4 ms·

I'll refrain my usual snark and just link the same link from the linked article you apparently read. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD

I'll refrain my usual snark and just link the same link from the linked article you apparently read. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD042442 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...

quotemstr 1y ago
So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right, then juxtapose it with overdetermined and badly simulated South polar vortex behavior to create the false impression that these satellites are killing the planet. The real motivation behind pieces like this is personal enmity towards Elon Musk. It could not be more obvious. These people pollute our intellectual commons and degrade whatever remains of their intellectual honesty to run tendentious pieces that let them tell their friends they're sticking it to bad rocket man. Why are NOAA and NASA funding this stuff?
- peterashford 1y ago
  ad hominem
- ecommerceguy 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    > dissipated in the atmosphere...an obvious lie What do you think the word "dissipates" means? Antimatter annihilation? Some other mass to energy conversion? That atoms making up re-entering satellites obviously aren't going to disappear. > Since when did pollution from fires become a controversial topic? "Fires"? This whole discussion is like people with a hatred of religion going around saying we have to abolish the Catholic Church because votive candles produce soot. A study showing that would not motivated by earnest and dispassionate scientific curiosity about the laws of the universe, but by a desire to achieve a political end. The public should fund foundational research, not partisan apologetics.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It's well established these oxides lead to degradation of the ozone layer, are you disputing that fact? “The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth” [1]. Satellites break up around 75 km AGL [2], with most burning up “between 60 and 80 kilometers (37–50 miles)” [3]. So Idk! I don’t think anyone else does—these seem to be novel nanoparticles. We need to study it. If it’s a problem, that’s solvable—carbon composite satellite structuring could use funding. What we can’t do is just assume it’s terrible because items novel because that basically precludes space flight. > Do you always have a meltdown whenever someone brings up something that upsets your worldview? Happy to unflag once this unnecessary bit is removed. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer [2] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_feel_the_burn https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_fe... [3] https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the-Satellite-Air-Pollution-Problem-Here-Are-Four-Promising-Solutions/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the...
- nurettin 1y ago
  A lot of people including you were oblivious to this significant re-entry event until it appeared in the news. So off-hand dismissals and taking this personal will not help your case. Also, since you brought him up, where are the studies of the environmental impact of satellite launches and space debris funded by Elon Musk? Is the argument "planet big satellite small defund NASA"? In that case I'm going with the article.
  - dloy 1y ago
    Are we going to debate him on his argument or only on his character? Shoot the messenger I guess.
    - nurettin 1y ago
      I would like to see the argument, too.
    - AllegedAlec 1y ago
      What character?
- refulgentis 1y ago
  What?

quotemstr 1y ago

So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right, then juxtapose it with overdetermined and badly simulated South polar vortex behavior to create the false impression that these satellites are killing the planet. The real motivation behind pieces like this is personal enmity towards Elon Musk. It could not be more obvious. These people pollute our intellectual commons and degrade whatever remains of their intellectual honesty to run tendentious pieces that let them tell their friends they're sticking it to bad rocket man. Why are NOAA and NASA funding this stuff?

peterashford 1y ago
ad hominem
ecommerceguy 1y ago
[flagged]
- quotemstr 1y ago
  > dissipated in the atmosphere...an obvious lie What do you think the word "dissipates" means? Antimatter annihilation? Some other mass to energy conversion? That atoms making up re-entering satellites obviously aren't going to disappear. > Since when did pollution from fires become a controversial topic? "Fires"? This whole discussion is like people with a hatred of religion going around saying we have to abolish the Catholic Church because votive candles produce soot. A study showing that would not motivated by earnest and dispassionate scientific curiosity about the laws of the universe, but by a desire to achieve a political end. The public should fund foundational research, not partisan apologetics.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It's well established these oxides lead to degradation of the ozone layer, are you disputing that fact? “The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth” [1]. Satellites break up around 75 km AGL [2], with most burning up “between 60 and 80 kilometers (37–50 miles)” [3]. So Idk! I don’t think anyone else does—these seem to be novel nanoparticles. We need to study it. If it’s a problem, that’s solvable—carbon composite satellite structuring could use funding. What we can’t do is just assume it’s terrible because items novel because that basically precludes space flight. > Do you always have a meltdown whenever someone brings up something that upsets your worldview? Happy to unflag once this unnecessary bit is removed. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer [2] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_feel_the_burn https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_fe... [3] https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the-Satellite-Air-Pollution-Problem-Here-Are-Four-Promising-Solutions/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the...
nurettin 1y ago
A lot of people including you were oblivious to this significant re-entry event until it appeared in the news. So off-hand dismissals and taking this personal will not help your case. Also, since you brought him up, where are the studies of the environmental impact of satellite launches and space debris funded by Elon Musk? Is the argument "planet big satellite small defund NASA"? In that case I'm going with the article.
- dloy 1y ago
  Are we going to debate him on his argument or only on his character? Shoot the messenger I guess.
  - nurettin 1y ago
    I would like to see the argument, too.
  - AllegedAlec 1y ago
    What character?
refulgentis 1y ago
What?