"Temperature" of the thermosphere

I'm not making a fool of myself, I'm sure of that. Yes, that's precisely what we're doing. We're only just beginning to model topography through remote sensing in order to be able to measure more effectively surface boundary friction in order that we may have a better generalized model of surface 'micro'-eddies. That's still 50 to 60 years out of any real use. Current aerosol models are revised every time technology increases its fidelity. Atmospheric Science is much less than 100 years old in actual practice, it's a young science.

From your provided websites:

Note: When Climate or Meteorology is mentioned, it never mentions current applied forecasting or modeling use. Whenever aeronautics is mentioned, it mentions specific practical approach. Consistent with my previous statements.

I'm well aware that you're familiar with aeronautics and thermodynamics. That doesn't imply you know the present state of meteorology or climatology - so please, stop with the arrogance, stop calling me a fool...in a topic I just might be more familiar with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You already have. Here.

It didn't take me long to find a set of experiments that measure the temperature of the thermosphere. (See post #18.) You could have done the same and saved yourself some embarrassment.


Here.

WTF do you think Computational Fluid Dynamics models of the atmosphere use? (Hint: Kinetic theory and fluid dynamics go hand-in-hand. Google the phrase "kinetic theory and fluid dynamics".)


Here.

Who ever mentioned anything about Brownian motion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you think that?

The size of the thermometer, the size of the vehicle it is mounted on and the thermal characteristics (e.g., emissivity, thermal coatings, ...) of the vehicle, the nature of the orbit, and a whole slew of other factors come into play here.

What makes you think you need this knowledge?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't discuss things like a decent human being, so this will be my last response here.

I didn't deny the existence of experiments - had you been literate you would have read the following statements...
"Meteorologists, physicists, atmospheric scientists and astronomers are all going to give you a different answer which depends on their method and technique of measurement."
" As far as I know the two types of atmospheric sciences consistently deal with temperature in these terms are; atmospheric chemists, and someone working with cloud physics or optics."

Both of which clearly recognize the use of Kinetic Theory in active use...your stupid links that reiterated what I just said didn't further the conversation at all.

The earlier uses it to determine aerosol production that's born in residence time. The second uses it to predict future albedo's by determining the actual mass presence. Neither of which are really long term or short term forecasting - rather physics that can lead to equations that are used in models...sometimes...maybe.

Great, so? What's your point? Let's analyze your logic here: There's a book on fluid dynamics that utilizes Kinetic Theory, atmospheric modeling is the modeling of a fluid, therefore atmospheric modeling utilizes Kinetic Theory?
Hope you never have to pass the LSATs, or any logical testing for that matter.
I have never, nor do I think anyone has seen a model that accounts for the atmosphere OUTSIDE of the Tropopause at the very highest. It's relatively irrelevant what's going on beyond that point.

Brownian motion is the most obvious application of Kinetic Theory in Atmospheric dynamics. It's directly translatable to parcel potential and nucleogenesis.



----

I'm done with you. I've reviewed your past post history; you're clearly competent in mathematics, and you have some physics mastery - however, I've yet to see an intelligible post about Earths atmosphere from you. That being the case, I have to assume you don't know what you're talking about...and you're just making it up from experience with unrelated topics that are lightly associated. You've assumed that because you're extremely competent on one field...it must be directly translatable to this field. That's not the case. I'm convinced you don't know anything about Meteorology or Climatology, so why you comment on them and then arrogantly insist you're correct without actually READING my posts...I don't know.

End of discussion.

 

Is it not possible to even provide me with a ball park figure of what the temperature might be in the middle of the thermosphere?

Are you saying that if we could place 2 different thermometers such as:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

in the same location in the thermosphere at sunset and come back and record their temperatures 5 hours later that they would differ wildly?

I "need" an estimate as opposed to not needing a lot of waffle and talking around an answer.

 

the thermosphere is not the exosphere, so the temperature would be around 300 to -176 degrees, remember that guys.