Some combustion products have climatic effects. For you to lean into this, the next step would be to calculate the relative effect of perhaps 80 tons of space junk burning up on reentry per year, versus perhaps 42 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. You’ll want to estimate the radiative forcing or climatic effects of the space junk combustion products to get there. I’ll save you the effort and tell you that space junk burning up on reentry is likely to be several hundred thousand times less impactful than terrestrial GHG emmissions.
Which should not be surprising intuitively, just considering the volume of GHGs we produce globally each year.
Yea I can see that, we can live comfortably on earth with Kessler syndrome but some carrington event and already struggling populace would probably set us back a century at least and wed be trapped on earth nearly forever, or until we can solve Kessler syndrome
I think Kessler is rather less of a concern than global climate change.
And all those sattelites burning up on the atmosphere have absolutely no impact on climate?
Assuming your question is not rhetorical…
Some combustion products have climatic effects. For you to lean into this, the next step would be to calculate the relative effect of perhaps 80 tons of space junk burning up on reentry per year, versus perhaps 42 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. You’ll want to estimate the radiative forcing or climatic effects of the space junk combustion products to get there. I’ll save you the effort and tell you that space junk burning up on reentry is likely to be several hundred thousand times less impactful than terrestrial GHG emmissions.
Which should not be surprising intuitively, just considering the volume of GHGs we produce globally each year.
Yea I can see that, we can live comfortably on earth with Kessler syndrome but some carrington event and already struggling populace would probably set us back a century at least and wed be trapped on earth nearly forever, or until we can solve Kessler syndrome