Jump to content

Talk:Torino scale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Negligible risk

[edit]
0 indicates an object has a negligibly small chance of collision with the Earth, compared with the usual "background noise" of collision events, or is too small to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere intact.

Also, I wonder about the "penetrate...intact" thing. A one kilogram meteorite won't cause too much damage, even if it makes it all the way to the ground. Objects like that almost always splash harmlessly into the ocean or hit deserted rural areas.

Is someone trying to scare us, or is this just sloppy work? --Uncle Ed 14:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I added a table which gives descriptions along with the levels. I'm not a table-wizard, but It's a start. I'm not sure if it's better than the nested ordered list, so any feedback is appreciated. --SeanO 21:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Ok people, if they are zero rated, that means they are irrelevant and do not need to be featured in a wikipedia article. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal scale of probability

[edit]

Whoever posted the colorful diagram should have marked the horizontal scale probability of impact. Leaving it unmarked is a serious disservice to readers, especially those whose math backgrounds might be a little weak.

The horizontal scale still doesn't make sense -- needs some sort of units, also the probability seems reversed? 24.27.18.130 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you find missing. Probability doesn't have any units. It's just a number from 0 to 1. The scale along the x-axis is logarithmic, though, and maybe that's what you find confusing? It goes from a very small probability on the left (probability close to 0) to an almost certain event (probability=1) to the right. We should probably explain this in the image caption for those who aren't familiar with such diagrams. I agree that articles like this should make sense also for those not that strong in math, so it's great that you tell us when something might be confusing. Shanes 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two years and I still don't understand. Where are the units? Probability of an impact in 1 year, 1000 years, ...? Should I care if it has high probability but spread over one million years? NVO (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's probability of impact for that single asteroid. Theoretically for all time, but in practice it's only predicted for some decades. In practice, any non-zero Torino value will be accompanied by the date(s) of the possible impact. 60.241.25.199 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the probability of a specific [or the most likely] collision within 100 years (depending on whether the collision or object is being rated). - Rod57 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 AF4?

[edit]

I understand from this update that 2008 AF4 was downgraded. Does anybody have a source?

(The following source can produce raw data regarding the path of the object, but I am not sure how to intepret its results: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=sb&sstr=2008%20AF4.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The NEO website currently lists 2008 AF4 as 0 so we should list it zero here as well. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


8

[edit]

From #8: "Such events occur on average between once per 50 years and once per several 1,000 years."

Is that right? Possibly once every 50 yrs? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the reference (which I just added) says. I suppose the asteroid causing the Tunguska event in 1908 may have fitted in category 8, so it may well happen once per century (or more often, if we were exceptionally lucky in the past 100 years). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objects with high ratings

[edit]

Could we split this section into objects that used to have a rating >1 and those object that still have a rating >1? Greggydude (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objects currently have a rating >1: [1] --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary 100 year cutoff

[edit]

101955 1999 RQ36; Earth Impact Risk Summary says "The Torino Scale is defined only for potential impacts less than 100 years in the future. ". Some of the scale descriptions talk about one or three decades - somewhat arbitrarily. Presumably the Torino scale is meant to rate how urgently politicians should react to an impact risk, possibly based on the likely effect on people now living.
The Palermo scale is about risk (relative to 'background') with no arbitrary date cutoffs. Palermo scale seems to multiply risk by effect by 1/time-to-likely-impact. - Rod57 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge jumps in value as estimates refined

[edit]

The energy by probability diagram shows that small changes in the probability of impact could change the rating from 1 to 3, or 2 to 4 or 6, or from 3 to 8.
And a small increase in estimated diameter (hence mass and energy) could increase a rating from 0 to 8. - Rod57 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the 2013 Chelyabinsk Meteor was close to the border between 0 and 8. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and Chelyabinsk meteor says "According to a paper in 2013, all these ~500 kiloton yield estimates for the meteor airburst are "uncertain by a factor of two because of a lack of calibration data at those high energies and altitudes."" so it could even have been 1 MT hence an 8, but perhaps the estimates were narrowed after 2013. And Torino scale is based on kinetic energy just as it enters atmosphere. Possibly a significant % was dissipated by heating air with shock waves before the airburst that was measured. - Rod57 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any evaluation or suggestions for improved scale

[edit]

Has there been any evaluation as to the usefulness of the Torino scale ? or suggestions for improvement. Is there any rating of threats by difficulty of deflection (eg based on mass, probability and time to possible impact) ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palermo scale (devised 2002) may be better for difficulty of deflection as it has lower values for later risks. - Rod57 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We can keep the asteroids, but do we want to keep the dead links for "NEOs Removed from Impact Risks Tables" in the article since they are no longer link to a valid url? Are the old pages archived anywhere when they are removed by Sentry? I am trying to figure out how to keep the references more reliable and accurate. -- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Level 7 (today) could kill us all tomorrow

[edit]

Why is a civilization ending asteroid at 10^8 megatons only at level 7 on this scale? There could be a 90% chance of an asteroid that large hitting the earth and going by the chart, it would only score a 7. Seems rather low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.194.191 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

true. Even at 98% probability it would still only be level 7. IMO a big flaw in the scale. - Rod57 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Torino scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Torino scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Torino scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Torino scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed talk page edit

[edit]

Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts? and Template_talk:Sourcecheck#Can_we_change_the_standard_message_to_says_its_OK_to_delete_the_entire_talk_page_section I'd like to delete the above three External links modified sections. Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1950 DA question

[edit]

If it were less than 100 years away, 1950 DA would be a 2 on the Torino scale, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.102.193 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated reply: back when you posted that comment, the impact energy was estimated at 7.538e+04 while impact probability was 1.2e-4, which only mrits a Level 1 rating, but just barely outside the Level 2 limit. Right now, however, the estimates are 7.519e+04 for impact energy and 3.8e-4 for impact probability, which is well within the Level 2 zone. Rontombontom (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rearranging the list of downgraded objects in reverse chronological order.

[edit]

As more and more object get added to the list one will have to go further and further to to examine older entries. BJohnston16 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I went ahead and made this change. I also used reverse chronological order within each year, hopefully that makes sense. If anybody wants to double check I would appreciate it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "level 0" and not on the risk table.

[edit]

The article suggest that every object has a risk level, with 0 being the lowest. However, the list of downgraded objects says some were reduced to level 0, and others removed from the list completely. This suggests there is a difference, and hence, there must be a minimal criteria to be included on the list. But that is not described in the article. Abigail-IV (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being removed from the list means the risk is less than 1-in-10 Billion. An object can be rated Torino Scale 0 with a 1-in-9 Billion chance of impact. For example 2011 KF36 (diameter ~300 meters) has a 1-in-7 Billion chance of impact on 2024-Oct-26. The reason there is a risk is that it only has a pathetic 2-day observation arc. -- Kheider (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of level 6 definition

[edit]

In the definition for level 6, what's the meaning of if occurring this century, compared to other encounters? The scale is only defined for the next century 100 years anyway, so why make that distinction (which is not present in the definitions for levels 0-5 or 7-10)? Renerpho (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Level 7. The text was taken from the source word-for-word. I think they wanted to emphasize that, unlike for Levels 3 to 6 where contingency planning is only warranted a decade or three ahead, for Level 7 you plan ahead even for a century. This could have been worded better. However, I see a bigger problem in that there is a difference between "this century" and "the next 100 years", and I'm not sure that this was properly worded by the source (the distinction mattered little back in 2005, but does now and "this century" would become outright stupid in 2095). Unfortunately, the 2004 paper the CNEOS definition page is based on is behind a paywall, so we do not have another source (ESA unfortunately just links to the paper). I asked the CNEOS website manager to check & improve if necessary. Rontombontom (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Level 7, yes. The paper is freely available at [2] (linked to from Google Scholar). It says: The descriptions we give here for each category are expanded from the original release (Binzel 2000a) in order to more directly convey to the public (and to observatory directors and policy-makers) what actions are being taken or should be considered. That, in turn, is based on [3], which is partially paywalled. I've checked it, and it gives this for Level 7: A close encounter, with an extremely significant threat of a collision capable of causing a global catastrophe. Clearly, at some point between 2000 and 2004, a deliberate choice was made to add "if occurring this century" to just the Level 7 description. No further details are provided. Renerpho (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that "this century" and "next 100 years" are not the same, even though they were nearly synonymous when this definition was written. That's why I asked about the meaning. In a paper that starts with In the twenty-first century, we must consider the asteroid and comet impact hazard, and is concerned with clearly communicating a hazard to the public, having such a phrase is odd. Thanks for asking the website manager for further input. Renerpho (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source! Morrison et al. 2004 mentions the overall 100-year limitation (worded as "next century") only in passing (page 355) while Binzel et al 2000 at least has it in the abstract already. So the lack of clarity was in the paper already...
Seeing that the table on the CNEOS page itself (not its title) is practically identical to Morrison et al. 2004 Figure 16.2, I fear a clarifying update would involve much more than the website manager's decision, so it may take awhile (if they bother to address it at all). Rontombontom (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 YR4 impact chance

[edit]

@Rontombontom: In your revision of my latest edit,[4] you say that 1:630 is the cumulative number for five possible impacts. That's true, but it's not relevant to what we're saying in the article. Quote: NASA estimates it has a 1 in 770 (0.13%) chance of impact on 22 December 2032. Sentry gives a 1.3e-3 chance for an impact at 2032-12-22.59, and a 3.2e-4 chance for an impact at 2032-12-22.62. If you want the chance for an impact on 22 December 2032 (no time of day specified), which is what we give, you have to add the two. ESA has an impact at 2032-12-22.585 with a chance of 3.45e-4, and one at 2032-12-22.619 with 7.41e-4. To get the probability of an impact on 22 December 2032, combine the two. Renerpho (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the language is imprecise even this way, but it's more complicated than that.
1:630 in the source was not the cumulative probability of the two 22 December 2032 potential impacts: it's for five events up to 2047 (though the first two contribute the overwhelming majority of the probability). In contrast, ESA only considers the two 22 December 2032 events (and somewhat annoyingly only provides a cumulative rating & probability on the summary Risk List page, not the sourced page for the asteroid).
I submit the cumulative probability is not irrelevant to the article because it is possible for an asteroid to have a cumulative rating higher than all the individual event ratings. Most of the entries already on the list, however, focus on a single event that gives the bulk of the probability. The situation with 2024 YR4 that one agency finds that the next close approach has such dominance, while another sees an impact after a quick swing-around as much more likely, is unique & IMO notwworthy. We could calculate the cumulative probabilities for the two 22 December 2032 potential impacts for NASA (which will barely differ from the total for all five events), but that feels a bit OR to me.
Maybe we could have both cumulative & maximum individual event probabilities in the article for now, and simplify if and when it's downrated to 0 or NASA & ESA get into closer agreement. Rontombontom (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torino_scale&oldid=1269646446"