Talk:Atmospheric chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology 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.
 

I am trying to work on this article. A draft of some of my ideas can be found at my user page.

I have now expanded the lead section and (I hope) improved it, I have also removed it from the chemistry category and addded it to the atmosphere category. Comments welcome.

--NHSavage 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks really good. UrbanTerrorist 02:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Observational Database[edit]

A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents from a host of platforms is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is probably most appropriate as a link to Atmospheric Chemistry Observational Databases which can include a more complete list to online sources of data.Mkfwd 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Composition by NASA - sum >100%?[edit]

Pavel.taborsky (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC) In the composition, when I sum up just the four most abundant species (N2, O2, Ar, CO2), the sum is 100.0027 %. Does NASA have it wrong?

Citations needed[edit]

I suggest that this article should be tagged, "Citations Needed." The only in-line citation in this article concerns the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry. --Humanist Geek (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

- Although there are hardly any citations within the text, most of the science behind this article can be found in the books listed under "Further reading". Is that sufficient? RolfSander (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)