<p>All those categories (not 'models') answer different questions about properties of the atmosphere, and they can be simultaneously valid for the same altitude of atmosphere.</p>
<p>As example, the category of homosphere/heterosphere separates atmospheric layers by their state of mixing, at around ~100km (coincidentally, but not physically linked to the Karman line). Below 100 km, in the homosphere, atmospheric gas is homogeneously mixed. Above 100 km, in the heterosphere, atmospheric constituents separate according to their weight, as mixing is inefficient there.</p>
<p>At the same time, the troposphere/stratosphere,mesosphere, which categorize the atmosphere according to their temperature gradients, all exist within the homosphere.</p>
<p>There are other properties that you can ask about, giving rise to other layers: &quot;How ionized is the gas&quot;? This gives us the layers of the neutral atmosphere and the ionosphere.
&quot;How collisional is the gas?&quot; This gives us the layers of the Exosphere and the collisional atmosphere below (note that the Exobase is not a measure of temperature gradient, although it is often thrown in with the temperature gradient layerings).</p>
<p>It makes sense to distinguish between all those different layers and categories, because each one informs about one piece of physics being active/or inactive.
E.g. the ionospheric gas, being charged, reacts to the Earth's magnetic field. Whereas the neutral gas doesn't care about the magnetic field.</p>
<p>So really, making up new categories, or challenging pre-existing categories doesn't make sense, because they are tied to the physics of the atmosphere, which is by now well understood.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T18:29:23.263Z
2024-10-29T18:29:23.263Z
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<p>The one model to rule them all is the navier stokes equation, which is the balance of momentum in a continuum.</p>
<p>Since that equation is analytically intractable and numerically impractical, modelers of the atmosphere will simplify that equation based on scaling. For example, the general circulation is the 'geographically longest (&gt;220km) and temporally longest (&gt;24hrs)' scale and balances pressure gradient and rotation. Similarly, there is a balance (ie model) in smaller scales and under different conditions. All physics solutions for geophysical fluid dynamics are built on (1) momentum balance (2) equation of state and (3) conservation of mass. Yes, there are different balances that are by definition &quot;models&quot;.</p>
<p><strong>To answer your question, YES there are alternative 'statistical' models that are completely independent of physics.</strong> This was how El Nino was discovered in the ocean. It was observed statistically with Empirical Orthogonal Functions, with no underlying oceanic mechanisms for input.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T11:51:58.253Z
Judging from the comments, that's not what OP is asking about.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:25:13.603Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape Judging from the comments, the OP doesnt know what hes asking about. "Your model is whatever you want because it works for you" seems rude and unhelpful by comparison. It irks me to google a question, arrive here, and find an incomplete unhelpful answer built for someone whos question is correct and constructive merely by accident.
user156207
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:43:34.203Z
I agree that OP is suffering from a confusion of what 'model' means and from throwing various different meanings together, but so do you - an empirical correlation is not a model. A model is an explanatory physical construct with predictive power (i.e. you're getting more information out than you put in, otherwise you've explained nothing.) OP is asking about categories or concepts, while using the language of models, and mixing this up with some 'alternative medicine' type thinking.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:48:03.800Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape You are wrong. There is no requirement that models are numerical or physical. The sky is blue. That is a model. I dont really like the way you talk so i think we are done here.
user156207
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T15:08:53.250Z
@mmt10 There is similarly no requirement that models are correct. This community is really quite arrogant and hostile. Particularly in topics they clearly have very weak grasp of. If you cant understand that "the sky is blue" functions perfectly as a model, then i dont know what else i can do for you.
user156207
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T15:25:25.383Z
@mmt10 I have a crushed dr pepper can on my desk. if i say "this crushed dr pepper can represents the atmosphere", thats a model. a model is like an object in python. a model is whatever you want it to be. the ability to falsify or its precision has absolutely nothing, and i mean nothing to do with it. is F = ma also not easily falsified and imprecise? is a paper map of st louis not easily falsified and imprecise? i feel like this is just a argument on semantics.
user156207
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T20:29:12.007Z
2024-10-29T20:29:12.007Z
user156207
<p>I am not a scientist but you scientists know well that in science there could be different models or methods associated with a given term:</p>
<ul>
<li>Alternative mathematical notations.</li>
<li>Alternative number methods (binary, decimal, etc.).</li>
<li>Alternative metric systems.</li>
<li>Alternative formal logic models.</li>
<li>Alternative this and alternative that, etc.</li>
</ul>
<p>Is the standard model of the following layers of Earth's atmosphere (at least as I understand it), have been contested or that at least one scientist suggests an alternative model or parcellation?</p>
<ol>
<li>Troposphere</li>
<li>Tropopause</li>
<li>Stratosphere (including the Ozon Layer)</li>
<li>Stratopause</li>
<li>Mesosphere</li>
<li>Mesopause</li>
<li>Mesopause — Karman Line medium</li>
<li>Karman Line</li>
<li>Thermosphere</li>
<li>Exobase</li>
<li>Exosphere</li>
</ol>
<p>The model I ask if exists won't necessarily have a different number of layers or a different height (approximately 10,000 km above sea level), but it will at least have different names (perhaps a bit more verbose and self explanatory names).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T14:27:32.073Z
There is not one single widely used model of the atmosphere. Every major weather / atmospheric modeling agency has their own model of the atmosphere. (In fact, multiple models per agency, for different levels of fidelity.) Do they compare and contrast? Absolutely. This is intentional. Do they share the detailed codes for their models? Not really; this too is intentional. If everyone used the same model that would be a bad thing.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T14:51:26.743Z
That said, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center does have a public source atmospheric model that is used for spacecraft launches and reentries. It is called the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM, for short). Here's a [link](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110012696).
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T15:03:36.357Z
I don't think this question is asking about numerical atmospheric models.  Instead it is asking about the structural representation of the atmosphere.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T16:26:09.047Z
I agree with @f.thorpe about the meaning of the question. Like for the internal structure of the Earth, the layering is different depending if you look at the mechanical properties (lithosphere, asthenosphere...) or at the chemical composition (crust, mantle...). I think the OP is looking for another way to part the atmosphere in layers.
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-29T16:34:33.560Z
@f.thorpe you got me right !
not_a_scientist
<atmosphere><terminology>
Is there an alternative model of the Earth's atmosphere?
not_a_scientist
# Is there an alternative model of the Earth's atmosphere?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-29)

I am username_0 but you scientists know well that in science there could be different models or methods associated with a given term:

* Alternative mathematical notations.
* Alternative number methods (binary, decimal, etc.).
* Alternative metric systems.
* Alternative formal logic models.
* Alternative this and alternative that, etc.

Is the standard model of the following layers of Earth's atmosphere (at least as I understand it), have been contested or that at least one scientist suggests an alternative model or parcellation?

1. Troposphere
2. Tropopause
3. Stratosphere (including the Ozon Layer)
4. Stratopause
5. Mesosphere
6. Mesopause
7. Mesopause — Karman Line medium
8. Karman Line
9. Thermosphere
10. Exobase
11. Exosphere

The model I ask if exists won't necessarily have a different number of layers or a different height (approximately 10,000 km above sea level), but it will at least have different names (perhaps a bit more verbose and self explanatory names).

**Tags:** atmosphere, terminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There is not one single widely used model of the atmosphere. Every major weather / atmospheric modeling agency has their own model of the atmosphere. (In fact, multiple models per agency, for different levels of fidelity.) Do they compare and contrast? Absolutely. This is intentional. Do they share the detailed codes for their models? Not really; this too is intentional. If everyone used the same model that would be a bad thing.  
> **username_1**: That said, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center does have a public source atmospheric model that is used for spacecraft launches and reentries. It is called the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM, for short). Here's a [link](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110012696).  
> **username_2**: I don't think this question is asking about numerical atmospheric models.  Instead it is asking about the structural representation of the atmosphere.  
> **username_3**: I agree with @username_2 about the meaning of the question. Like for the internal structure of the Earth, the layering is different depending if you look at the mechanical properties (lithosphere, asthenosphere...) or at the chemical composition (crust, mantle...). I think the OP is looking for another way to part the atmosphere in layers.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 you got me right !  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-10-29. Score: 10

All those categories (not 'models') answer different questions about properties of the atmosphere, and they can be simultaneously valid for the same altitude of atmosphere.

As example, the category of homosphere/heterosphere separates atmospheric layers by their state of mixing, at around ~100km (coincidentally, but not physically linked to the Karman line). Below 100 km, in the homosphere, atmospheric gas is homogeneously mixed. Above 100 km, in the heterosphere, atmospheric constituents separate according to their weight, as mixing is inefficient there.

At the same time, the troposphere/stratosphere,mesosphere, which categorize the atmosphere according to their temperature gradients, all exist within the homosphere.

There are other properties that you can ask about, giving rise to other layers: "How ionized is the gas"? This gives us the layers of the neutral atmosphere and the ionosphere.
"How collisional is the gas?" This gives us the layers of the Exosphere and the collisional atmosphere below (note that the Exobase is not a measure of temperature gradient, although it is often thrown in with the temperature gradient layerings).

It makes sense to distinguish between all those different layers and categories, because each one informs about one piece of physics being active/or inactive.
E.g. the ionospheric gas, being charged, reacts to the Earth's magnetic field. Whereas the neutral gas doesn't care about the magnetic field.

So really, making up new categories, or challenging pre-existing categories doesn't make sense, because they are tied to the physics of the atmosphere, which is by now well understood.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2024-10-29. Score: -2

The one model to rule them all is the navier stokes equation, which is the balance of momentum in a continuum.

Since that equation is analytically intractable and numerically impractical, modelers of the atmosphere will simplify that equation based on scaling. For example, the general circulation is the 'geographically longest (>220km) and temporally longest (>24hrs)' scale and balances pressure gradient and rotation. Similarly, there is a balance (ie model) in smaller scales and under different conditions. All physics solutions for geophysical fluid dynamics are built on (1) momentum balance (2) equation of state and (3) conservation of mass. Yes, there are different balances that are by definition "models".

**To answer your question, YES there are alternative 'statistical' models that are completely independent of physics.** This was how El Nino was discovered in the ocean. It was observed statistically with Empirical Orthogonal Functions, with no underlying oceanic mechanisms for input.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Judging from the comments, that's not what OP is asking about.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 Judging from the comments, the OP doesnt know what hes asking about. "Your model is whatever you want because it works for you" seems rude and unhelpful by comparison. It irks me to google a question, arrive here, and find an incomplete unhelpful answer built for someone whos question is correct and constructive merely by accident.  
> **username_4**: I agree that OP is suffering from a confusion of what 'model' means and from throwing various different meanings together, but so do you - an empirical correlation is not a model. A model is an explanatory physical construct with predictive power (i.e. you're getting more information out than you put in, otherwise you've explained nothing.) OP is asking about categories or concepts, while using the language of models, and mixing this up with some 'alternative medicine' type thinking.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 You are wrong. There is no requirement that models are numerical or physical. The sky is blue. That is a model. I dont really like the way you talk so i think we are done here.  
> **username_5**: @mmt10 There is similarly no requirement that models are correct. This community is really quite arrogant and hostile. Particularly in topics they clearly have very weak grasp of. If you cant understand that "the sky is blue" functions perfectly as a model, then i dont know what else i can do for you.  
> **username_5**: @mmt10 I have a crushed dr pepper can on my desk. if i say "this crushed dr pepper can represents the atmosphere", thats a model. a model is like an object in python. a model is whatever you want it to be. the ability to falsify or its precision has absolutely nothing, and i mean nothing to do with it. is F = ma also not easily falsified and imprecise? is a paper map of st louis not easily falsified and imprecise? i feel like this is just a argument on semantics.  

---

