Post AwuL2L3GZVNGW517PE by SlicerDicer@friedcheese.us
(DIR) More posts by SlicerDicer@friedcheese.us
(DIR) Post #AwuL2HLuKFuP2jhwuG by Devorppa@aus.social
2025-08-06T09:46:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#Starlink is deliberately de-orbiting older satellites to ‘burn up’ in the pristine upper atmosphere.‘Burn up’ actually means ‘leave a bunch of metal vapour in the upper atmosphere’.—————quoteBefore the first Starlink launches began in 2019, only about 40 to 50 satellites re-entered per year. SpaceX just brought down ten years' worth in only six months, adding an estimated 15,000 kilograms of aluminum oxide to the upper atmosphere.—————Scientists are only just studying what this may do to the atmosphere (and life on earth). Early indications are not good.People should be *really* worried about this and keep an eye out for future updates. Especially given the #USA seems to be turning into a lawless joke.Cc @sundogplanets#Satellite #Pollution #Musk https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=05&month=08&year=2025
(DIR) Post #AwuL2IVs0hTKdvNQ4e by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-08-06T17:51:27.529565Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Devorppa @sundogplanets > SpaceX just brought down ten years' worth in only six months, adding an estimated 15,000 kilograms of aluminum oxide to the upper atmosphere.20 seconds of research on this:>> meteors from space deposit 100 to 200 tons of metallic material every day across the globe>> The meteors contain Tri-methyl aluminum, Lithium, Bariumwhy is 15,000kg of satellites a bigger concern than 100-200 tons of meteors (PER DAY!!)?
(DIR) Post #AwuL2JKuwuIzCFGBdo by jnfingerle@social.saarland
2025-08-06T20:04:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld"Research".@Devorppa @sundogplanets
(DIR) Post #AwuL2KLJCwDEJkS0tE by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-08-06T22:48:28.248036Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jnfingerle @Devorppa @sundogplanets an assertion was made. A curious mind would say "well how much is that in relation to everything else naturally entering the atmosphere?". So I found that answer, I posed a question, and I received a useful answer.If you're trying to make some cutesy "stop being a smartass, just trust the scientists" point you can eat a bag of dicks. The scientists are wrong a *lot*.Example: the climate models are all wrong. And not in a good way. Why? Compounding floating point errors. It's far worse than they're projecting.Another reason: the calculations have not taken into consideration the lack of cloud coverage caused by the current amount of warming. How did they miss this? @SlicerDicer introduced this problem to me probably ... 8 years ago now? Maybe longer? Aren't the scientists supposed to be good at science? Oh wait, the lack of interdisciplinary expertise caused them to completely ignore the gas physics that rebreather diving experts know. Turns out that the warmer atmosphere affects the ability for clouds to condense. But nobody baked it into any climate models.https://www.science.org/content/article/earth-s-clouds-are-shrinking-boosting-global-warming
(DIR) Post #AwuL2L3GZVNGW517PE by SlicerDicer@friedcheese.us
2025-08-06T23:04:03.106742Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @jnfingerle @Devorppa @sundogplanets Yep, the gas physics are clear. It was about 10 years ago. Why would they bake it into the climate models the entire thing was that more heat = more vapor. Superficial understanding says more clouds. Till you run the math of what’s actually happening to layers of the atmosphere. Then it’s very clear. Dunno, it’s like maybe if their life depended upon the math being right and correct they’d take it serious? Can’t say it’s incorrect when my life depended on it being 100% correct. 7 mins to dead if you are wrong. Seven. Minutes. To. Dead. That’s assuming everything is perfect when things go wrong and you notice it.
(DIR) Post #AwuMgF1cUu6PMYq0zw by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-08-06T23:09:50.376382Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SlicerDicer @Devorppa @jnfingerle @sundogplanets > Dunno, it’s like maybe if their life depended upon the math being right and correct they’d take it serious? And once they realize their mistakes their research funding is probably gonna dry up if everything they've published gets retracted. It's a horrible situation.
(DIR) Post #AwuMgGLVaRbbSX9PdY by SlicerDicer@friedcheese.us
2025-08-06T23:22:35.961845Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @Devorppa @jnfingerle @sundogplanets It’s terrible, I mean not like I wanted to be a jackass and point things out. It was so clear it was obvious. I can compute it easily. It’s not like these things are hard. As to the floating point error, my best contribution I can do is take my math lib I made and GPU accelerate it and make it free. That’s really the only way to make a real difference is make a math lib that actually handles these things the 64 vs 128 bit precision nonsense doesn’t cut it. I love science but they don’t even know the consequences. Much of the floating point error and issues are just that they don’t understand and how could they? It’s a problem that requires a lot of baked in knowledge.