You bought that nonsense about reentering satellites destroying the ozone layer, eh? The equivalent of 200+ Starlink satellites in meteors burn up in the earth's atmosphere each day ... and that's been happening for billions of years.
Do those meteors contain aluminium as a primary material which reacts with the atmosphere to create aluminium oxide which catalyses the chlorine ozone reaction to deplete the ozone layer? Oh and does that stay in the atmosphere for decades?
Throwing your straw man into the fire again, I see.
Why not learn science? The primary component of Starlink satellites is aluminum, which is widely present in asteroids. The claims of "ozone depletion" are from the aluminum oxide particles released when the satellites reenter the atmosphere.
Yes. To be precise, it's generally already in oxide form ... but even if it wasn't, superheated aluminum reacts readily with atmospheric oxygen.
Do you believe aluminum oxide from a natural satellite is somehow chemically different than that from an artificial satellite?
More than 100 tons of grain-sized micrometeorites strike the earth each day. I'm surprised you don't already realize this.
Aluminium makes up a tiny fraction of meteors, research shows that 10% of all particles in the stratosphere is aluminium from satellites and all problem metals resulting from satellites exceed that from cosmic dust.
Well, you've embarrassed yourself yet again. There's nothing special about aluminum oxide particles; they don't chemically interact with ozone. Instead they -- and any other similar-sized particles -- catalyze the reaction in an identical manner. Carbon, Iron and nickel particles, for instance -- the primary constituents of asteroids -- are even more effective at breaking down ozone:
As I stated previously aluminium oxide the chlorine ozone reaction which is incredibly effective at destroying ozone and is why we banned CFCs like R12 (Freon).
That is from 1995, it’s incorrect and out of date. Which is why your claims are wrong.
Your source isn’t relevant nor does it back up any of your claims.
As you incorrectly stated. CFCs interact chemically with ozone, and there is no chlorine in aluminum oxide. Do you see a "Cl" in Al2O3?
Do you believe the composition of asteroids has changed since 1995? And my other research dates from as late of April of this year.
The source is indeed relevant. Do you not understand that, when we discover an entirely new class of stratospheric particles that dwarfs all other sources, it ineluctably reduces the contributions of other sources?
My degree says I know more about it that you. You clearly do not understand what a catalyst is or what it does as evidenced by that question.
But ti what degree and for how long under what conditions? There’s a reason why refrigerants have ODP ratings.
Do you think understand has changed wince 1995? Your more recent research isn’t relevant.
It’s really not and you’re citing old out of date papers
Your degree says fallacy of appeal to authority.
Not really it’s more showing of a deeper understanding that when someone tells you that you’re wrong it’s from that deeper understanding not just vibes and an AI answer from Google.
More that I know a catalyst isn’t required to contain the reactant in question, in this case chlorine, at all. I am aware that’s GCSE level science but some people don’t seem to get it.
Ah, an appeal to authority fallacy. How typical. How trite. You still haven't explained why you believe aluminum oxide contains chlorine. Nor have you addressed the tremendous body of research proving that stratospheric particles that are *not* aluminum -- the iron, nickel, and carbon that comprise the bulk of asteroid mass -- are equally adept at catalyzing ozone destruction.
I can't quite understand the broken English, but do you or do you not believe that asteroid composition changed somehow after the year 1995? If so, here's a more recent paper from 2023 confirming my remarks:
