The percentage they quote (a fraction, as a probability) is an estimate of the ERROR in their theoretical processing of the data. Statistics is an attempt to describe a quantity of observations. Too few observations and the risk of “embracing falsehood” is HIGH. Too many observations and risk of “rejecting truth” is HIGH. The two behave inversely proportional to one another – when one grows the other diminishes. Interpolation (looking between available data points) is risky at these two extremes. Extrapolation (projecting outside of available data) is FAR MORE risky than interpolation, because the analyst is trying to describe a region where no data is available…

Jumps in probability (to the magnitude discussed here) should not be viewed as very encouraging. Sampling the trajectory in a small region of the available “orbit” cannot predict violent aberations (i.e. passing by larger astronomic bodies with high density and significant gravitational affects). That would drastically change the orbit and place it onto a new trajectory… So much for 2029 and 2036… Now, they’d have to observe for a new period to calculate the new path. How long until it returns after this change? Who knows? Be wary of what you’re told, and question the basis upon which the conclusions are based!

Oh, and remember this… LOW probability does not mean ZERO chance.

nevermind if this thing is going to hit the earth or not (not), who named it? was it named before or after someone decided it was a (non) threat? and have they studied ancient egypt or are they an SG fan..? burning questions.

Like Wikipedia, it can sometimes be very useful as a place where information from a wide range of sources has been collected and condensed; but also like Wikipedia, it should never be used as a source on its own. Anyone who does so is risking a failing grade.

And make sure the warranty expires before April 2029!

* 99.9993% guaranteed

“Russian astronomers say an asteroid is heading toward our planet and will hit us in 2036. You have to keep in mind that Russian astronomers use empty vodka bottles for telescopes.” –Craig Ferguson

However Phil is very much for continuing to study this object (to better learn its orbit and thus whether or not it will hit us) and to develop methods to divert asteroids and comets should it become necessary.

As we continue to observe the object and increase our certainty about its trajectory, the odds of impact will change. It will either fall to zero or start to rise. If it should rise high enough, then something obviously will need to be done.

The chances may be slim but the risk is basically infinitely bad.

The risk is most certainly not “infinitely bad”, at least not if we’re talking about Apophis. An asteroid has to be about 10km in diameter or greater to cause global devastation/mass extinction. At substantially less than half a kilometer in diameter, impacts of objects the size of Apophis would cause severe regional damage, but would not be a threat to the survival of the human species (notwithstanding other concurrent stressor factors), and whether or not such a disaster would threaten civilization will depend much more on the robustness or fragility of the state of the civilization(s) in question at the time of the event than the actual damage caused by the event itself.

Indeed, if Apophis actually does impact in 2036, we will probably be able to gather enough data on its trajectory to know where in the world it will hit many years in advance, in which case the damage will be quite quantifiable (within a range of error of course, and notwithstanding any mitigation efforts which may be tried). It will not be “infinite”.

As I understand it, the probabilities are based on the uncertainty of the given object’s trajectory over time. The object’s future trajectory is predicted based on its locations as observed a different time points in the past, and applying the the known laws concerning the forces that may affect its motion (ie gravity). But there will always be some degree of uncertainty. Thus at any given future time, the predicted location of the object is not a precise point, but a volume. We know it will be in that volume, somewhere, but we don’t know exactly where within that volume it will be.

So, if at a given future time, the earth finds itself within the same volume of space where the asteroid is predicted to be, then there will be a chance for a collision, which is quantified by the ratio of the volume occupied by the earth (plus whatever degree of uncertainty there will be in the earth’s position) to the total volume of space within which the asteroid is predicted to be. So, a 1/250 000 chance of a collisions means that on that particular moment in time, both the asteroid and the earth will be found within a volume of space 250 000 times larger than the volume of the earth, and if it happens that the earth and the asteroid end in the same place within that volume at the same time, there will be a collision.

Or, in the case of the keyhole, it is the volume of the keyhole region we are concerned about, and not the volume occupied by the earth.

As further measurements are made, the degree of uncertainty in the asteroid’s trajectory is reduced, and the predicted volume of space in which the asteroid will be found shrinks, and the odds of collision change. If that volume shrinks in such a way that the earth is no longer found within it, then the risk of collision falls to zero. If the earth remains within the shrinking predicted volume, of course, the risk of collision increases.

FEMA releases preparation guide for an extinction-sized meteorite impact
http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/07/22/fema-releases-preparation-guide-for-an-extinction-sized-meteorite-impact/

Also, there’s The Onion’s take on it.

Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/

Except this is not a newspaper: this is new media and UPI

In fact, papers haven’t picked up the story and I haven’t seen papers pick up something from UPI in ages since its now basically a press release site with little actual reporting. It’s usually just websites and bloggers that repeat that misinformation.

Moreover, most science websites days ago had statements from scientists like NASA’s Don Yeomans that this was an exaggeration in the RIA Novosti article. People should actually start reading more of the science news that comes out on a daily basis. While not always the best and definitely not equal in quality all around, recently not only has it been accurate (see the Kepler reporting as it was very similar to what was done here) but its often been very timely as well.

Frankly, I think people here find the bad examples and use it to reinforce their biases, always ignoring all the good examples. It’s like using the Huffington Post article and assuming that means Bad Astronomy is a horrible site since they both have bloggers.

And yes, we have confirmation that people will in fact just look at the video and not even bother to read the article, distorted as it is. All-caps do not an argument make, Paul, “philosophical” or otherwise, and just so ya know, the awesome pix you were looking at? No relation to the actual object we’re talking about.

Plus post-Syd Barret Floyd mostly sux.

I don’t know who reph978 is (the entity who posted and linked to BA over there) but he/she/it deserves to go down in the annals of Greatest Internet Epithets Ever Conceived by referring to the Huff-n-Stuff Po as the “Jar Jar Binks of Science news.”

At least we can console ourselves that Bad Science journalism provides rich opportunities for Great Internet Quippery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

The chances may be slim but the risk is basically infinitely bad. I’m making a philosophical argument, but you are basically telling we don’t have to do anything, when there is a real, but very, very slim chance, that in 2036 we might have wished we had done everything possible to deal with this.

No, that’s not what he’s saying.

He’s saying we don’t have to panic because we’re almost certainly safe. However Phil is very much for continuing to study this object (to better learn its orbit and thus whether or not it will hit us) and to develop methods to divert asteroids and comets should it become necessary. That, however, is already going on, so hysterical news stories about the end of the world don’t really help.