this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
77 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7619 readers
248 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
77
Scientists Warn of Emissions Risks from the Surge in Satellites | It seems increasingly clear that rocket emission plumes, like reentries, will have a significant effect on the ozone layer. (e360.yale.edu)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The title is a bit confusing. Reentry is a problem, but not because it’s a rocket plume. It’s because the satellite leaves aerosols in the atmosphere when it burns up, causing a potential failure of the ozone layer, as well as potentially harmful respiratory problems.

It’s looking like the satellite deorbit strategy of fully burning up on reentry is the exact opposite of what should happen - instead it should try to burn as little as possible and fall into the ocean.

In addition, satellite lifespan is too short, requiring more launches and deorbits.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It’s both, it’s launch exhaust and also stage re-entry. The article didn’t talk about EOL deorbiting, was an aside as the stages and other issues are always happening with every launch.

the emissions from rocket fuels,

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ah yeah, didn’t mean to minimize the impact of the launch plume, that’s an issue too. But reentry is an entirely different problem with completely different mechanics and the title was confusing about that.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ah yeah that’s fair, I think it was this time last year that reports about the rocket exhaust plume were leaving particulates. So it’s a very recent finding, compared to de-orbiting re-entry. But as you say, it is its own issue that’s also come to light as well.

But how do we solve EOL de-orbiting, a satellite only has so much reaction mass and propellant, and if you need to reload it, is it better to launch a new one with better tech? Or to refill tanks? And then that has to be incorporated in the design. Yadda yadda.