Jump to content

Talk:Geophysics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestions

[edit]

In my opinion meteorology and oceanography are treated as independent subjects, closely related to, but not part of geophysics. Knowledge and research have become so immense, that they warrant a discipline of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.130.126 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who wrote the preceding paragraph, but I disagree. If geophysics is going to be holistic and include space physics, then it will need to include meteorology and physical oceanography. DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If meteorology will be included in geophysics then there won't be need for astrophysics in my own opinion Davon Multimedia (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The theoretical side of atmospheric science is treated as a classic example of geophysical fluid dynamics- i.e. the application of the physics of fluids to the Earth system. In that sense, the theoretical side of meteorology is very much a branch of geophysics. However, meteorology and oceanograpy are also independent subjects and should (and do) have their own entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdblivid (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest the following scheme:

Geophysics, the study of the earth by quantitative physical methods.

- Geophysics of the Atmosphere (Meteorology, climatology, upper air physics) 

   o Atmospheric electricity and terrestrial magnetism (including ionosphere
      and Van Allen belt) 
   o Meteorology and Climatology, which both involve studies of the weather. 
   o Aeronomy, the study of the physical structure and chemistry of the 
      atmosphere.

- Geophysics of the oceans 

   o Physical Oceanography

- Geophysics of the solid Earth 

   + Pure Geophysics 
     o Seismology (earthquakes and elastic waves) 
     o Gravity and geodesy (the earth's gravitational field and the size and 
        form of the earth)
     o Geomagnetism (diurnal variations, dynamo theories) 
     o Geothermometry (heating of the earth, heat flow, volcanology, 
        and hot springs) 
     o Hydrology and glaciology (ground water, surface water and ice) 
     o Tectonophysics (dynamic processes in the earth) 
   + Applied geophysics (exploration and engineering geophysics)
     o Seismics
     o electrical and electromagnetic methods 
     o gravity exploration 
     o magnetic exploration
     o radioactivity
     o Geophysical Engineering
     o geomatics (applied geodesy)
     o mineral physics

(Hans Erren 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)) ---[reply]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps skipping over GPS, and GIS. GPS is the mapping of the shape of the Earth and position of things on the planet using electromagnetic methods. The GPS signal is an electromagnetic field propagating through the atmosphere, it's accuracy is based on atmospheric density and the changing electromagnetic properties within the atmosphere based on weather, as well as reflection of the signal at the ground level. GIS is a form of computational geophysics to track and map large position related datasets. Both GPS and GIS are a geophysical invention. They should both be included as geophysics study. There are no forms of geophysics that are not related to positional accuracy, so GIS is a cornerstone of geophysics, and yet it isn't mentioned.
3D GIS is also a geophysical invention based on subsurface sampling and position of interpreted or measured physical properties that were determined using geophysical methods where location and depth was the primary objective. Both GIS and 3D GIS were developed by geophysicists trying to make sense of survey findings and to present these findings. RMCaron (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions: - Include Teluric (MT, AMT,...) as an EM method into pure geophysics of the solid earth. - I think mineral physics should read minerals/rock physics and is also part of "pure" geophysics

In general I think we should say good-bye to the split between pure(theoretical) and applied geophysics. Some of the applied methods use more theoretical background than the classic/pure geophysicist can handle...

I also think oceanography and meteorology should be mentioned but have their own "main page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PewdH (talk • contribs) 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I see that someone has been adding to this section and would like to share my thoughts on how I'd like this page to develop. I added the sections Physical Phenomena and Regions of the Earth with the following goals in mind:

  1. In Physical Phenomena, emphasize the physics to show what makes it geophysics.
  2. In Regions of the Earth, describe applications to the solid Earth, hydrosphere, cryosphere, etc. (still a lot to do here!)
  3. Pack in as many links to relevant pages as possible.

I reorganized the old material, putting most of it in The magnetosphere, Other fields and related disciplines and Methods of geophysics. I have been tempted to phase out Other fields and related disciplines as the material gets covered in other sections. But perhaps it might be useful to keep it as a description of how geophysics is organized in societies like AGU and IUGG. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think of my overall plan. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the Earth vs what might be in this particular article

[edit]

Certainly, the regions of the Earth are important (in an abstract sense), but would the section on "Regions of the Earth" more properly be in the Wikipedia article on the "Earth" itself? I ask because this article on "Geophysics" could rapidly become very big if we try to fill out the "regions of the Earth". We might choose to simply constrain this particular article on "Geophysics" to what geophysics is about, which are presently listed in the section of "Physical Phenomena". What do people think? DoctorTerrella (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to show the how instead of the what. For example, Structure of the Earth Interior is more about seismology and gravity than about the interior itself. The section could also be called "Applications", I suppose. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Domains" studied by geophysicists. I suspect you like that word. DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not familiar with its use in geophysics. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magnetic domain, as in rock magnetism. I'm agreeing with the sentiment of your comments. DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. That was obtuse of me! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree with your concern about the potential for this article to get too big. I think the connection to the applications is needed, so the treatment will have to be very concise. Where a main article for a subject exists, Summary style can be used. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To supplement what I said above - I particularly like the example of the Earth's interior because it pulls in so many different areas - gravity, seismology, mineral physics, thermal physics, fluid mechanics, and so on. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this: The Wikipedia page Earth is already very nice. (For some reason, not open to editing, but that may be a different issue.) Given that that page already summarizes the Earth's interior, tectonic surface, hydrosphere, atmosphere, etc. I wonder whether (not a pun) we need to try to reproduce it on this page. We might just summarize it, possibly with one paragraph? I'm sure that the Wikipedia culture would frown upon simply copying those sections in Earth to this article on Geophysics. DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About Earth: It is a featured article, which means it is recognized as one of Wikipedia's best. It is semi-protected, probably because it is frequently vandalized. You need to be autoconfirmed to edit it; at the time you wrote the above message, your account hadn't existed the requisite 4 days. Now you should be able to edit it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About "reproducing" Earth: To repeat what I said above, the sections in Regions of the Earth are about the how, not the what. If you compare them, you'll see there is little overlap between Structure of the interior and the Internal structure section of Earth, or even Structure of the Earth. I think such a section is important because it shows how the different kinds of physics are combined to determine what we know. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will consider your point more carefully. My apologies. 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorTerrella (talk • contribs)

Empty sections

[edit]

I don't recommend putting in placeholders for sections unless they will soon be filled. Otherwise, it won't be long before a drive-by tagger will put an {{Empty section}} tag in each section. Better to edit the to do list at the top of this page. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. ;-) DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geophysics. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geophysics. 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) 06:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for heat flow

[edit]

heat flow, should also include , also describe,

how IR (infra red), although quickly absorbed, sequentially transfers heat upward, via higher-to-lower temperature 'osmosis' , soto speak (sorry, i did biology first) ... when higher temperature materials deeper down, generate more IR from pressure, but are not heated FROM other IR as easily, whereas when the cooler stuff higher up, can be heated up more easily, rather than IR being LESS likely to cause FURTHER heat increase (more agitated are more affected by collision forces ... rather than cooler/near zero temperature material being atomically, still, and YET, to become when then hot, less easily agitated FURTHER, from IR, whereas collisive forces (further pressure, rapid mixing (not the case in magma/mantle) , etc , does - a lab-mixing-tube-spinner) do...

... so,.. as, IR is sequentially more penetrating of also LESS DENSE earth above it, IR does get through, not the whole crust!!... but through however-thick an amount, but since that continues to happen sequentially-UPWARD...

and CONSTANTLY, it never stops,

IR can be said to ALSO, be a part of the heat flow, "a contributor" if i remember correctly, to the lower minimums, rather than hot-spot maximums, etc

Vurrath (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new subsection

[edit]

The article has left out the rotation of the earth, and all its complexities, as a subject of geophysics. Bdushaw (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rotation should definitel be in there. Thank you for pointing that out. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Min Phys section

[edit]

The discussion of water seems out of place in the mineral physics section. Certainly water can be an important aspect in mineral physics, but the present discussion if very off topic. Yllwblckrctnglr (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2024 and 10 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BornAYasMain (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Houdarar13, Rosie1470.

— Assignment last updated by Starkrobin (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geophysics&oldid=1211278256"