Michel I watched all 61/61 Videos of your lecture. This was a great adventure to get such a coherent and relativ extensive view on this complex multiparameter system. It would be very interesting to explane the mechanics and ingredients of climate models. Please go on with this series. This the best I have seen for a long time on this topic.
Great explanation of the atmosphere. I hope you work with an excellent video producer to create an extension of your lecture that will appeal to more of the general public. I received an immense amount of information about this subject. I hope you will extend your information into a more easily accessible format. Thank you for your efforts in this video!
Great videos. I have watched about 15 of your 61 vids and I have had to go through a couple twice. These are awesome. There is a discussion about the increase in CO2 has reduced the temperature at the top of the stratosphere (ie. let say from 0 to like -15). Would that allow heat transfer to move faster from the troposphere and out into space?
At this time, there appears to be some evidence that the upper stratosphere has indeed cooled and the cooling is estimated to be 1-2 degrees C per decade. It is believed that this is caused by the thinning of the ozone layer which allows the UV radiation to penetrate the stratosphere more and thus causes greater heating at lower altitudes and less heating at higher altitudes. Keep in mind that there are significant seasonal variations and also geographical variations.
Hello, I have a question. I understand that the Thermosphere absorbs, X-Ray, Gamma Rays and Far UV etc due to the O-O and N-N bonds. Why is the absorption so efficient when the density of the atmosphere so low? Also If that was the case, then why would Gamma Radiation be such an issue on the ground where the atmosphere is 100,000 times more dense. Surely Gamma and X Rays would be absorbed before travelling far. Thank you, great lectures.
Gamma ray radiation is not an "issue" at the surface of the Earth. Cosmic rays are the most destructive at the Earth's surface (which are actually particles (not photons) that reach the Earth's surface at very high energies.
I don't understand the question: "why line can't be straight". Not sure what you are asking. The temperature gradients are no calculated, they are measured.
I know this was posted years ago but I have a question. Are all of the “pauses” an isothermal layer? And are those temperature inversions in every other layer of the atmosphere?
When we describe the atmosphere we don't talk about it in terms of "isothermal layer". Note that the temperature remains somewhat constant over a given altitude difference at a particular location, but it will be a different temperature at a different location and during a different season. Thinks of these regions as boundary regions between the different layers of the atmosphere.
Dear Michael, Since I am working as a pilot, and we are always flying on the edge of the troposphere and tropopause, I was wondering if there is any major difference regarding radiation if I am flying in a higher troposphere or lower tropopause. It would be nice to know that when I am choosing my Flight Level. Best regards!
This is one of the more interesting questions I have been asked in a long time. There are three types of E&M radiation that is harmful to us and then there is also cosmic rays. So let's take it one at a time. The two most damaging are gamma rays and x-rays, but lucky for us these are intercepted by the oxygen and nitrogen high up in our atmosphere (the ionosphere or also called the thermosphere). The atmosphere heats up to a very high temperature there because the absorption of these E&M waves. The next one is UV. This comes in 3 ranges A, B, and C. The most energetic (C) is also absorbed high in the atmosphere such as X-ray and gamm rays. B, the next level is 99 % absorbed by the ozone layer well into the stratosphere. The 1 % that gets through causes sun burns at the beach and is beneficial in that it produces vitamin D in our body. There is very little difference in the upper troposphere vs the lower troposhphere and being inside a plane does protect you from that. A is less energetic, but more of it gets through the atmosphere and it can also penetrate glass (which B doesn't) and it does contribute to skin damage over long exposure. But again not a lot of difference between 35,000 feet and ground level while inside a plane. (Although you are more prone to sun burns at higher elevations when exposed). The last one, cosmic rays, is the one to be most concerned about. This are the high energy particles entering our atmosphere from outer space. Some can penetrate bariers and do contribute over a long period of time to potential disease. However there would be very little difference between flying at 35,000 ft or 40,000 ft. Living a healthy life style and a healthy diet will be far more effevtive in preventing disease as compared to flying a little lower vs a little higher.
@@MichelvanBiezen All clear, I was having the same opinion as your conclusion given. However, I have had colleagues who are concerned about the radiation levels at higher altitudes, so I decided to search for the answer from the expert.
As I have understood from your explanation , we could only expect a bit higher radiation from UV B, if flying over Artic due to lower troposphere height and damaged ozone layer(even though the Artic ozone layer is less damaged comparing to the South Pole).
Your argument regarding temperature measurements is a curious one. You state that while there are 2000C particles in a specified area of the troposphere wouldn't affect bodies of vastly different temperatures due to their being 'rarified' or far and few between so as not to affect an overall effect on the object. What temperature is said object? How was that measured? The answer is that it is a measurement-whether defined by molecular interaction or an average of molecular temperature-the same thing-it is defined!! You don't get to say that heat is kinetic but temperature is different due to the low kinetic involvement. |t seems to be both contradictions of terms and/or poorly defined.
When you mention "object", can you indicate what object you are referring to? Also what do you mean by: "specifie area"? And what do you mean by "affect"? And when you write: "to affect an overall effect", what do you mean? If you can rephrase the question in a more direct way, we can then try to answer it.
@@MichelvanBiezen Please pardon my ineptitude in relating my meaning. I have attempted to make my argument as simple as I can. I have used the universal definition of an area as a measurement of a specified area within three dimensions,. The object is/are the 'satellites/shuttles/rockets etc. When I spoke of the affect of a specific object within a specified area and the equilibrium that is inherent-think osmosis.
The thermosphere is heated by the high energy radiation such as UV and X-rays which contain enough energy to both break the bonds of the N2 molecules and to give them additional kinetic energy.
I like all your videos becuase its clear and the language also hearable if you can please upload a video for how calculate temperature trend in the troposphere by using multiple linear regression. thank you
The ozone layer can be found from about 15 km above the surface of the Earth to about 35 km above the surface of the Earth, which means that it is distributed throughout a significant portion of the stratosphere.
Hi. I have a question about moving of protoplanetary disk from earth point of view. that if we look at east the disk is moving from northeast to southeast and crosses the east twice in 24 hours. what is this called and why is it like this? thank you very much Sir.
We don't get burned, because the density of molecules is so much less. The heat loss through radiation is much greater than the heat gain from the few air molecules that would hit us.
@@MichelvanBiezenI’m sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you have a video explaining this? Maybe some video showing that things don’t burn at 2000 C as long as there are less molecules?
how do we have gas pressure (the earths atmosphere) next to a vacuum (space) when you can't have gas pressure with out a container? This is the argument of many flat earthers but its a valid question that I see no answer for.
For the same reason that water in a swimming pool doesn't go floating into the air. The force of gravity keeps the water in the pool. The force of gravity keeps the air pushed down towards the surface of the Earth. On planets that are too small with gravity that is too small, the atmosphere does indeed float into space, like it does on Mercury. Just like a ball thrown into the air, it will eventually come back down. A atmospheric molecule moving upward will eventually stop and fall back to Earth, if it didn't collide with another molecule.
I don't think we should say that the mesosphere does not absorb energy, since there are a lot of different sources of energy. The mesosphere does not absorb the high energy forms of energy reaching the Earth, except for just a small amount of it and the mesosphere essentially does not contain any water vapor which vastly reduces its ability to absorb a number of wavelengths.
Sir One more dought... We know carbon dioxide molecule plays major role in global warming but it also radiate sunlight in mesosphere so that it is a cool sphere. Is it right concept or wrong? Plz explain...🙏🏼
The natural frequencies of CO2 do not match up well with the frequencies of the incoming solar energy. It matches the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth's surface better. However CO2 has essentially absorbed almost all of the IR energy from the Earth and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should scientifically not have a large impact on global temperatures. The empirical weatherstation data appears to support that concept.
Personally, I thought that it would be more helpful if the explanation for the temperature gradients were explained from the thermosphere to the troposphere and not the other way around - it is easier for me to envision that EMR absorption causes a reduction in temperature as the EMR incrementally penetrates the various layers of the atmosphere. Given that the temperature gradient of the troposphere is clear evidence that the "positive" temperature gradient (from source to sink) corresponds to reflection and reradiation from the Earth's surface, I am very interested to learn what the stimulus is for the "positive" temperature gradient in the Mesosphere - is there something going on in the Stratopause to explain this?
How can I calculate tropopause parameter like cold point tropopause height, cold point tropopause temperature and lapse rate tropopause at agiven data?
Space is a very cold place (just a few degrees above absolute zero. Since the Earth radiates the heat it received from the Sun into space it stands to reason that as you get closer and closer to space more of the heat has radiated in that direction cooling the molecules of the atmosphere. Thus the higher you go, the cooler it becomes
Water vapor is not a gas and therefore it does not become a part of our atmosphere (such as the other atmospheric gases) and instead displaces the atmosphere. Water vapor enters our atmosphere primarily through the evaporation of our oceans, lakes, and rivers, and is pushed higher through convection currents. The ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor, diminishes with drops in temperature, thus the higher you go, the colder it becomes and the less moisture the atmosphere can hold. The water vapor will condense into droplets and will then drop down in the atmosphere. (There is some water vapor in the stratosphere, but it resides primarily in the lower regions of the stratosphere). This is particularly true in the polar regions and when very tall thunderstorms reach into the stratosphere.
The temperature will go up when more energy is received than is expelled. The temperature will go down when less energy is received than expelled. The temperature will continue to change until heat in equals heat out. At the tropopause that energy balance extends for a small distance.
Nice, there is a Flat Earth movement with people asking what materials have the ISS to resist the "high temperatures" of the Thermosphere (Ionosphere), very funny people
It's not that the closeness of space is taking away your heat faster. You are radiating your heat as per usual, but the air in the thermosphere, despite being so hot, is so thinned out that the contact of those air molecules with your body will be only occasional - the heat transfer from air to your body is almost non-existent. Meaning, you radiate your heat away and can't get it back from the air, like we can here on the ground, where the air is much more dense, and the heat transfer takes place with great efficiency.
@@MichelvanBiezen what do you mean thin? 🤔 98km..or 86 km..? That is not thin..🤨 do you know you can melt iron 1500 temperature? So how a solar panel can work there? And the rest of the structure of the Statelite? In order tho have credibility in your explanation we need to know what is thin,the materials of the equipment to🤔🤔🤔🤔🤨 2000c and 1500c is to mucho for a Statelite moving al the time in a 85km of heat space? 🤨 just the solar panel get melt in seconds.. even if is 10 more resistance 🤔.........I mean where does the heat start to the exosphere
@@MichelvanBiezen with all respect 🙂 is something rare ,considering the satellite material and its position in the thermosphere is hard for me belive in nasa for obvious reasons, thanks 🙂
No explication is given for molecular friction absorption of heat, through the atomic bombardment, which is greatly reduced by our atmosphere the closer you get to the earth's surface, so we can live fairly comfortably here apon earth. (BUT THERE IS NO BARRIER IN SPACE) Nor any explication is given of the acumalative effect of solar radiation and photon colition, through molecular convection of objects and their accumulative absorption of heat transference, which is what leads to objects in space reaching such vast temperatures, as they can also reach quite high temperatures here upon earth, where during WW-2 dessert troops could fry eggs upon the outer casing of their tanks. The absorption is according to their atomic mass and their metalic periodic scale. So the jury is still out as to whether mankind has been into true space, or even to the moon? Because the temps are for most metalic objects used by NASA, already way past their melting points. Look up degrees of heat for periodic table metals and their melting (liqufying) points. Because I did a science degree in astrophysics and metalergy, for my chosen profession back in 1973, is why I remain a sceptic of NASA. Not through ignorance but through the proven science and its laws, that also dictate what even NASA can achieve in reality and what they cannot.
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Michel I watched all 61/61 Videos of your lecture. This was a great adventure to get such a coherent and relativ extensive view on this complex multiparameter system. It would be very interesting to explane the mechanics and ingredients of climate models. Please go on with this series. This the best I have seen for a long time on this topic.
He’s a good teacher
Great explanation of the atmosphere. I hope you work with an excellent video producer to create an extension of your lecture that will appeal to more of the general public. I received an immense amount of information about this subject. I hope you will extend your information into a more easily accessible format. Thank you for your efforts in this video!
WOW!!!! Excellent presentation. Very clear and concise
Glad you enjoyed it! 🙂
Great videos. I have watched about 15 of your 61 vids and I have had to go through a couple twice. These are awesome. There is a discussion about the increase in CO2 has reduced the temperature at the top of the stratosphere (ie. let say from 0 to like -15). Would that allow heat transfer to move faster from the troposphere and out into space?
At this time, there appears to be some evidence that the upper stratosphere has indeed cooled and the cooling is estimated to be 1-2 degrees C per decade. It is believed that this is caused by the thinning of the ozone layer which allows the UV radiation to penetrate the stratosphere more and thus causes greater heating at lower altitudes and less heating at higher altitudes. Keep in mind that there are significant seasonal variations and also geographical variations.
Very interesting and informative lecture. Thanks a lot
This was excellent! Thank you for helping me understand it more! 🤗
THANK you for using metric & Celsius!
But he didn't use pascals for the pressure.
Please clear how temperature is varying layers by layers of atmosphere
Sorry, we didn't understand your question.
Hello, I have a question. I understand that the Thermosphere absorbs, X-Ray, Gamma Rays and Far UV etc due to the O-O and N-N bonds. Why is the absorption so efficient when the density of the atmosphere so low? Also If that was the case, then why would Gamma Radiation be such an issue on the ground where the atmosphere is 100,000 times more dense. Surely Gamma and X Rays would be absorbed before travelling far. Thank you, great lectures.
Gamma ray radiation is not an "issue" at the surface of the Earth. Cosmic rays are the most destructive at the Earth's surface (which are actually particles (not photons) that reach the Earth's surface at very high energies.
@@MichelvanBiezen Thank you
How would the temperature of each layer vary with increased CO2 output? Would it mostly only affect the troposphere?
If you watch the rest of the video series you will see that increases in CO2 has a relatively small effect on the temperature of the troposphere.
Thank you for the explanation!
How is temperature gradient calculated and why line can't be straight
I don't understand the question: "why line can't be straight". Not sure what you are asking. The temperature gradients are no calculated, they are measured.
I know this was posted years ago but I have a question. Are all of the “pauses” an isothermal layer? And are those temperature inversions in every other layer of the atmosphere?
When we describe the atmosphere we don't talk about it in terms of "isothermal layer". Note that the temperature remains somewhat constant over a given altitude difference at a particular location, but it will be a different temperature at a different location and during a different season. Thinks of these regions as boundary regions between the different layers of the atmosphere.
Dear Michael,
Since I am working as a pilot, and we are always flying on the edge of the troposphere and tropopause, I was wondering if there is any major difference regarding radiation if I am flying in a higher troposphere or lower tropopause.
It would be nice to know that when I am choosing my Flight Level.
Best regards!
This is one of the more interesting questions I have been asked in a long time. There are three types of E&M radiation that is harmful to us and then there is also cosmic rays. So let's take it one at a time. The two most damaging are gamma rays and x-rays, but lucky for us these are intercepted by the oxygen and nitrogen high up in our atmosphere (the ionosphere or also called the thermosphere). The atmosphere heats up to a very high temperature there because the absorption of these E&M waves. The next one is UV. This comes in 3 ranges A, B, and C. The most energetic (C) is also absorbed high in the atmosphere such as X-ray and gamm rays. B, the next level is 99 % absorbed by the ozone layer well into the stratosphere. The 1 % that gets through causes sun burns at the beach and is beneficial in that it produces vitamin D in our body. There is very little difference in the upper troposphere vs the lower troposhphere and being inside a plane does protect you from that. A is less energetic, but more of it gets through the atmosphere and it can also penetrate glass (which B doesn't) and it does contribute to skin damage over long exposure. But again not a lot of difference between 35,000 feet and ground level while inside a plane. (Although you are more prone to sun burns at higher elevations when exposed). The last one, cosmic rays, is the one to be most concerned about. This are the high energy particles entering our atmosphere from outer space. Some can penetrate bariers and do contribute over a long period of time to potential disease. However there would be very little difference between flying at 35,000 ft or 40,000 ft. Living a healthy life style and a healthy diet will be far more effevtive in preventing disease as compared to flying a little lower vs a little higher.
@@MichelvanBiezen
All clear, I was having the same opinion as your conclusion given. However, I have had colleagues who are concerned about the radiation levels at higher altitudes, so I decided to search for the answer from the expert.
As I have understood from your explanation , we could only expect a bit higher radiation from UV B, if flying over Artic due to lower troposphere height and damaged ozone layer(even though the Artic ozone layer is less damaged comparing to the South Pole).
Your argument regarding temperature measurements is a curious one.
You state that while there are 2000C particles in a specified area of the troposphere wouldn't affect bodies of vastly different temperatures due to their being 'rarified' or far and few between so as not to affect an overall effect on the object.
What temperature is said object? How was that measured?
The answer is that it is a measurement-whether defined by molecular interaction or an average of molecular temperature-the same thing-it is defined!!
You don't get to say that heat is kinetic but temperature is different due to the low kinetic involvement.
|t seems to be both contradictions of terms and/or poorly defined.
When you mention "object", can you indicate what object you are referring to? Also what do you mean by: "specifie area"? And what do you mean by "affect"? And when you write: "to affect an overall effect", what do you mean? If you can rephrase the question in a more direct way, we can then try to answer it.
@@MichelvanBiezen Please pardon my ineptitude in relating my meaning. I have attempted to make my argument as simple as I can. I have used the universal definition of an area as a measurement of a specified area within three dimensions,. The object is/are the 'satellites/shuttles/rockets etc. When I spoke of the affect of a specific object within a specified area and the equilibrium that is inherent-think osmosis.
In the thermosphere, how can something, N2, be hot if it doesn't radiate, absorb or emit IR radiation? There is only radiation in space.
The thermosphere is heated by the high energy radiation such as UV and X-rays which contain enough energy to both break the bonds of the N2 molecules and to give them additional kinetic energy.
I like all your videos becuase its clear and the language also hearable if you can please upload a video for how calculate temperature trend in the troposphere by using multiple linear regression. thank you
You're welcome!
Wow, excellent
Thank you. Glad you liked it. 🙂
When Ozone is only in the lower 1/3rd of the stratosphere, why the temperature keeps increasing in the top 2/3rd of it?
The ozone layer can be found from about 15 km above the surface of the Earth to about 35 km above the surface of the Earth, which means that it is distributed throughout a significant portion of the stratosphere.
Hi. I have a question about moving of protoplanetary disk from earth point of view. that if we look at east the disk is moving from northeast to southeast and crosses the east twice in 24 hours. what is this called and why is it like this?
thank you very much Sir.
Could you expand more on why we don't get burned in the thermosphere given its temperature? Thank you so much!
We don't get burned, because the density of molecules is so much less. The heat loss through radiation is much greater than the heat gain from the few air molecules that would hit us.
The thermosphere will disintegrate anything passing through. This guy^^^ lmao
@@MichelvanBiezenI’m sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you have a video explaining this? Maybe some video showing that things don’t burn at 2000 C as long as there are less molecules?
This is just the BEAST, encounter almost everything
how do we have gas pressure (the earths atmosphere) next to a vacuum (space) when you can't have gas pressure with out a container? This is the argument of many flat earthers but its a valid question that I see no answer for.
For the same reason that water in a swimming pool doesn't go floating into the air. The force of gravity keeps the water in the pool. The force of gravity keeps the air pushed down towards the surface of the Earth. On planets that are too small with gravity that is too small, the atmosphere does indeed float into space, like it does on Mercury. Just like a ball thrown into the air, it will eventually come back down. A atmospheric molecule moving upward will eventually stop and fall back to Earth, if it didn't collide with another molecule.
Loved it
Sir Please explain why mesosphere donot absorbe energy.....🙏🏼
I don't think we should say that the mesosphere does not absorb energy, since there are a lot of different sources of energy. The mesosphere does not absorb the high energy forms of energy reaching the Earth, except for just a small amount of it and the mesosphere essentially does not contain any water vapor which vastly reduces its ability to absorb a number of wavelengths.
Thank you Sir...😃
Sir One more dought...
We know carbon dioxide molecule plays major role in global warming but it also radiate sunlight in mesosphere so that it is a cool sphere.
Is it right concept or wrong? Plz explain...🙏🏼
The natural frequencies of CO2 do not match up well with the frequencies of the incoming solar energy. It matches the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth's surface better. However CO2 has essentially absorbed almost all of the IR energy from the Earth and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should scientifically not have a large impact on global temperatures. The empirical weatherstation data appears to support that concept.
Personally, I thought that it would be more helpful if the explanation for the temperature gradients were explained from the thermosphere to the troposphere and not the other way around - it is easier for me to envision that EMR absorption causes a reduction in temperature as the EMR incrementally penetrates the various layers of the atmosphere. Given that the temperature gradient of the troposphere is clear evidence that the "positive" temperature gradient (from source to sink) corresponds to reflection and reradiation from the Earth's surface, I am very interested to learn what the stimulus is for the "positive" temperature gradient in the Mesosphere - is there something going on in the Stratopause to explain this?
The temperature gradient of the mesosphere is negative
This really helped😊
Glad it helped!
great explain
How can I calculate tropopause parameter like cold point tropopause height, cold point tropopause temperature and lapse rate tropopause at agiven data?
These are determined by observation using weather balloons and other means.
@@MichelvanBiezen how is it?
Not sure what you mean by "how is it", since I don't know what "it" refers to.
@@MichelvanBiezen is that simply draw weather ballon data and observing it?
Yes, it is that straight forward. I believe you can probably find some sites on the internet where this data would be available.
Thanks alot professor
You are welcome
Please also explain that how the temperature of the troposphere decreases with altitude.
Space is a very cold place (just a few degrees above absolute zero. Since the Earth radiates the heat it received from the Sun into space it stands to reason that as you get closer and closer to space more of the heat has radiated in that direction cooling the molecules of the atmosphere. Thus the higher you go, the cooler it becomes
Thanks for explaining
Great explanation...
Why is there no water in the stratosphere?
Water vapor is not a gas and therefore it does not become a part of our atmosphere (such as the other atmospheric gases) and instead displaces the atmosphere. Water vapor enters our atmosphere primarily through the evaporation of our oceans, lakes, and rivers, and is pushed higher through convection currents. The ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor, diminishes with drops in temperature, thus the higher you go, the colder it becomes and the less moisture the atmosphere can hold. The water vapor will condense into droplets and will then drop down in the atmosphere. (There is some water vapor in the stratosphere, but it resides primarily in the lower regions of the stratosphere). This is particularly true in the polar regions and when very tall thunderstorms reach into the stratosphere.
thanks a lot
thank fella, top bloke
watching in 2021 from india
Welcome to the channel!
This is excellent
Great episode! Thank you!
Great explanation sir
Why temperature is constant at tropopause?
The temperature will go up when more energy is received than is expelled. The temperature will go down when less energy is received than expelled. The temperature will continue to change until heat in equals heat out. At the tropopause that energy balance extends for a small distance.
Thank you sir.
why is the Percentage of Oxygen is less than nitrogen in the troposphere?
We need affirmative action for elements?
Nice, there is a Flat Earth movement with people asking what materials have the ISS to resist the "high temperatures" of the Thermosphere (Ionosphere), very funny people
th-cam.com/video/IDBBUwdyz4I/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/16MMZJlp_0Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/g2f4pc2JgHI/w-d-xo.html
It increases temperature in atmosphere.
That was interesting how you would still feel cold at 2000 C due to the heat being radiated into space.
It's not that the closeness of space is taking away your heat faster.
You are radiating your heat as per usual, but the air in the thermosphere, despite being so hot, is so thinned out that the contact of those air molecules with your body will be only occasional - the heat transfer from air to your body is almost non-existent. Meaning, you radiate your heat away and can't get it back from the air, like we can here on the ground, where the air is much more dense, and the heat transfer takes place with great efficiency.
what about 500 km.... iss
What is the question?
So what your saying is we never went to the moon
I don't think that is what I said.
Very good explaination .Appreciate it
Who a satellite 🛰 can work 🤔 there? Is not to hot? 🤨🤨🤨🤔
No, because the atmosphere is so thin at that altitude that it doesn't "feel" hot.
@@MichelvanBiezen what do you mean thin? 🤔 98km..or 86 km..? That is not thin..🤨 do you know you can melt iron 1500 temperature? So how a solar panel can work there? And the rest of the structure of the Statelite? In order tho have credibility in your explanation we need to know what is thin,the materials of the equipment to🤔🤔🤔🤔🤨 2000c and 1500c is to mucho for a Statelite moving al the time in a 85km of heat space? 🤨 just the solar panel get melt in seconds.. even if is 10 more resistance 🤔.........I mean where does the heat start to the exosphere
thin = very rarefied = the atmoshperic pressure is very low (A translation of my native language).
@@MichelvanBiezen with all respect 🙂 is something rare ,considering the satellite material and its position in the thermosphere is hard for me belive in nasa for obvious reasons, thanks 🙂
I respect your work of course 🙂 but thinks like this are very rare for me, I don t trust to much in our 📚 s (NASA) thanks for your time🙂🙂🙂
You did not speak about the thermosphere.
The thermosphere and the ionosphere overlap. (The names are used interchangeably).
Donate $1000
No explication is given for molecular friction absorption of heat, through the atomic bombardment, which is greatly reduced by our atmosphere the closer you get to the earth's surface, so we can live fairly comfortably here apon earth. (BUT THERE IS NO BARRIER IN SPACE) Nor any explication is given of the acumalative effect of solar radiation and photon colition, through molecular convection of objects and their accumulative absorption of heat transference, which is what leads to objects in space reaching such vast temperatures, as they can also reach quite high temperatures here upon earth, where during WW-2 dessert troops could fry eggs upon the outer casing of their tanks. The absorption is according to their atomic mass and their metalic periodic scale. So the jury is still out as to whether mankind has been into true space, or even to the moon? Because the temps are for most metalic objects used by NASA, already way past their melting points. Look up degrees of heat for periodic table metals and their melting (liqufying) points. Because I did a science degree in astrophysics and metalergy, for my chosen profession back in 1973, is why I remain a sceptic of NASA. Not through ignorance but through the proven science and its laws, that also dictate what even NASA can achieve in reality and what they cannot.
wow....i love this comment
So basically...weve never left low earth orbit. 😒
Not sure why you would draw that conclusion from this video? 🙂