Date: 17. julij 1997 13:27
Subject: Re: IS THE SKY FALLING?
- Is the Sky Falling?
- In the following extracts from the recently published article Is the Sky Falling?, [see Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 1997], David Morrison describes the skeptical position among American astrophysicists regarding historical catastrophism and the problem of detecting the rate and extent of past impact events as well as assessing the current and future impact hazards.
I believe that the debate between advocates of what David calls the "standard paradigm" of neo-catastrophism and those who support the alternative paradigm of "coherent catastrophism" is far too important to be ignored or simply left to astronomical speculations. Quite the opposite, these contrasting theories are in need of rigorous testing and thorough research in order to shed further light on our cosmic environment. The implications of this 'cosmic' debate for all fields of social and intellectual discourse are far-reaching. I therefore hope that David's healthy skepticism will help to stimulate (rather than block) further debate and research so that we can eventually "sort out who is right and who is wrong." It goes without saying that it is vital for human civilization not just to understand our cosmic environment much better but also to intervene and take action in order to be prepared in case of any future cosmic threat.
Benny J Peiser
I wish to thank the David Morrison, The Skeptical Inquirer and their publisher, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), for their permission to circulate extracts of David's paper on this network. For further information, please contact David Morrison <firstname.lastname@example.org> or:
The Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason
944 Deer Dr. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87122
505-828-1990 Fax: 505-828-2080
Skeptical Inquirer/CSICOP Web Site: http://www.csicop.org
Extracts from: Is the Sky Falling?
Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 1997
By David Morrison
As the millennium approaches, the media are playing up asteroid and comet impacts. Ten popular-level books were published in 1995 and 1996 dealing with the dangers of cosmic impacts, and now we are seeing a spate of television and movie productions, both factual and fictional, that describe the impact threat. It is easy to dismiss all this as media hype and millennial madness, but it would be a mistake to do so. While some books and films may be motivated by a desire to milk public credulity for a quick buck, most are serious efforts to inform the public about a real danger that is recognized by the scientific community. [...] There is a considerable divergence among scientists in how such issues are framed and discussed, and an even wider disparity on the way these issues are presented to the public.
Let us begin with what I call the "standard paradigm" - that of random impacts on Earth by small comets and asteroids. This is the consensus view of most scientists, and it is reflected in two NASA reports to the US Congress, the Spaceguard Survey Report of 1992 and the follow-up report in 1995 inspired by public interest in the collision of Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter. As the principal author of the Spaceguard Survey Report and a member of the follow-up working group (chaired by Gene Shoemaker), I identify with this consensus position.
The standard paradigm uses the cratering history of the Moon and other evidence to deduce the average historical rate of impacts on Earth by objects of different sizes or impact energies. It then assesses the destructive potential of impacts of different energies on Earth today in terms of probable casualties, noting in particular the existence of a threshold at about one million megatons of energy (corresponding to a two-kilometer asteroid) at which the global climate is severely affected and everyone is at risk, independent of proximity to the impact. One conclusion of such studies is that the statistical risk is greatest for impacts near the global threshold, amounting to an average risk of death for each individual on Earth of nearly one in a million per year, comparable to the risk of other more frequent (but less catastrophic) events such as earthquakes, severe storms, and volcanic eruptions. It is also noted that, unlike other natural disasters, impacts can be avoided entirely by deflecting an incoming object, if several years warning time is available.
Although most people agree that the greatest risk is posed by objects two kilometers or larger in diameter, others focus their attention on smaller impactors, especially those in the 200- to 500-meter range. When impacts of this size occur in the ocean, they produce tsunamis capable of inundating large stretches of coastline. Although the average risk for inhabitants of the planet is less from tsunamis than from the global catastrophes caused by larger impacts, the risk for persons living on shorelines may be greater. This fact, together with the higher frequency of smaller impacts, leads some to argue that we need a defense system against any object larger than 200 meters diameter.
A major divergence of opinion concerns what our response to the impact threat should be. Most of the scientists involved in such assessments conclude that there is a significant risk and that governments should take some action (especially in searching for potential impactors), but that it is premature to build any defense systems in the absence of a specific identified threat. Others, the best known being Edward Teller (the father of the H-bomb), argue strongly for a more aggressive approach to asteroid defense. They would initiate experiments, eventually to include nuclear explosives, designed to learn more about how to deflect or destroy asteroids and comets. Some even advocate construction of a standing nuclear defense system to deal with the smaller impactors, for which the warning time might be short. But at least, they assert, we should start now to develop the technology for such a system.
These arguments concerning the magnitude of the threat and the most appropriate response make good TV and newspaper copy. They can lead to serious analyses of the various threats that we face on Earth and of the role of governments in dealing with potential disasters, both natural and human. All fit within the standard paradigm. But there is another viewpoint, held by a handful of British neo-catastrophists, that challenges this position.
- The British Neo-Catastrophist School
- The alternative viewpoint is advocated in its extreme form by astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier, who interpret historical records as indicating that Earth has been subject to extreme battering from space within the past few millennia. In their popular books The Cosmic Serpent and The Cosmic Winter, they take the position that the emergence of astrology in the western Mediterranean, the association of gods with planets in many ancient cultures, the widespread fear of comets and belief in angels, and many other aspects of our cultural and religious history are a reflection of massive bombardment of the planet a few thousand years ago. They further conclude that more recent historical events, including the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, and even the English Civil War, are related to climate changes induced by exceptional deposition of cosmic dust in Earth's atmosphere.. Although their historical analysis is suspiciously similar to that of Immanuel Velikovsky, Clube and Napier adamantly reject the association, arguing that unlike Velikovsky they root their explanations in sound physical and astronomical principles.
Supporting Clube and Napier are British astronomers Duncan Steel and Mark Bailey, who have concluded that the solar system is currently experiencing the aftermath of the break-up of a giant comet some millennia in the past. Our planet still intersects debris from this comet in what they call the Taurid complex of dust, small comets, and asteroids. They term this theory coherent catastrophism. Steel and Bailey estimate that the present lull in impacts will end in about a thousand years, when our orbit again crosses the denser parts of the Taurid complex, at which time the impact risk will rise by at least a factor of a hundred. All of these neo-catastrophists argue that urgent action is required to prevent the collapse of civilization under the next cosmic onslaught.
Most of us find these neo-catastrophist arguments difficult to swallow. Putting aside the issue of the Velikovskian interpretation of history and legend, the impact rate is still constrained by the cratering history of the Moon, which reflects the long-term average. If there are huge "spikes" in the frequency of impacts, produced by the break-up of giant comets, they must be compensated by much lower flux rates between peaks. Yet Clube, Steel, and their colleagues simultaneously assert that the consensus group underestimates the current impact rate, and that a big spike is coming. You can't have it both ways. If they are correct that almost all impacts occur during the spikes, then the present danger must be very low, and we have centuries to prepare to deal with the next peak. But they don't see it that way, and neither do the authors of several of the recent books.
- Impact Science and Pseudoscience
- While I believe that the British neo-catastrophists are wrong about the threat to Earth, their work is science, not pseudoscience. They are making their case to other scientists, and time will sort out who is right and who is wrong. They do, however, sometimes attract the attention of fringe elements. For example, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS), a British group that espouses a skeptical philosophy but includes many defenders of Velikovskian ideas, is sponsoring a conference that features Clube and focuses on evidence for cosmic catastrophes in the ancient world.
Every week I receive two or three inquiries from the public asking if some story they have read or heard about an imminent world-shattering impact is correct. These stories are not confined to the supermarket tabloids but have apparently attracted a following on the World Wide Web. Some people ask about a comet called Wormwood, with obvious reference to the apocalyptic vision in Revelation 8:10-11, when "the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp. ... And the name of the star is called Wormwood."
Then there is Comet Hale-Bopp. In November 1996 the press gave general coverage to a wild claim that this comet was accompanied by a spaceship and was headed toward an impact with Earth. (See Alan Hale, "Hale-Bopp Comet Madness," SI, March/April 1997.) The story apparently started when an amateur astronomer photographed the comet near a moderately bright star. In a curious logical progression he assumed the star was a spacecraft, that the spacecraft was at the same distance as the comet, and that the over-exposed stellar image represented the angular diameter of the craft, which would make it comparable in size to the giant planet Saturn. Others embellished the story by concluding that the spacecraft was traveling in the same orbit with the comet and that the trajectory was about to shift toward Earth. The mystery to me is why this fantasy was given serious media attention, even on a slow news day. I fear that we may see more of this sort of thing as the public becomes more aware of the threat of impacts. [..]
On the positive side, the impact issue is proving to be an excellent vehicle for communicating some interesting aspects of contemporary science to the public. The topic, bringing together astronomy, environmental threats, and dinosaurs, is a natural. It focuses on the way historical science works (how can we figure out what really made the dinosaurs go extinct?), on the fragility of the environment (how can one small impact have global consequences?), on the nature of evolution (why were the mammals who succeeded the dinosaurs so different from them?), and on the nature of probability (if big impacts take place only once every million years, why worry now?). There is great potential here to teach good science as well as stimulate a useful public policy debate. Let's hope these lofty goals are achieved in practice.