternatively, it may be more efficient to (1) rename the present "SST" article as "OT", and then (2) add content re the less-known deeper depths in specific sections. Both alternatives avoid the redirect/disambiguation problem altogether. —RCraig09 (talk)15:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the discussion here and at the talk page for ocean temperature. It seems quite reasonable to assume that someone searching for Ocean temperature could be looking for Sea surface temperature, even though it's not the only meaning. They might also be looking for info on ocean temperatures at depth, or for ocean heat content, and it seems pretty reasonable that someone might be searching for content on rising ocean temperatures, such as Marine heatwave or maybe Effects of climate change on oceans (though I agree that these are more of a "See also"). I think a disambiguation page ultimately makes sense since nothing seems like an obvious main topic. It's worth noting that almost all of these pages reference each other, so I don't think a user is necessarily going to be lost here (and for somewhat obvious reasons, climate change impact is covered on every single page that talks about ocean temperature in any way). As for a separate standalone ocean temperature article, I can see the merits of having something covering temperatures at various depths more in detail, but it might also have WP:OVERLAP with existing pages; I don't have a strong opinion here. As a super minor note, the hatnote on this page should use the disambig format ("for other uses of ocean temperature") if it's linking to a disambiguation article. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Dylnuge, thanks for these inputs, that's useful! and thanks for contributing to this discussion / brainstorming, I always get enjoyment out of seeing other Wikipedians (whom I haven't "met" yet, join into climate change article topic discussions, so thank you! I just wanted to point out that I just added some additional thoughts of mine here on the WikiProject CC talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Proposal_to_have_a_stand-alone_article_on_%22ocean_temperature%22 (and I apologise for the fact that we have this discussion on two talk pages now, I know that's not good style but it just somehow worked out like this; I'll try to consolidate it into one place somehow; not sure how). EMsmile (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! No worries on the multi-page stuff, happens all the time, especially when talking about multiple pages. Coordinated discussions are hard! I'll hop over to the WikiProject discussion. As an FYI if you're not aware, Template:Moved discussion to is a good way to mark where discussion is currently happening if the intent is to move all discussion over there; not sure if that is your intent so I'll leave the call to y'all. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)15:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ocean surface temperature and land surface temperature have been increasing compared to the 1850-1900 average.[1]
I've just changed the image in the lead from a "climate change one" to a "natural science / georgraphy" one. The latter now shows how sea surface temperature is different for different parts of the oceans. The former (seen here on the right) contained too much other information in my opinion, e.g. it included the land surface temperature and also this statement above the graph: "oceans absorb over 90% of excess heat". This is too much jargon (absorb? excess heat? from when to when?) and thus digresses from the core purpose of the lead image: to show people with a visual image that they have come to the right page, the one that they were looking for. EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It might be good to find a global map image for the current year, rater than for 2013. Or perhaps show side by side one for winter/summer, or one for this year versus 50 years ago (if we think the climate change aspect ought to be included in the lead image).
I agree that this style of graphic is very compelling. However, copyright issues are a major hurdle as far as I've seen. If something is entirely the work of the U.S. government, that's good news re copyright, so *.gov searches may be a fertile search area. —RCraig09 (talk)16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: For free use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, there must be a specific Creative Commons license. ecmwf.int's permission does not fulfill that requirement. ~ sad face ~ —RCraig09 (talk)19:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The right to copy seems ok, the right to modify is probably the hurdle. Yet this hurdle seems taken at 2023_European_heat_waves containing File:Record_Temperatures_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_in_July.jpg from the same source. Uwappa (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: Wowzerz, in all these years I had not known about the Template:Attribution-Copernicus permission that is acceptable in Wikimedia projects. I'm wondering if "This image contains data from a satellite..." is limiting in any way (if there are other charts from Copernicus that aren't covered). —RCraig09 (talk)12:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa: That's actually like my question. The charts representing data back to the 1940s are definitely not "...data from a satellite..." that Wikimedia Commons' template describes, and ERA5 is part of ECMWF re-analysis, the "re-analysis" muddying the analysis further. One can go to the Commons Village pump/Copyright and hopefully get an opinion from a more knowledgeable person. —RCraig09 (talk)14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Uwappa! It's a very impressive (and scary!!) graphic. I think it's a good one for the lead. I've just made its caption more detailed (I think it's important to point out for where in the world this data was taken); also I have moved the other two images that were in the lead to further down below. I think it's best to have just one image in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Yes the graph is excellent, a true graphic gem, very well designed. Lots of credits to the designer at Copernicus, very well done. See chart title for location: 60 degrees south - 60 degrees north, the extra polar global oceans. So yes, scary as that is an enormous amount of energy stored in a lot of much water.
What strikes me is that temperatures are out of bandwidth for months in a row already with no end in sight. See BBC for how the warmer oceans alarm scientists:
Sippel, S., Kent, E.C., Meinshausen, N. et al. Early-twentieth-century cold bias in ocean surface temperature observations. Nature 635, 618–624 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08230-1
However, early records of global mean surface temperature are uncertain owing to changes in measurement technology and practice, partial documentation, and incomplete spatial coverage9. Here we show that existing estimates of ocean temperatures in the early twentieth century (1900–1930) are too cold, based on independent statistical reconstructions of the global mean surface temperature from either ocean or land data. The ocean-based reconstruction is on average about 0.26 °C colder than the land-based one, despite very high agreement in all other periods.2003:E5:2747:1200:585C:9A71:85D2:DFBA (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
b (citations to reliable sources): 
Moved to Talk:Ocean temperature
