Talk:Geostrophic current

Merger with Geostrophic wind

The Geostrophic wind article seems to contain all the information in this article; since the force involved is the same, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for keeping these articles separate. See WP:CFORK... Smith609 Talk 10:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to be placed back in Geostrophic current. --Feministo (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concepts are similar - BUT, geostrophic wind is an atmospheric phenomena, and geostrophic current is an oceanic one. I don't believe that geostrophic current should be a sub-section of geostrophic wind. Rather, unite them both under a common heading "Geostrophic flow". Ncswart (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ncswart. First, the article can be merged into Geostrophic wind, in its "Geostrophic currents" section, and then be renamed to "Geostrophic flow". Inclusion of the only picture is also good, since this represents a general geostrophic flow. Hulten (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the gyre diagram

It is difficult to see how the gyre diagram, showing a rotating body of low-density water, can be correct. The top surface should be depressed, not raised, owing to centrifugal force. A raised surface would be appropriate to a floating drop of oil, and would be a consequence of surface tension. This cannot apply here. ClarkoEye (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]