Fireball tally from American Meteor Society
- Thread starter Aeneas
- Start date
I wouldn't focus so much on tying current fireballs to ISON. Thousands of new comets arrived in the solar system in recent decades, and especially since the early 2000s. And they're just the objects that are easier to detect because, as asteroids, they 'lit up' when they began to electrically discharge.
Track this: Unseen 'dark comets' may pose threat to Earth
As this Japanese research has shown, the overall background rate of 'sporadic meteor fireballs' has increased, and identifying the larger body from which all of them broke off has proven difficult if not impossible.
Beware also that 'somebody', at some point, started this spiel about 'a poison cloud of cyanide' following ISON...
_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2445919/pg1
The changing colours of comets or meteors probably isn't to do with 'ejected gas', or that may only be one factor among others. Mike Baillie speculated that Hydrogen Cyanide along with other gases may have been an agent during times of plague; people seem now to be running with that and saying that it is the agent to look out for.
Track this: Unseen 'dark comets' may pose threat to Earth
As this Japanese research has shown, the overall background rate of 'sporadic meteor fireballs' has increased, and identifying the larger body from which all of them broke off has proven difficult if not impossible.
Beware also that 'somebody', at some point, started this spiel about 'a poison cloud of cyanide' following ISON...
_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2445919/pg1
The changing colours of comets or meteors probably isn't to do with 'ejected gas', or that may only be one factor among others. Mike Baillie speculated that Hydrogen Cyanide along with other gases may have been an agent during times of plague; people seem now to be running with that and saying that it is the agent to look out for.
Kniall said:
Agreed, it appears to be collimation of many perhaps incoming, and interacting events closely, and loosely related.
This one (and there are many interpretations ), is just what is out there, and very well be a diversion, (as he trumps the BIBLE jargon), to real issue at hand.
Current radio astronomy signals are constant, with in coming meteor signals, of short, and long duration pings.
Last night i step out to take in some fresh air, while looking to the full moon under a patchy cloudy ski hung two condensing trails below the full moon almost side by side. They were pointing too a WSW direction, over the mountain range into Spain.
Plane driven signature, sure more than likely, but it did peek my interest of the possibility of things moving around up there.
Off topic a bit.
This is a good AP, to track commercial aircraft, around the globe (in real time), for a reference to objects, (being aircraft) in one's vicinity, as well as other positive applications.
Flighttrader24
_www.flightradar24.com/N550RA
How it works
_www.flightradar24.com/about
Frequently asked questions
_www.flightradar24.com/faq
Attachments
I'm just listening to a recent interview from Richard Dolan with Linda Moulton Howe, about all the "strange" booms and flashes of light, that are increasing rapidly, in recent years. Which obviously is shaking up the UFO community also in recent years:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1DoXU3Mig
Long story short, the only possible explanation they come up with is that there must be somekind of secret war going on between fractions of the secret government or something like that.
It is kind of sad and almost like a sign of the times, how many supposedly bright researchers, even within the alternative community, simply aren't able to pay attention to reality...
Edit: There isn't even one time in the whole interview, that even the possibilty of it being something natural is being really discussed or thought about.
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1DoXU3Mig
Long story short, the only possible explanation they come up with is that there must be somekind of secret war going on between fractions of the secret government or something like that.
It is kind of sad and almost like a sign of the times, how many supposedly bright researchers, even within the alternative community, simply aren't able to pay attention to reality...
Edit: There isn't even one time in the whole interview, that even the possibilty of it being something natural is being really discussed or thought about.
Pashalis said:
Rather pathetic. And Dolan has no excuse because I laid it all out for him when he was here. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
They WANT it to be aliens or something that could be negotiated with... or the "savior" might win the war and make it all go away.
Like I said: pathetic.
Pashalis said:
My exact thoughts too: for such smart people to miss the most obvious answer, hmm well...
Laura said:
I recently had a discussion about climate change with a friend, who in the end sort of accepted that we might go into an ice age, but added that he prefers to believe it is anthropogenic global warming because then we can do something about it. (!)
The latest updates for the number of confirmed Fireball Events for the whole year of 2013 are = 3538
That is a average of 9,693 Fireballs a day, for 2013 (3538 : 365 = 9,693).
Now January is over and the numbers for that month are about 346 confirmed Fireball Events. Still about 20 pending reports of events for January left, so the number will still likely go up slightly, in the coming weeks...
So if we make the math again, we get the following result for January 2014:
346 : 31 = 11,161.
So as of now (2014), we have a average of about 11,161 Fireballs a day...
So the upward trend seems to continue.
That is a average of 9,693 Fireballs a day, for 2013 (3538 : 365 = 9,693).
Now January is over and the numbers for that month are about 346 confirmed Fireball Events. Still about 20 pending reports of events for January left, so the number will still likely go up slightly, in the coming weeks...
So if we make the math again, we get the following result for January 2014:
346 : 31 = 11,161.
So as of now (2014), we have a average of about 11,161 Fireballs a day...
So the upward trend seems to continue.
psychegram
The Living Force
Pashalis said:
Haha at first I was like, whaaaat that's a lot of fireballs! Then I realized that you must be using the convention of a comma, rather than a period, as the decimal.
It's too bad they only provide the option of searching by year ... it would be interesting to see a monthly breakdown.
psychegram said:
What's the definition of the Fireball Event?
If it's a report of seeing a fireball, then the increase could mean that more people are watching the skies and reporting what they saw, not necessarily that there has been so many actual, different fireballs themselves. Just my 2 cents...
Saša said:
I apologize for jumping in before checking the whole thread.
The Fireball Event indeed refers to report...
This kind of averaging, per day, can be misleading because it puts everything in the same basket. For more "serious" approach and analysis, I would suggest clustering reports according to time and location. That also wouldn't be perfect, because some of close and near reports can refer to separate events, but, IMO, it would give more correct assessment of actual, separate fireballs than just counting overall reports and averaging per day.
Saša said:
A Fireball Event is a confirmed fireball, that was seen and reported by people in the US and confirmed by AMS in this way:
Quote from the article below said:
http://www.sott.net/article/271892-2013-saw-a-dramatic-increase-in-meteor-fireballs-What-does-2014-have-in-store
If you read the above article closely, you will find out that the overall reason for that, is most likely not "that more people are watching the skies and reporting what they see" and thus, that this is the reason for the increase "that is not there". Most likely, more fireballs are coming in recently, with an exponential rate since 2005.
You also might want to read this whole thread and check AMS out for yourself and check SOTT, because the reality that there is most likely indeed and exponential increase of Fireballs is quite obvious...
Edit: Just saw your post Saša.
Pashalis said:
I haven't read the article, thanks for the link.
By quick glance, at Figure 1 and Table 1 in the article, it can be seen that the amount of reports per fireball increased from ~2 in 2005, >2.5 in 2009, ~3 in 2012 and a drastic jump to >5 in 2013. Therefore, it indicates that there is an increase of people watching the skies and reporting events to AMS.
The bolded part (emphasis mine) is not exactly correct. For something to be exponential, the relative increase (gradient) should also increase (the percentages in Table 1 in sott article). The numbers do not "obviously" show that. To me it looks more like a linear increase in events, one coefficient for 2005-2009 and another for 2009-2013 period.
On the other hand, in the case of the reports, it surely looks like there is an exponential increase. :)
Bottom line, according to AMS, there is an increase in fireballs over years and there is also a more pronounced increase in the number of reports. This can be said without going into detailed analysis.
The increase per year needs to be correctly determined, to say that there was ~6.5 times more events in 2013 than in 2005, as stated in Table 1 in the article, is misleading, IMO.
On the other hand to say that, using numbers for fireball events in the Table 1 in sott article, it can be shown that the coefficient of linearity for 2005-2009 period is 0.19 and for 2009-2013 is 1.88, doesn't say much, if anything at all, to people not used to deal with data analysis and statistics.
However, to say that the average increase of number of spotted and confirmed fireballs per year in 2005-2009 period was only 11%, and that it increased to 46% in the last 4 year period is conveying a message. It is to say that 5 years ago we had 10% more fireballs each year, and now we have almost 50% more confirmed fireballs, in average, than last year. And this jump happened almost instantly, around 2009.
In addition, the exponent of the increase in number of reports, if existent, should also be determined for the studied time period, to say that there was more than 20 times more reports in 2013 than in 2005 doesn't show the right picture also, IMO.
Quick fit to data in Table 1 in sott article, revealed that points resemble to x8.5 and/or 2.1 ex, which are exponential dependencies. But again that doesn't tell anything to laymen. :)
Pashalis said:
I read the article, overlooked it before, so thanks again for pointing it out.
An apology first.
In my previous post I "confused" things using increase and relative increase interchangeably.
For the rate of Fireball Events it can be said it's an exponential one, as stated in the article, since relative increase is constant, meaning that the increase itself is linear.
And few comments.
The NASA charts appear out of a blue, at least to me, and possibly also misleading.
If put like that, it should be said how many of new moon discoveries can be attributed to new technology used, space missions, etc, and how many can be regarded as really new objects, i.e. how many were there all the time and we just didn't see them before.
The same goes for NEOs, with addition that a sudden jump in 1998 (4 times more than in 1997) should be pointed out and explained, if there is a reliable explanation that can be found.
I want to say that there is a lot "thrown together" in the article, without a clear connection to the point that the article is trying to convey. For those acquainted with the forum and research here, it is already a known thing, while for those that are not, it can seem that the message is kind of detached from the body of the article.
For example, the end conclusion (emphasis mine)
should include some examples/references to the statement, so that it wouldn't appear floating in the air unsubstantiated.http://www.sott.net/article/271892-2013-saw-a-dramatic-increase-in-meteor-fireballs-What-does-2014-have-in-store said:
I guess that's why the comment video below is for. :)
Sasa said:
Not necessarily. What if, in the case of some events where hundreds of people submit reports to AMS or elsewhere, more people see them because bigger, brighter and more long-lasting objects are coming through? Note how the increase in observed sound and fragmentation tracks the increase in number of overall events.
I agree though with your analysis regarding linear vs exponential increase.
Kniall said:
You're right. I've jumped with conclusion, especially when dealing with statistics.
Only thing that could have been stated for sure is that there is an increase in reports per event over years. It could very easily be because of the things you wrote. The devil's in the details, as always. :)
