Talk:Atmospheric physics

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather B‑class High‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 six months later). Thegreatdr 01:09, 2 June 2007 (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]