Slashdot Mirror

Exactly. Evolution is about adapting to change. I individually will become extinct in due course. Between now and then the climate will not change enough to make my climate warm enough to suit me. There is no escaping death option for any of us.

Climate change is a long process. My offspring, like all the other organisms ever on the planet, will adapt or my line will die out. This is as it should be. Between now and then I expect them to exploit their opportunities like the thriving organisms they are.

Other organisms? Same for them, whether they're polar bears or east burundi dancing fire ants or irridescent purple bread mold.

No credible scientist is predicting that Global Warming and CO2 emissions are going to result in the End of Man. For that there's other stuff to worry about.

That doesn't mean I approve of CO2 emissions or any other kind of pollution. "Don't make a mess in your own bed" is good guidance for children and adults, and in this overpopulated overindustrial world we should recognize we're all in bed together in a sense. Shrill messages about how the temperatures are climbing just aren't helping to move the discussion forward. TFA - heck, the whole site -- doesn't impress me with its scholarly rigor. It's just a lame claim to refute every argument on one side of the climate debate. In the few examples I looked at their argument was weak, incomplete or not supported by evidence or studies.

And I'll say it again. Huge tracts of non-farmable land are becoming arable each year in the northern hemisphere exactly because the weather is warming. Lots of people want to protect our pristine Alaskan, Canadian and Russian wildernesses in the pure pre-human oppupation state they have always enjoyed, as a habitat for millions of warm fuzzy species. That's wonderful for them, but:

• Eight thousand years ago all this land was under glacial ice and habitat to none of the invasive foreign pest creatures that live there now.
• Twelve thousand years ago the regions began being exploited by humans.
• Ten thousand years from now it'll be under a glacier again for fifty thousand years so getting all misty about what happens to it between now and then is a little maudlin.
• China and India have a billion people each. We going to need more food, and as they industrialize they're going to eat higher on the food chain like us -- which means more vegetation to feed to their preferred protein pets.

The earth recycles too.

2004BX159
2004FU162
2005TM153
2006CD
2006SF681

The soonest is 4/01/07 for 2004FU162, but it is only 6 meters wide(9 kiloton impact)

All are pretty low probability, but possible
Check out this site to stay up to date:
http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/crt.htm

(Credit to magnuss for one of the links.) http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/news.htm mentions that the object was found in images from March 15th. I find this odd in no way in itself, it's quite natural that the determined orbit has been back-stepped to verify where the object was before its discovery in June, as any such data would improve the accuracy far more than more observations made today. Obviously, it seems they succeeded.

The raw data linked from that site has 243 observations in total. Maybe the newest JPL data is filtering to only use observations from certain telescopes, or they're aggressively filtering out "junk" data. I would welcome some kind of explanation like "ooops, a lot of people looked at another rock" or something along those lines. Another note is that the size estimation is up again to 430 meters instead of 390. Not a big change in the light (pun intended) of the fact that this is based on the measured intensity in the data, nothing else.

Posted in another thread: http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/news.htm.

You can also notice yourself in the page that the first listed observation is already in March this year. Obviously, the object was tracked back to an older photo. I can't explain the lowered number of observations, though. Eliminating that many as obvious measuring errors would be a bit surprising, if no special explanation is provided.

According to these analyzes it would have disintegrated anyway. The speed it would have had at entry (27.3 km/s) would have been to large for it to survive.

As others have pointed out the chances for that hapening are very remote, but anyway, here's an interesting graphic showing the 2004 YD5's position when passing compared to all Low Earth, GPS, and geosynchronous sats. As the page says, it passed 1.88 earth radii from the orbit of GPS satellite BIIA-19.

Se here for some reports.