Talk:Atmospheric physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid importance within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Meteorology. |
Contents |
[edit] Merge
I am working on atmospheric sciences and noticed that the articles Atmospheric dynamics and Atmospheric physics exist. Both are tagged as stubs, and the articles are the identical subjects -> dynamics = physics.
My suggestion is to combine AD into AP and retain AP as the combined article, with AD as the redirector page to maintain any links... -Hard Raspy Sci 06:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Critique
This stub on atmospheric physics appears to purport the view of a typical meteorologist more than the view of a physicist. Meteorology has developed more towards engineering, as an applied science, than towards pure physics and phenomenological science. Although advanced and competent, specially in crunching mountains of numbers in breathtaking supercomputers, meteorology has lacked that kind of fundamental thinking one sees in fields like quantum mechanics or cosmology. The physics of tropical convection, for example, is very poorly represented in meteorological models, with the excuses ranging from problems with complexity of clouds occurring in sub-grid scales to aknowledged utter ignorance of physical driving factors. Generalized rough assumptions used in mainstream GCM-centric meteorology (for engineering convenience, not for the good sake of physics), like that the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium (everywhere), defy basic principles of gas-physics (Clausius-Clapeyron). It is about time meteorologists open up a little and consider developing more the understanding of atmosphere physics from a theoretical perspective. Other applied sciences have benefited wonderfully from being more porous to thinking of fundamental sciences. It is certainly not by chance that Russian meteorologists, confronted with poor access to computers, developed a lot of fundamental understanding of physical phenomena in the atmosphere. My suggestion here is that a physicist working with fundamentals of atmosphere physics review and improve this article -[[User: ADN 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Hard Raspy Sci 03:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- (Crickets chirping ten months later). Thegreatdr 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Crickets getting louder, twenty months later. This is why wikipedia tells editors to Be Bold! If you're not, the task won't get done for a long, long time. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- (Crickets chirping ten months later). Thegreatdr 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links
External links (eg to professional bodies and journals) would be useful here. User:Pjc51 10:33, 08 September 2006 (BST)
[edit] Expansion of article
I took the cue of what could become the lead in adding sections from relevent articles into this article. The process is far enough along that I upped the class from stub to start. I'm beginning to wonder if atmospheric dynamics could be a subarticle of this one, since it is usually treated as a separate college-level course, even though the concepts of atmospheric dynamics are physics related. Thegreatdr 01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
