Talk:Southern Ocean

Second rate research

Back in 2000/2001 various newsy websites picked up a story that the IHO had released a 3rd edition of their Limits of Oceans and Seas, in which they reinstated the Southern Ocean, defining it as the water south of 60°S. e.g. There are a couple of obvious errors there: firstly, the 3rd edition was published in 1953, so it would have to be a 4th edition; and secondly, a 4th edition was not published in 2000 or 2001, and in fact has not been published yet. The IHO website's only reference to a 4th edition is "4th edition in preparation". In August 2007, the IHO provided a report to the Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardisation of Geographic Names, which stated:

"The edition in force is still the 3rd edition, dated 1953, which is available from the IHO website. A 4th edition of the publication has been under preparation for some time. It has not yet been finalized."

One can only conclude that (a) The proposal to reinstate the Southern Ocean has not yet been ratified and so is not yet in force; (b) the IHO currently does not recognise the Southern Ocean; and (c) we are promoting the incorrect notion that it does, based on a premature and error-riddled press release. Hesperian 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect, per these links:

• IHO International Bathymetric Chart of the Southern Ocean
• International Bathymetric Chart of the Southern Ocean
• CIA World Factbook - Southern Ocean

If the refs. need updating, let's update. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Maximum Depths

A maximum depth of 7,434 m is given at 60° 28' 46"S, 025° 32' 32"W with the note "using the definition that it lies south of 60th parallel" in the introduction. However, searching on the word depth it is found that the greatest depth of 7,236 m occurs at 60°00'S, 024°W in the paragraph Geography. These should probably be researched and rationalized. Bill Cupp (talk) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 21:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

sigfigs

The #Economy section reports the fish catch to six sigfigs. Given that Krill only give one, the six is suspect. Is there a reference for this number? Gah4 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC) It seems that the number "119,898 tons" comes up in this article, though tons and not tonnes. I find it surprising that the same exact six digit number comes up in both places. Gah4 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)