Talk:Atmospheric physics

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Weather: General Top‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Crickets chirping ten months later). Thegreatdr 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thirty months have now passed, and the crickets are deafening. There are other more fundamental articles within the met project that need help, and I'm only able to periodically improve the article. This lack of progress has occurred despite having the physics project banner up on top of the talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One hundred and two months have passed since the initial comment was made, and no physicists have taken up the banner. Until one does, the article's current direction will continue. This must not be a pressing need. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links

External links (eg to professional bodies and journals) would be useful here. User:Pjc51 10:33, 08 September 2006 (BST)

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atmospheric physics. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atmospheric physics. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]