Death from above? Satellites could deplete ozone levels, research finds

[zohaibahd]

Why it matters: As companies rush to launch mega-constellations of internet satellites, the traffic jam in low Earth orbit is getting ridiculous. And it turns out all those satellites burning up in the atmosphere on re-entry could have an unfortunate side effect down here on Earth: depleting the ozone layer that protects us from harmful UV radiation.

That's the alarming finding from a new study by researchers from the University of Southern California. According to their models, the main byproduct created when satellites incinerate in the atmosphere is aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which can remain in the atmosphere for decades. Those particles could be catalysts for chemical reactions that destroy ozone molecules.

The Montreal Protocol back in 1987 successfully phased out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons and seemed to get the hole in the ozone layer under control. But that achievement could be undone if we keep launching satellites at an ever-increasing pace.

In 2022, an estimated 17 metric tons of aluminum oxide rained down into the upper atmosphere from decaying satellites – a 29.5% spike above normal levels, according to the research. That may not sound like much, but this was just the start.

If we eventually get the full mega-constellations proposed by companies like Starlink, Hughes, Amazon, and others, the models suggest over 360 metric tons per year of aluminum oxide could be injected into the stratosphere at reentry. That's enough extra particulate to deplete ozone levels again.

"We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere," notes the study.

However, not everyone agrees with this research. Daniel Cziczo at Purdue University has some issues with the methodology used, telling The New York Times that it may overstate the magnitude of the problem "by applying the incorrect size, composition, and chemistry to the particles that exist in the atmosphere." But he agrees this is an area ripe for further study.

For now, the regulatory bodies that oversee the space industry are only just starting to wrap their heads around these potential environmental impacts. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space published sustainability guidelines calling for regulation in 2019. And the FCC only approved 7,500 of SpaceX's planned satellites in 2022, out of the planned 30,000.

A big unknown is whether the Montreal Protocol could be expanded to cap satellite-sourced particulates, in addition to the ozone-depleting gases it already regulates. For now, atmospheric scientists can only model worst-case scenarios as mega-constellations continue to grow.

Permalink to story:

Death from above? Satellites could deplete ozone levels, research finds

 

[mammoth30]

Funny how we always find more elaborate ways of destroying ourselves....

 

[Vulcanproject]

The most dangerous man in the 20th century arguably was Thomas Midgley Jr. who developed commercial CFCs.

Freon nearly destroyed the ozone layer. It was lucky it was detected in time. Another 30 or 40 years of using it could have killed most life on Earth. Radiation scorching plant life, crops, then widespread starvation for animals. If we didn't have the technology and people to discover the problem in the 1970s by this decade it would have been obliterated.

It was so serious that everybody signed and ratified The Montreal Protocol. Even the likes of North Korea.

Oh and he also made millions and millions of people several IQ points dumber by poisoning the atmosphere with lead. He invented leaded gasoline and pushed it commercially even when he knew full well it was dangerous and highly persistent, still easily detectible today.

Great.

 

[Starfals]

At least we will have a killer internet. Literally? I'm sure the rocks will enjoy it when we are all gone. That is... if the satellites don't need help from humans to stay in space, and of course... if the rocks learn how to use computers.

Who knows, perhaps we are pushing AI so hard and often nowadays, cus we won't be around forever. We know that one way or another, we will doom us all. Nukes, ozone, wars, poisons, viruses, AI (pick ur other poison here) Someone gotta stay here and tell the stories of the suicide species that created them. I just hope they don't think of us as dum dums. Have a little respect for your drunk parents.

 

[bandit8623]

The most dangerous man in the 20th century arguably was Thomas Midgley Jr. who developed commercial CFCs.

Freon nearly destroyed the ozone layer. It was lucky it was detected in time. Another 30 or 40 years of using it could have killed most life on Earth. Radiation scorching plant life, crops, then widespread starvation for animals. If we didn't have the technology and people to discover the problem in the 1970s by this decade it would have been obliterated.

It was so serious that everybody signed and ratified The Montreal Protocol. Even the likes of North Korea.

Oh and he also made millions and millions of people several IQ points dumber by poisoning the atmosphere with lead. He invented leaded gasoline and pushed it commercially even when he knew full well it was dangerous and highly persistent, still easily detectible today.

Great.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ozone-the-hole-truth

 

[p51d007]

Well it's OBVIOUS what they need to do. Deploy satellites to capture the satellites and shoot them into the sun. LOL

 

[Durch]

Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to the daily rocket bombardments due to multiple wars ongoing that causes more damage. However wars create $$$, while Satellites not so much, so let's just kick the can down the road and leave it to our children and grandchildren to deal with, much like the previous generations before us did with our economy by voting in the same money grabbing politicians for decades.

 

[Manu Arg]

Well it's OBVIOUS what they need to do. Deploy satellites to capture the satellites and shoot them into the sun. LOL

Some sort of garbage truck financed by all the companies that have satellites

 

[Vomit]

Satalite tax coming from this very soon?

 

[Vulcanproject]

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ozone-the-hole-truth

Let's believe the lawyer lobbyist with an agenda and not the scientists

 

[thehacker]

Meanwhile pyscho Elon launching 42000 satelites into the orbit for Starlink to provide us with Internet which we already have.

 

[Mister_K]

Meanwhile pyscho Elon launching 42000 satelites into the orbit for Starlink to provide us with Internet which we already have.

Well this is a facepalm comment. Yes Starlink is good and required in many parts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world...

 

[thehacker]

Well this is a facepalm comment. Yes Starlink is good and required in many parts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world...

There are better and lesser intrusive way of doing this. And those remote parts of the world are living happily without TikTok and reels than internet saturated areas btw.

 

[mgwerner]

The most dangerous man in the 20th century arguably was Thomas Midgley Jr. who developed commercial CFCs.

Freon nearly destroyed the ozone layer. It was lucky it was detected in time. Another 30 or 40 years of using it could have killed most life on Earth. Radiation scorching plant life, crops, then widespread starvation for animals. If we didn't have the technology and people to discover the problem in the 1970s by this decade it would have been obliterated.

It was so serious that everybody signed and ratified The Montreal Protocol. Even the likes of North Korea.

Oh and he also made millions and millions of people several IQ points dumber by poisoning the atmosphere with lead. He invented leaded gasoline and pushed it commercially even when he knew full well it was dangerous and highly persistent, still easily detectible today.

Great.

He also invented a system of pulleys and ropes to allow him to get out of bed by himself after contracting polio. Got tangled up in it one day and strangled himself to death. Poetic justice?

 

[ThomasTECH]

Wherever there is someone making a dime there is a issue with the environment forcing extreme regulation. Like sharks to a fresh kill.

 

[Endymio]

The most dangerous man in the 20th century arguably was Thomas Midgley Jr. who developed commercial CFCs.

Freon nearly destroyed the ozone layer. It was lucky it was detected in time. Another 30 or 40 years of using it could have killed most life on Earth.

All you need is a long gray beard, dirty white robe, and a megaphone, and you're set for any street corner.

The ozone "hole" (which was never a hole in the first place) existed long before man began creating CFCs and -- defying all the model predictions of the 1980s and 90s -- is persisting, even as stratospheric Cl levels decline. And, as just one of the countless problems with this doomsayer hypothesis, ozone is itself created continually in vast quantities by the sun's UV radiation. Any process that depletes ozone is thus naturally negative-reinforcing --- the reduction in ozone atmospheric O2 to higher levels of UV, which in turns creates more ozone itself. QED.

 

[p51d007]

Some sort of garbage truck financed by all the companies that have satellites

LOL, been there, done that in 1979...Andy Griffith..."Salvage 1".
Salvage 1

 

[Vulcanproject]

All you need is a long gray beard, dirty white robe, and a megaphone, and you're set for any street corner.

The ozone "hole" (which was never a hole in the first place) existed long before man began creating CFCs and -- defying all the model predictions of the 1980s and 90s -- is persisting, even as stratospheric Cl levels decline. And, as just one of the countless problems with this doomsayer hypothesis, ozone is itself created continually in vast quantities by the sun's UV radiation. Any process that depletes ozone is thus naturally negative-reinforcing --- the reduction in ozone atmospheric O2 to higher levels of UV, which in turns creates more ozone itself. QED.

Ugly post that denies the science. I would ask what you think of climate change but I'm sure you have dollars elsewhere that conflict with the science too.

 

[bandit8623]

Let's believe the lawyer lobbyist with an agenda and not the scientists

Why were levels decreasing then even before the accord... Science likes facts. You can look them up Mr scientist

 

[Endymio]

Ugly post that denies the science.

It's amusing that someone claiming air conditioners nearly "ended all life on earth" wishes to shroud himself in science. In addition to the facts in my first post, I'll add another: UV exposure increases some 10% every 1000m increase in altitude. Even were the ozone layer to magically vanish overnight, it would increase UV levels at the surface less than those in the upper areas of the Andes Altiplano. Yet the people and animals living there aren't all dying from "radiation burns".

But of course, the ozone layer can't "disappear". Ozone is created by UV. The more UV the upper stratosphere allows through, the more that is created in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. And let's not forget that ozone is merely one of many gases that absorb UV -- water vapor is especially good at it as well. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little

 

[Vulcanproject]

It's amusing that someone claiming air conditioners nearly "ended all life on earth" wishes to shroud himself in science. In addition to the facts in my first post, I'll add another: UV exposure increases some 10% every 1000m increase in altitude. Even were the ozone layer to magically vanish overnight, it would increase UV levels at the surface less than those in the upper areas of the Andes Altiplano. Yet the people and animals living there aren't all dying from "radiation burns".

But of course, the ozone layer can't "disappear". Ozone is created by UV. The more UV the upper stratosphere allows through, the more that is created in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. And let's not forget that ozone is merely one of many gases that absorb UV -- water vapor is especially good at it as well. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little

Why were levels decreasing then even before the accord... Science likes facts. You can look them up Mr scientist

This is what happens when you get a global multinational consensus from the world's most renowned climate scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying decades of carefully collected data. On such matters as well documented ozone depletion in this instance.

Unfortunately, internet forums exist. So there are always inexpert egomaniacs who think that discussing a couple of throwaway points in a totally inadequate format makes them critically insightful. Versus the collective peer reviewed studies of Nobel prize winning experts.

Tell me why I should bother listening to you? I nearly didn't reply because I care so little about a random's opinion who simply most likely just has an agenda born of disingenuous interpretation.

If your argument is so compelling you need to be contacting NASA or the ESA who have had multiple satellites and a long history of models that focus on the ozone layer. Not attempting to score points against me in a forum like this.

They await your call. I'm sure they won't hang up on you too quickly.

 

[Endymio]

Tell me why I should bother listening to you?

Because my facts are true and easily verified.

This is what happens when you get a global multinational consensus from the world's most renowned climate scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying decades of carefully collected data.

A classic "appeal to authority" fallacy. It's actually a double fallacy, as not are you asking us to trust to opinions rather than facts and data, but to an opinion that never existed. There was never any "global consensus from renowned scientists" that CFCs would lead to the "the end of most life on earth".

There was, though, a belief that CFC usage might elevate ground UV levels to the point humans would see an increase in skin cancer rates. This is quite possibly true. However, to add a few caveats, I'll add what we've learned since:

1. Most skin cancers are caused by UVA, which the ozone layer doesn't block. It's a much more penetrating wavelength than UVB and UVC.
2. The most dangerous forms of skin cancer (melanoma, etc.) appear to not be caused by UV exposure. The types caused by UV (squamous cell, etc) are all almost 100% treatable.

Increased ground levels of UVB/UVC might cause a rise in cases of cataracts and other corneal disorders. But, in even the worst "ozone hole" scenarios, the increased exposure is less than one would receive by moving from a city like NYC to one closer to the equator like Miami. And, of course, the ultimate hypocrisy was the ozone-hole hysteria occurred during a period in which most Americans and Europeans were experiencing a sunbathing craze, intentionally exposing themselves on beaches (and tanning beds) to far, far more excess UV than any ozone hole would ever subject them to.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Because my facts are true and easily verified.

In peer reviewed studies where simulations have been performed between NASA, John Hopkins, MIT etc of a world with unrestricted CFC usage there are projections into the late middle of this century. They corroborate near total ozone depletion over the tropics, similar to that observed over Antarctica.

But of course, the ozone layer can't "disappear".

So this is an unfortunate claim. In such a projected scenario the UV index at ground level mid latitudes in the summer are ridiculous. You would expect considerably increased rates of skin cancer at a minimum. Of course humans love to forget everything else on the planet.

There is an over 500 percent increase in DNA damaging UV. It's extreme. Animals burn, plants that usually can adapt to varying levels of UVB as we know it today also burn. On land and yes, some in the sea. Research of modest UVB increases on agricultural crops yielded rather alarming negative results for at least half the varieties, let alone for the extreme projected UVB scenario. There are significant changes in temperature with presumed domino effects for the climate, perhaps the most overlooked factor. There is no respite. This is not a planet anyone wants to live on.

Now, if you can point to a peer reviewed study where your claims that everybody just gets a nice tan, a straightforward drive through visit to the hospital to treat their cancers and a few more cataracts but essentially it's business as usual: this is your opportunity. Otherwise I do genuinely have better things to do.

 

[Endymio]

In peer reviewed studies where simulations have been performed....

A "simulation" isn't the real world. Given a computer model with hundreds of parameters, you can tune them to achieve any output you want. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, the real-world data is different:

"...A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that, "since 1991, the [downward] trend during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …" However, the same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing through 1998. This lends credence to the skeptical view [that] natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer."

That report from was from 2007. Here's an updated study from 2023 showing this:

"...atmospheric abundances and emissions of five CFCs increased between 2010 and 2020, contrary to the goals of the [Montreal Protocol] phase-out...."

Global increase of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons from 2010 to 2020 - Nature Geoscience

Levels of five chlorofluorocarbons rose in the atmosphere from 2010 to 2020 despite their production being banned by the Montreal Protocol, probably arising as by-products of hydrofluorocarbon production, according to analysis of abundance and emissions data.

www.nature.com

So essentially we've seen a continual increase in stratospheric CFCs from 1940 up to the present era. Yet where's the resultant catastrophe? The Antarctic ozone hole of 2019 was one of the smallest on record, while 2021 was one of the largest on record. And with modern satellite monitoring, we've seen many cases where atmospheric ozone increases or drops by 10% or even 20% in 24 hours. Sure sounds like natural variation, eh?

Most importantly, we've seen zero increase in ground UV levels.

"...the feared increase in ground level UVB radiation has also failed to materialize ... Further, no ecosystem or species was ever shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. This is true even in Antarctica, where the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, occur annually. Also forgotten is a long list of truly ridiculous claims, such as the one from Al Gore's 1992 book "Earth in the Balance "that, thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, "hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon."....

 

[Endymio]

There is an over 500 percent increase in DNA damaging UV.

Sure -- if the ozone layer vanished entirely. I already said that. But move from Stockholm to Miami and you'll see the same 500% increase in UV. Move from already-high Miami to the upper Altiplano of the Andes, and you'll see another 500% increase.

Or stay in the city you're already in, but spend more time outdoors instead. Most people get about an hour a day's solar exposure ... but workers with outdoor professions regularly get 9 or 10 times that. That's a 1,000% increase. Even those people who farm 10+ hours outdoors in a high-UV region like the Altiplano (and thus get 10,000% the UV dose as your average New Yorker) aren't keeling over from radiation burns and malignant skin cancers.

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.