Dying Satellites Can Drive Climate Change and Ozone Depletion, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 36
There's 9,000 satellites circling the earth, the Guardian points out, with projections over over 60,000 by 2040.
But "A new study shows that the emissions from expired satellites, as they fall to Earth and burn up, will be significant in future years, with implications for ozone hole recovery and climate." Most old satellites are disposed of by reducing their altitude and letting them burn up as they fall, releasing pollution into Earth's atmosphere such as aerosolised aluminium. To understand the impact of these growing emissions from expired satellites, researchers simulated the effects associated with an annual release of 10,000 tonnes of aluminium oxide by 2040 (the amount estimated to be released from disposal of 3,000 satellites a year, assuming a fleet of 60,000 satellites).
The results, which are published in Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, show that the re-entry material will accumulate at high latitudes and could result in temperature anomalies of up to 1.5C in the middle to upper atmosphere, reduction of wind speeds and ozone depletion, which could jeopardise ozone hole recovery.
"At present, impacts on the middle and the upper atmosphere are small," the researchers write, "but have the potential to increase." They argue that "to shed light upon the potential climate impacts of increased satellite reentry," an "expanded effort, including observations and modeling is needed."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article.
But "A new study shows that the emissions from expired satellites, as they fall to Earth and burn up, will be significant in future years, with implications for ozone hole recovery and climate." Most old satellites are disposed of by reducing their altitude and letting them burn up as they fall, releasing pollution into Earth's atmosphere such as aerosolised aluminium. To understand the impact of these growing emissions from expired satellites, researchers simulated the effects associated with an annual release of 10,000 tonnes of aluminium oxide by 2040 (the amount estimated to be released from disposal of 3,000 satellites a year, assuming a fleet of 60,000 satellites).
The results, which are published in Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, show that the re-entry material will accumulate at high latitudes and could result in temperature anomalies of up to 1.5C in the middle to upper atmosphere, reduction of wind speeds and ozone depletion, which could jeopardise ozone hole recovery.
"At present, impacts on the middle and the upper atmosphere are small," the researchers write, "but have the potential to increase." They argue that "to shed light upon the potential climate impacts of increased satellite reentry," an "expanded effort, including observations and modeling is needed."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article.
Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:1, Informative)
reentering every day, with a total mass input rate that dwarfs whatever is coming in from reentering satellites.
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Link above claims something like 1e6 kg/year.
A typical comm sat in LEO is about 1000 kg.
So the equivalent of 1000 satellites reentering in rocks and metals naturally coming in.
Most satellites' mass is silicon and aluminim. Maybe some steel and the batteries have some heavy metals in them.
My first take is this study is bullshit looking to capitalize on that sweet sw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They argue that "to shed light upon the potential climate impacts of increased satellite reentry," an "expanded effort, including observations and modeling is needed."
Translation: Give us grant money.
Re: (Score:1)
This sounds like a rather consequential phenomenon that warrants further study to me.
So that's not at all how science works (Score:5, Insightful)
So for the record actual scientists of the kind that would be working on this sort of research get paid like crap. Especially relative to their skills and their ability to do math. There are literally thousands of other jobs they could be doing to pay anywhere from 2 to 10 times what they can make off of all that sweet sweet grant money Fox News is always warning you about.
It is so depressing to see so much anti-science bullshit. All because of a handful of oil companies, religious nut jobs, scam artists taking advantage of those religious nut jobs and of course want to be Kings.
I mean Jesus fucking Christ the state of Texas just sued toothpaste manufacturers over fluoride. That's the level we're at now people
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:1)
https://www.univstats.com/sala... [univstats.com]
Idunno dude. 172k for a full professor isn't peanuts.
But of course it's not the salary, it's also having the fate of the staff and postdocs working on your grants that lights a fire in some people's souls.
Scientists are people, they're not any better or any worse than anyone else and they're subject to the same frailties and the same pervese incentives anyone else is.
Do you know any university researchers. For better or worse I know many. The "publish or perish" is quite rea
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this very pro regulation and pro Federal funding stance, we need do more federal funding and some rules changes to dis-incentivize this type of behavior. We should do best to free science from the shackles of force capital competitiveness at the sake of the science.
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:1)
"Federal funding" to university researchers is doled out in individual dribs and drabs to individual scientists who prove their suitability to conduct research worthy of federal funding by spending the first decade and a half of their careers playing these publication and grant writing games as junior members of these little fiefdoms that exist in universities under the name of "Lab" or "Research group" under the charge of one senior researcher (usually a tenure-track faculty).
This siloed structure (a resul
Great firewall? (Score:3)
And Jesus fucking Christ what the hell happened to this website that that nonsense right-wing talking point of money hungry scientists is even a thing?
The US estimated that the China's great firewall employs 50,000 people.
With that assumption, you might reasonably conclude that a few of those 50,000 lurk on slashdot and try to direct the conversation in the comments section. It wouldn't take much, a single person could reasonably read all story posts and watch over the comments section.
Much of the analysis could be done by AI, so that no one has to pay attention... just wait for the AI to pop up an alert, verify by hand, and address the issue.
I would also
Re: Great firewall? (Score:1)
Would that be really necessary given that some people shill for the ccp of their own volition?
Re: (Score:2)
And Jesus fucking Christ what the hell happened to this website that that nonsense right-wing talking point of money hungry scientists is even a thing?
I like science, but that does not mean I am not a realist. Realism and science go quite well together actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: Give us grant money.
Would be nice to know one way or the other.
We've given worse people taxpayer money for worse reasons.
Re:Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:5, Insightful)
Way more meteorite mass definitely. Way more aluminum oxide? Harder to say. Meteorites have aluminum already bound in complex molecules, not big, elemental hunks waiting to oxidize.
I'm not willing to do the research and math.
Re: (Score:2)
Way more meteorite mass definitely.
Meteor. Meteorites are the part that hit the ground and do us the favor of not depositing those chemical components into the atmosphere.
Way more aluminum oxide? Harder to say.
I don't think it's that hard. Meteors have about 10kppm of aluminum, while sats are probably quite a lot closer to 1mppm.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]claims something like 1e6 kg/year.My first take is this study is bullshit looking to capitalize on that sweet sweet environmentalist scaremongering.
Found the satellite denier!
(Even "did his own research" and cited some crackpot conspiracy"-Gate" source...What's next, "Comet Ping Pong Pizza"?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the equivalent of 1000 satellites reentering in rocks and metals naturally coming in.
The article literally says that it's based on an estimate of 3,000 re-entering per year by 2040.
Triple the amount of meteoric input, with a vastly higher concentration of aluminum.
Who knows if their analysis is correct, but any mistakes they made weren't that fucking simple. Read better.
It's sand!! (Re:Climate change!) (Score:1)
Is there nothing it canâ(TM)t do?
It can't account for sand in the air apparently.
The concern is of aluminum oxide in the air as satellites burn up on entering the atmosphere, or at least that is what I gathered from the fine article. Aluminum oxide is a large component of most sand on the surface of Earth. I'm sure sand that's been blown up into the air impacts climate but just how much added sand could their be in the air because of satellites burning up upon entering the atmosphere?
This is a bunch of nonsense. This is either technolog
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the sand exactly, it's where the aluminum oxide actually is located in the stratosphere and higher.
Remember Freon as in R-12? Harmless at ground level, a superb catalyst at decomposing ozone at high altitude. As heavy as it is you wouldn't think it could get up that high, but it did.
Re: (Score:3)
It can be a larger component of some sands, like bauxite sands, but even then, it's dwarfed by silicon dioxide.
I'm supposed to believe that satellites in orbit pose some kind of hazard to Earth's climate?
No, you're supposed to believe that friction disintegration of ~3k sats per year of average mass into the atmosphere will have a measurable impact on the climate, being they'll outmass all meteoric input by a factor of 3, with a vastly higher aluminum content.
This isn't a very extraordinary c
GARBAGE in = GARBAGE out (Score:1)
When a saetellite is built it has crap in it we don't want in our atmo.
But yet it's launched into a decaying (entropy wins) orbis so that no matter what is has on board it willl end up aeorsolized in atmo or swirled in our drink.
If this is a serious problem wheter climactic or toxicologically (and I think it's both) the resolution is to SEND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Our planet is heating up. Republicans are hurting their ears with all those fingers, and the rest of get no say.
FIX IT, A-HOLES. No more launches of
Such studies undermine their own cause (Score:2)
At this point, everything causes global warming/climate change/climate justice.
If everything is at fault then nothing is at fault.
How many ... (Score:2)
Are (Score:2)
>"There's 9,000 satellites circling the earth"
There *are* 9,000, not there "is". Sorry, pet peeve of mine; this misuse of "there's" seems to be expanding exponentially.
I will point out the article (not the summary) is correct: "Right now there are more than 9,000 satellites circumnavigating overhead"
In any case, what they are projecting sounds a bit sensationalistic/alarmist to me. There are meteorites falling to earth all the time.
https://science.nasa.gov/solar... [nasa.gov] : "Scientists estimate that about 48
Re: (Score:2)
Even as the sun slowly sets on this website, it's heartwarming to see that there's still a few grammar pedants posting their objections, just like in the good old days.