The Russian Chelyabinsk Meteor was the largest since the 1908 Tunguska event. The airburst from the meteor on February 15, 2013, injured more than a thousand people and damaged thousands of buildings.
It marks the first time scientists can study in detail such an event with a range of modern instruments as well as assess its effects on a populated area. This briefing will offer some of the latest findings about the meteor itself, its explosion and effects, as well as how the incident suggests that smaller, more numerous meteors could pose greater threats to populated areas than previously thought.
Watch the video:
Great posting, this is a good example of why when I am a confirmed warmest people ask me why I like this site. It because it always makes me question my beliefs and take nothing for granted.
“It marks the first time scientists can study in detail such an event with a range of modern instruments”
That is incredible!
Threats. Science is obsessed with them.
Mike Bromley the Kurd sais:
December 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
Threats. Science is obsessed with them.
—————————————————-
Next: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Meteors.
There’s lots of money in it. Lots and lots and lots of money. Not to mention power and influence.
What is a “ton” in this article:
Metric ton (tonne 1000 kg)
UK ton (long ton ~1016 kg) or
US ton (short ton ~907 kg) ?
Then, what is a “kiloton” ? (Metric, UK or US ?)
Gareth Phillips says:
December 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
Great posting, this is a good example of why when I am a confirmed warmest people ask me why I like this site. It because it always makes me question my beliefs and take nothing for granted.
__________________________
…and because we are kind and tolerant of those who are slow to catch on.
This is a “threat” not to take lightly. A lot of this AGW money could have gone to enhancing technology to find and evaporate (or whatever) these threats. All one has to do is look at the cratering (and a comet/asteroid doesn’t have to crater to be highly destructive) on moons/planets without an atmosphere to see the effects and numbers of these things. We have lots of evidence that there have been significant impacts during the Holocene that ended the high points of regional-civilizations. Even though there is controversy regarding the evidence, this is much more of a sure thing than is AGW. I would like a little more obsession in this regard.
To Alan Robertson: I would agree with your response IF you had put some smiley emoticon after it. Your response implies a Christian-like absoluteness to knowledge. I have been skeptical of AGW sine 1989, so it took me one year to formulate doubts, but after all that time I still concede that I might be wrong.
Gareth – thanks for the post and the open minded attitude toward knowledge.
pyromancer76 says:
December 17, 2013 at 9:03 am
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This sort of garbage we do not need on this site. Take it somewhere else, please.
~ +1:12 … “First ever asteroid impact disaster in human history.” HUH? How can he possibly say that? It may be the first RECORDED … but there is no way he can say something like this has never happened before and impacted somebody. I suppose it’s all part of the language of the institutional scientist these days; make the most alarming, hyperbolical statements you can.
Tom G(ologist) says:
December 17, 2013 at 9:09 am
“I have been skeptical of AGW sine 1989, so it took me one year to formulate doubts, but after all that time I still concede that I might be wrong. ”
Without the CO2AGW-induced renewables madness in Germany, becoming a noticeable threat only in 2005 or so, I would never have looked into Mann’s Hockeystick, would never have discovered his denial of the MWP, and would probably still think that the medieval was a dark and bad time. And would never have discovered the tight correlation between European High Cultures and climate fluctuations in general. And much much more.
So I can thank the globalists for giving me mountains of things to discover (that their media is still completely silent about, and will stay silent about forever).
I find it interesting that they are able to make such accurate impact predictions using the science available to them. The difference between this and ‘climate science’ is stark.
I am getting a video error, but, the only thing we can really say is that it “was” the “first to be video’ed” (recorded) in human history, But how did he (the speaker/writer/planner/reviewer/funder/producer) forget about Tunguska – ALSO occurring in the Siberian skies less than 100 years prior?
Now, I grant that it seems likely that a meteor/comet breaking in mid-air (leaving “only” large crater-less bomb-blast a few dozen miles in diameter is eminently forgettable, but ….. are today’s “scientists” in universities so locked into their iPads and telephones that they have no past?
By the way, nuclear bomb blast effects are fairly well known.
Realistically, the ONLY way to determine the difference between a Tunguska-type mid-air breakup and and a deliberate nuclear blast over a city is that “a meteor-comet” breakup is only “randomly” expected over a city, but a nuclear explosion over uninhabited countrysides means it was a comet. Or they missed.
It is a unit of energy release based (approximately) on the energy released by 1000 tons of TNT and is nominally an energy release of:
4.2 x 10^19 ergs
[10^12 calories]
1.15×10^6 kilowatt hours
should be 10^12 calories
what fantastic science! – working out the life history of a lump of rock that hurtled through our galaxy over 4.3Bya from it’s chemical and geological make up. Puts CAGW voodoo in it’s proper place. Not a model in sight.
Tom G(ologist) says:
December 17, 2013 at 9:09 am
To Alan Robertson: I would agree with your response IF you had put some smiley emoticon after it. Your response implies a Christian-like absoluteness to knowledge. I have been skeptical of AGW sine 1989, so it took me one year to formulate doubts, but after all that time I still concede that I might be wrong.
Gareth – thanks for the post and the open minded attitude toward knowledge.
_____________________
Consider the smiley face implied, if you would, please.
I implied nothing related to Christianity, but thanks for the lead- in. What I do find is that it is currently fashionable, from those who seem to have limited understanding, to seize upon just any opportunity take a poke at Christianity.
The only absolutes I understood from the teachings of the Christ were that we produce our own world from our own thoughts and action and that we can acquire the same state of consciousness as Him if we take up the quest for ourselves, which teachings are parallel and expansive to those of the Buddha.
What actions may have transpired at the hands of organized religion in its efforts to preserve understanding of the truths of our existence have often served as impediments for many on the road to self- discovery and fruition of consciousness.
How appropriate that at this time of year we should be discussing another bright (shooting) star in the East.
Part of my students’ final exam later this week includes an article about these very data. Excellent. 🙂
Alan Robertson says:
December 17, 2013 at 8:59 am
Gareth Phillips says:
December 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
Great posting, this is a good example of why when I am a confirmed warmest people ask me why I like this site. It because it always makes me question my beliefs and take nothing for granted.
__________________________
…and because we are kind and tolerant of those who are slow to catch on.
# Garethman LOL! You should try it sometime, having established beliefs challenged is a very useful tactic for scientific reflection. You never know, you may surprise yourself!
Then, what is a “kiloton” ? (Metric, UK or US ?)
Rounding error.
How appropriate that at this time of year we should be discussing another bright (shooting) star in the East.
Gun control for shooting stars?
@Agust, a ton is a lot, and a kiloton is really a lot.
@Tom G. I am glad you have been an AGW sine. Would that translate to you waffle?
Nah.
An AGW sine always cycles about the truth, but only crosses it momentarily.
An AGW cosine, on the other hand, is always half-right, but only the other half of the the time.
Note that an AGW cosigner pays their bills. All of the time.