Chelyabinsk meteor . . . Holy Carp!

The brief Fox article was a gratuitous dig at scientists dealing with uncertainty and limited information. If later, we hear (from Treb for example) that scientists can't figure out climate because they were off by 1000 about meteor weight, then we will know that they have succeeded. And they are darn good at implanting such plausibly deniable notions in their audience' minds. It comes as not at all a surprise that the audience is unaware of the prcess. That's what makes it so nifty!

More interesting though, about these highly kinetic rocks. The smaller ones, while nearly undetectable at distance, are probably the best targets for bomb-breaking because all you need to do is arrange for the largest remaining fragment to be below the atmospheric entry size. The big ones, much more detectable at distance, may be better candidates for nudging into safer orbits. Or, into the moon, my pet idea that everybody else seems to think is whacked. Whatever we cause to crash on the moon, is more or less convenient for mining at a later time when technology permits that.

Letting the rocks disassemble in earth's atmosphere more or less guarantees that all of their valuable components get dispersed widely over the earth. A big clump is much more mineable. Don't forget the Sudbury meteorite represents 20% of the earth's mineable nickel.

Prius - powered by space rocks

 

...

 

^ LoL! Seriously? Dude if you think this is the first time scientists have been wrong, and that this somehow opens the door in order to question theories in a totally unrelated field, i.e. climate change, boy do I have news for you! First, one does not have to go that far afield to find errors with which to question AGW. There are been plenty of errors, fraud, shoddy data handling, fake computer models and a large conspiracy of lies to fill a complete encyclopedic series of books. Second, AFAIK the only side caught using these disingenuous methods to prove their POV is the side you represent, i.e. human caused global warming. Why is that? Until you can show me a consistent string of predictions based on these theories or models please stop posting wack speculations that question the intelligence or the veracity of those that don't agree with your point of view. It makes you look foolish and as we all know, it is better to keep ones mouth shut and thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

As far as I can see the greater majority of the report are the actual words of the scientist that crunched the data. Why does it upset you that Fox reported it? Is it that Fox "dared" report the error or is there some other gratiutous, yet hidden "dig," in this report that upsets you? Please point it out.

I think your getting a bit obsessed with AGW as well as a little butt-hurt that others have caught your side in a conspiracy of lies, fraud, fake models and just plain embarrassingly bad, shoddy work. But what galls the most is that the scientific data leads anyone with half a brain to the conclusion that human caused global warming is not taking place. This proclivity in only wanting to hear those things that agree with your world view is not only an indication of a lazy mind but a closed mind as well.

Nothing personal and I wish you well.

 

Clearly I ht a nerve, and possibly we can use PC to sort it out. Possibly not though.

It would be a sad thing if I were the sock puppet for 'CO2 is the all of current warming'. Actually, I look hard for other explanations because, dangit, we need them! And I post them when I find them.

In this instance, discussing the Chelyabinsk meteor, I did say that the Fox spin was something, and that Fox readers are ill-disposed to recognize it. Treb has not found otherwise, and instead posts in reply all of the typical stuff. I really think that we cannot approach climate discussions in this way, but I am at a loss to propose something better. I wish I could!

The climate models are as good as they are. One could look at 'Skeptical science' for tests, but another PC brother has already vaccinated us against SkS. See how well that works? I think the models fail for not including multi-decadal ocean heat transfers, but that's just me.

The instrumental air T records are as good as they are. BEST shows the US 1930's as hot, but the other records do not. Somebody is wrong, OK? If we can figure that out w/o rancor and w/o character assasination, it would be helpful.

We may have nothing to fear from a CO2/IR hothouse in this century. Or it may be something that we should put some more effort into avoiding. Just that.

If anyone feels personally harmed whenever anyone comments on their personal-favorite website, we will advance more slowly towards a solution. Just that.

Every day, I look for information that disagrees with my (climate/carbon) world view, and when I find it I post it here. Treb, please join me in this effort. Neither of us should be sock puppets. I hope you'd agree.

 

Uh, no. The moon has about 0.0123 of the mass of the earth. The pair's center of mass, also known as the barycenter, is still inside the solid body of the earth, beneath our feet.

By 1/6th, are you confusing surface gravity with mass?

 

I may not qualify as having half a brain, but I have no clue what "scientific data" you are refering to. Is it:

1) CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere over time?
2) The physics of IR transmission and absorbtion of CO2?
3) Mass dynamics of CO2 generation and sequestration (the scientific meaning, not the new political meaning)?
4) The CO2 levels of pH concentration in the ocean?
5) The measurements of artic, antartic, and Greenland sheet ice melting?
6) All Satellite heat measurements?
7) Ice Core Temperature/Climate reconstructions?
8) Solar Activity?
9) Lake Bed pollen profiles and reconstructions?
10) Or the other 100+ scientific measurements directly or indirectly related to climate behavior and effects?

Strangely, the one scientific collection that is not data, but a set of models, is the thing that nobody here believes is ready to be called "data".

The question for you is the following: Will the burning of EVERY last hydrocarbon store on the planet (coal, oil, shale, etc.) into the atmosphere have no climate consequence of ANY sort? (And is that an opinion or provable fact?)

I am absolutely not trying to be antagonistic in any way. We agree on a great deal. But this is quite an important subject to get right, not ignore.

 

The same data that 2/3 of all the experts below are relying upon.

Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth | Watts Up With That?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

As for your question pertaining to burning EVERY last hydrocarbon stored on the planet?

Useless, fanciful speculation of a rhetorical and/or hypothetical nature not asked for informational purposes but to continue a pointless argument, human caused global warming is not happening like scientist predicted. Is the globe warming perhaps it is but scientist can not point a finger to a cause. Therefore to continue onward spending billions if not trillions when all predictions have failed is STUPIDITY of the highest order.

The trouble with facts on global warming.

All that said . . .

How much hydrocarbon is there to burn?
Over what time period?
How will we burn it?
Where will it be burned?
What about volcanoes?

etc. etc. etc.

You get the picture I think, therefore I will denigh involvement in this uncertain adventure.

 

Awesome!

 

Corwyn - it's not that the primordial earth lacked nickel - but being mostly molten in the old days, most of the nickel sunk to the core. Where it remains today. Most of the iron sunk too, but there is so darn much of it that a useful amount remains in the earth's crust.

Earth has iridium also. It also sunk. These space rocks have their primordial composition including nickel and iridium. The iridium is famously used as evidence of the big impact ~65 MYA because it is rare in earth's crust and relatively abundant in space rocks. There is a sedimentary layer of Ir that has the right isotopic age. It is thick 'downwind' (northwest) of the Yucatan impact site and much thinner elsewhere.

A while back Bob pointed out that the entire earth is constructed from meteoritic material, which is probably a fair summary. But the core got most of the heavies, and the crust is dominated by aluminum, oxygen and silicon (not a complete list). So, the incoming are novel with respect to the crust.

So far, I have been unimpressed by the amount of Chelyabinsk material recovered. Perhaps not all has been publically disclosed

Moon-wise, the far side has been imaged pretty well and it is a mess of craters! A very handy space-shield to have.

 

OK

 

There is that 8 meter hole in the lake ice, since frozen over. That leaves hope of a fairly decent chunk at the lake bottom.

 

These 'experts' are professional engineers and geoscientists only. As an engineer myself (though not a PE), I absolutely refuse to take a survey of engineers as a definitive word on the state of climate science. Nor do I take geoscientists as having the primary say about climate science.

Also, this study is from the University of Alberta School of Business. What was the geography of its sample universe? The abstract does not say. If it was predominately from Alberta, I'd suspect it would be very heavily biased towards people whose livelihood depends on the fossil fuel extraction industry.

 

One of the articles about Chelya-sized rocks suggested that many go undetected over oceans and other unpopulated areas. I should think that is not the case since about 1970. Very low frequency sounds are monitored globally (more or less) as part of the effort to detect aboveground nuclear tests. Chelya airburst was detected from stations pretty far away. From this it would seem that we should have about a 40-year global record of the size class, if someone has looked for them.

The infrasound detection was finally the technique used to measure the energy of the airburst. Here, from the horse's mouth as it were:

Russian Fireball Largest Ever Detected by CTBTO’s Infrasound Sensors: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

 

Lets look at the data and apply a little of our own 'common sense' shall we? It seems that if one group of scientist can be biased towards a POV which affects their livelihood, 'common sense' dictates that another can also be biased. Agreed? Now which side has been caught in a conspiracy of lies, fraud and data manipulation?

​

​

Antarctic Ice: Growing So Fast That It Will One Day Cover Earth? - Investors.com

 

There have been numerous remote meteor airbursts in the 1 to 10 kiloton range that received little publicity outside the astronomical community. I don't know what fraction of these would be detected by the CTBTO network.

But anyone claiming that Chelya-sized rocks are going undetected, must be including the single kiloton bursts as part of the same size class. The 1908 Tunguska blast was detected by various instruments of its day, and Chelya is the largest one since.

 

Right. At least 3 IIRC, including one in Morocco that lead to some material recovery.

More common are 'fireball' sightings, that I presume would represent <10 tons incoming weight, or some shock waves would also have been reported. PC readers, what have you seen? My score is two, one leading a visibly green trail that is apparently not rare.

Much much more common are the 'shooting stars' mostly arriving from known 'dust cloud' crossings. Perseids and the like. I understand these to be in the 1 mm to 1 cm size class, and it is a testament to their kinetic energy that we can see them at all! They are like 50 miles up when vaporizing.

Tunguska was a hoot, and as a student of wood decomposition it is on my to-do list to go there. 104 years may seem like too long for downed trees to persist, but Siberia is cold! I betcha some remains.

 

Far more than that. The Sutter Mill meteor last year (California meteorite a scientific gold mine) was equivalent to about a 4 kiloton nuclear blast. The Sudan event of October 7, 2008, the only one yet detected by the asteroid hunters before impact, was about the same size. The Indonesia fireball of October 8, 2009, was about 50 kt. A decade or so ago, a Pacific fireball explosion was witnessed by only a few fishermen, but was recorded by some instruments. Much further back, a south Atlantic flash that has been variously suspected as a nuclear test by Israel or South Africa could have been a meteroid impact. And I have seen lists of others.

I believe the more common daily or weekly fireballs are no more than a few pounds.

My sister and cousin witnessed the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, but were a long way from the ranch house. By the time they walked back to the house and reported it to the rest of us, the trail was gone. This one didn't fracture and explode, but just grazed the atmosphere and managed to escape back into space, minus some mass and speed.

I have seen many hundreds of ordinary meteors at night, of the sand and small gravel size, but nothing leaving a trail longer than a couple seconds.