Talk:Torino scale

Objects like that almost always splash harmlessly into the ocean or hit deserted rural areas.

--Uncle Ed 14:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) I added a table which gives descriptions along with the levels.

--SeanO 21:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC) Ok people, if they are zero rated, that means they are irrelevant and do not need to be featured in a wikipedia article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Whoever posted the colorful diagram should have marked the horizontal scale probability of impact.

(The following source can produce raw data regarding the path of the object, but I am not sure how to intepret its results: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=sb&sstr=2008%20AF4.)

Presumably the Torino scale is meant to rate how urgently politicians should react to an impact risk, possibly based on the likely effect on people now living.

Is there any rating of threats by difficulty of deflection (eg based on mass, probability and time to possible impact) ?

-- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Why is a civilization ending asteroid at 10^8 megatons only at level 7 on this scale?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.194.191 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts?

- Rod57 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] If it were less than 100 years away, 1950 DA would be a 2 on the Torino scale, correct?

BJohnston16 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] The article suggest that every object has a risk level, with 0 being the lowest.

Abigail-IV (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] In the definition for level 6, what's the meaning of if occurring this century, compared to other encounters?

The scale is only defined for the next century 100 years anyway, so why make that distinction (which is not present in the definitions for levels 0-5 or 7-10)?

Renerpho (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Rontombontom: In your revision of my latest edit,[4] you say that 1:630 is the cumulative number for five possible impacts.

ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] The image explaining the alleged typical trajectory of impact probabilities strikes me as unconvincing.

--Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] OK, I appreciate it that people are taking this seriously, and for the source.

However I have to note that Cano did not claim that the probability would be increasing for the reason stated in the caption, and I still think that's extremely dubious.

Let's take a simplified case, where the expected 2-D coordinates at which the object passes Earth do not change, but only the sigma values.

Let's also assume sigma is the same in both principal directions, just for simplicity (so that the ellipse is a circle), and let's say that the distribution is centered on a point a distance

Or something like that; I looked at multivariate normal distribution and sort of translated in my head so I could be a little off and corrections are welcome.

factor, unless the distance it's expected to pass by Earth is fairly small compared with the original

It does seem possible that the case in the "unless" clause obtains, and that this causes the estimate of impact probability to evolve as suggested, but I don't think that's very well explained by the image and caption.

--Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Here is another example from "Predicting the Earth encounters of (99942) Apophis" (PDF).. Reading the (quite detailed) text makes it clear that the center point moving contributes to much of the odds of a collision changing, not just the reduction in uncertainty.

For example, when talking about the effect of radar observations, "It also moved the April 13, 2029 encounter 28,000 km (4.4R⊕) closer to the Earth."

LouScheffer (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] As new optical astrometric measurements were reported and corrected over the next several days, Earth impact probability estimates reached a maximum of 2.7% for April 13, 2029 (JPL Sentry on December 27, 2004; Chesley, 2006).

Renerpho (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I propose to copy the content of the section "Objects with non-zero Torino ratings" and put it into Objects with non-zero Torino ratings.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Currently, date formats in the article and in its references are all over the place.

Here on English Wikipedia, the convention is to use the version of English connected to the subject, or if there is no such connection, then follow the convention of similar articles or just keep whatever the original version of the article used.

Meanwhile, I also noticed that a copy-editor recently changed a word from British to American spelling.

In my opinion if we keep having news updates to Torino scale then we should just merge the list back.