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]

Dead links[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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torino_scale&oldid=1199637403"