-3
$\begingroup$

If it's around 2145, given the current rate of climate change (and atmosphereic pollution build-up), would it be possible to see large satellites in the sky? Or would they be completely obscured by smog? What about the actual sun and moon-- would we be able to see them?

$\endgroup$

This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.

closed as primarily opinion-based by sphennings, JBH, Aify, L.Dutch, Secespitus Nov 30 '17 at 7:46

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this question can be answered as written. It conflates climate change with other forms of pollution, and asks us to predict the future over 100 years out. Climate change is largely from the build up of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases are mostly invisible. Smog and other visible atmospheric pollution is something else. In some ways smog counters climate change by blocking sunlight. And who knows what will happen in 130 years? That's your decision. You might be better off asking what level of pollution would prevent us from seeing large satellites. $\endgroup$ – Schwern Nov 30 '17 at 1:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to WB:SE. The question you have asked does not meet the requirements for a good question on this site. It is very broad, expecting us to prognosticate world-wide climate changes, social changes, and technological changes. As written, the only viable answer is, "given enough pollution, no, though they will always be visible on Mt. everest." Anything else is pure speculation without enough scoping to produce an answer that is any better than another. May I recommend you review our Ask a Good Question page for more info. $\endgroup$ – JBH Nov 30 '17 at 1:43
-1
$\begingroup$

Probably.

Given the way that technology and politics is currently going, in the developed world smog will likely be a non-issue by then. Any current technology that burns fossil fuels is currently getting much cleaner - just look at contemporary diesel engines compared to those of twenty years ago. Add to that the issues of climate change pushing a switch towards renewables and the issue will become even smaller.

Countries that currently have smog problems will likely have started to clean up by then as well, if only as a result of having the technology standardised with the developed world.

Of course, a whole other issue given a possible increase in population will be "can you see the satellites and stars over all the light pollution?"

$\endgroup$

This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.

  • $\begingroup$ And at the other end of the spectrum, you might ask whether any humans would be alive to see them. 130 years is probably a bit soon for AGW to cause human extinction. 500 years, though? $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Nov 30 '17 at 3:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.