Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Idk (guest) 08 Apr 2010 02:30

Okay, so.
Before I say anything, I love this site kthnx >:U
ANYWAYS
I know that the world isn't going to end…but things like all these earthquakes happening, the volcano, this http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100406/sc_space/newfoundasteroidwillflyclosebyearththursday, yaddayadda is slightly worrying me about 2012. I feel stupid for worrying about a stupid rumor lol, but…I just want to be calmed down about it because really, this whole 2012 crap is driving me crazy :/

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Alene Y 08 Apr 2010 03:56

Hi,
You needn't worry, neither the earthquakes nor the volcano are unusual. The number and magnitude of earthquakes is not increasing. Our ability to detect them is greatly increasing. They are also being reported by the news media more rapidly and covered more widely. The highest magnitude earthquake ever recorded was in 1960, a 9.5 in Chile. A previous Haiti quake of about the same magnitude as this one happened 200 years ago.
Earthquakes of the magnitude of the Haiti and Chile quakes happen on the average 2 to 3 times per year. It is just coincidence that these two occurred closely together.

From the USGS:
"According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year."

The Iceland volcano is certainly nothing unusual. The Mid Atlantic Ridge (of which Iceland is a part) is at the divergent boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The Ridge (including Iceland) was built by volcanos at this boundary. Iceland was built by volcanism and it continues there on a regular basis. What would be unusual there would be if they stopped having frequent eruptions.

These are things the Earth has been doing for billions of years. It is only new to people who haven't studied geology and are looking for signs of the world ending. I hope this helps you to calm down.

Last edited on 08 Apr 2010 03:58 by Alene Y Show more

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Idk (guest) 08 Apr 2010 06:51

Ah, okay ;w; I guess I've just been paying more attention to the news and 2012.

Hmm…what about these people predicting lots of above average storms happening this year, too? Is that still not unusual?

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Idk (guest) 08 Apr 2010 06:54

GRRR let me correct that:

What about these forecasters predicting that 2010 will produce an above-average number of major storms? Is it still not unusual?

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Astrogeek 08 Apr 2010 15:11

We are experiencing an increase in tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons), which some people attribute to (or at least correlate with) climate change.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050915_more_hurricanes.html

However, other studies suggest that there is a multi-decade cyclical pattern of stronger seasons and weaker seasons, and that the current stronger trend is not new.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

… the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons.

The tropical climate patterns producing the increased activity since 1995 are similar to those during the previous active hurricane era of the late 1920s to the late 1960s (1926-1970). These patterns are opposite to the below-normal hurricane era which ran from 1970 to 1994.

Bottom line, there is no reason to expect the 2012 storm season to be much different than 2010, 2011, 2013 or 2014.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Michael (guest) 08 Apr 2010 04:37

Hello, Idk.
Asteroids under 50m (160 feet) in diameter are of no threat. This one is 71 feet. Object of such size have little chance to reach the Earth's surface (ie, penetrate atmosphere), but may produce nice meteor in the sky. Yet this one is calculated to miss. You may consult the Near-Earth Objects (NEO) database to find that this object (2010 GA6) has some small probability to not miss the Earth in one of future encounters, in 2074.
The only reason this object was not found before is because asteroids under 160 feet are not considered dangerous and there was no surveys to date for the objects so small.
Actually, in more orderly times such news would have produced nothing more than appreciacion of an amateur astronomer: it is always an interesting thing to observe a 22m-wide rock gracefully moving in front of the fixed sky, or just to test if his telescope could reveal objects so small.

Note that that article on Yahoo! news had links to its sources.

General article about NEO, including classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
NEO program at NASA home page: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Michael (guest) 08 Apr 2010 05:38

By the way, the asteroid mentioned in Idk's link, 2010 GA6, - at Near-Earth Objects database it is said to be of absolute magnitude (brightness) 25.84mag (for NEOs, absolute means that it's as if you look from 1AU away). Can anybody help me translate magnitude from one distance to another? For example, if a visible magnitude from a distance of 1AU (150 million km) is 25.84mag, what it would be from 0.0029AU (360000 km), - ie, in its closest at 23:06 U.T.C today?

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

bikenbeer2000 08 Apr 2010 11:36

The formula for magnitude in terms of distance is M_v = M_abs - 5log₁₀(d₂/d₁) where
M_v = apparent magnitude at distance d₁
M_abs = absolute magnitude at distance d₂
d₁/d₂ = 1/0.0029 and M_abs = 25.64, so we have:
M_v = 25.84 - 5log₁₀(1/0.0029)
= 25.84 - 5log₁₀(344.8)
= 25.84 - 5 x 2.538
= 25.84 - 12.69
= 13.15
This takes no account of phase angle and would be the brightness of the object when 100% illuminated by the Sun. There is a further reduction in reflected light when an object is illuminated less than full-on, for example a half moon is less than half as bright as a full moon. Since this asteroid is also irregularly shaped, any correction for phase will be approximate. The figure of 13.15 for visual magnitude will therefore be too high, since it won't be opposite the Sun at its closest approach.
The Minor Planet Center gives a maximum visual magnitude of 15.9.
http://www.minorplanetcenter.org/mpec/K10/K10G23.html

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

Michael (guest) 08 Apr 2010 17:38

I agree that for an illuminated object it's necessary to take into account an angle (Sun - Object - Observer) and probably more. But that equation seems perfectly suitable for calculating for example a star's M_abs if its M_v and distance are known and vice versa, ie
M_v = M_abs + 5 · log₁₀(d/d₀)
, where d₀ = arbitrary 10 pc, and d = distance to the star, ie d/d₀ = distance measured in 10-parsec-long (32.6-light-year-long) sticks. That's useful info, at least for a beginner in astronomy like me. Thank you!

Re: Ah...help me calm down please =w=;;

bikenbeer2000 08 Apr 2010 22:19

Yes, this formula will suffice for stars as well. With planets and asteroids, the distance of the object from the Sun also has to be taken into account. The usual formula for planets is of the form M_v = M_abs + 5log₁₀rd + empirical terms for phase (inner planets only) where r = distance of planet from Sun and d = distance of planet from Earth. In the formula for the asteroid, its distance from the Sun was taken as 1 AU.