Talk:Ekman transport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.


I have erased this sentence that I find to be false. The reason for the Chile-Peru upwelling to occur is not due to El-Nino.

An example is the coast of Peru where periodic upwellings caused by El Niño mean some in some years, fishing is good, and others it is not.


Where are they?? Besides helping with Verifiability,this is an article about a phenomenom which the vast majority of people ( aside from those who study oceanography ) don't know about.. some references would be handy for them as well as for students doing projects etc. Kotare 09:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


I have removed the 'reqdiagram' tag which was placed before the current diagram was added. If anyone wasnts a better picture, please replace it. Egmason (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ekman pumping/suction[edit]

The line describing Ekman pumping and suction is incorrect - it is the other way round - Ekman pumping is a result of Ekman divergence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No numbers[edit]

Why are there no numbers at all, not even very approximate, e.g. for depth and velocity of Ekman transport away from the equator in the mid-Pacific, mid-Atlantic, and mid-Indian? Is the depth 1 m, 10 m, 100 m, 1 km? And is the velocity 1 m per second, per day, per year? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Error in formula (3)?[edit]

I think there is an error in formula (3), since integrating over 2nd equation with respect to z should result in zero, this only happens when we integrate over z from 0 to -inf. So there is an inconsistency in the page, since we assume z to be positive in the downward direction, but use z negative in the downward direction in formula (3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesperPeterse (talkcontribs) 07:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)