Impact 1
© NASA/Earth ObservatoryTenoumer Crater, Mauritania

Trying to predict how much time we have before the next asteroid or comet impact event may sound like a fool's errand. After all, how can we forecast when a rare, yet devastating, space rock will careen through the inner solar system?

For starters, we could use statistics. Looking for patterns in a number of previous impact events is a valuable tool when trying to understand how often Earth was pummeled in the past. Once we know this, projections can be made for the risk of getting hit again.

However, according to a study by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the statistics we use to make these projections may be fundamentally flawed.


Comment: The premise that one can understand impact periodicity based on a statistical study of those visible craters left in the geological record is definitely a "fool's errand." This is not because impact periodicity isn't a real possibility, but because current science doesn't take into account all the possible ways that comet encounters occur.

The recent work of Dennis Cox shows that there are many more possible impact sites around the globe than currently supposed by mainstream geology. As Dennis is wont to say, "if you can describe a beast, you can predict its footprints." As we'll see below, it's clear that the scientists working on this study at the MPIA have not yet described the beast, let alone predicted its footprints.


ANALYSIS: Does a Massive Planet Lurk in the Outer Solar System?

Over the past few decades, scientists have used a valuable "marker" for understanding the Earth's impact rate and used that data to assess the risk of when the next strike will be. Impact craters scarring our planet's surface contain a lot of data -- through erosion processes and other factors, these craters are dated.

Once many craters are analyzed, various statistical techniques can be applied to find any periodicity in the impacts. As a consequence, claims are made about when we can expect the next impact. Also, out come the hypotheses about what could be causing this perceived cycle of impacts.

One hypothesis is that, as the solar system "wobbles" through the galactic disk during its orbit around the galactic core, gravitational effects cause comets from the Oort Cloud (the hypothetical "shell" of large frozen chunks of cometary embryos) to periodically dive into the inner solar system, creating a swarm of cometary impacts.


Comment: There's actually a lot more evidence besides statistics from long-period comets to suggest that a massive object (Jovian-sized planet, brown dwarf, etc.) is lurking in the outer solar system. See:

Is the Sun Part of a Binary Star System? - Six Reasons to Consider


OPINION: Nibiru - Armageddon Planet or Astronomical Baloney?

Another fun hypothesis that gets doomsday theorists all flustered is the idea that there may be a second stellar body with a very eccentric orbit around our sun. In this case, as this "second sun" -- known as Nemesis -- sweeps through the Oort cloud, it scatters comets, again causing a swarm of impacts on Earth with regular cycles that ebb and flow with the orbit of Nemesis.

However, according to the MPIA researchers, the statistical techniques employed may be producing false indications of a pattern. If there's no cyclical pattern, the basis for believing in Nemesis -- or any other interstellar behemoth for that matter -- is flawed.

"There is a tendency for people to find patterns in nature that do not exist," said MPIA researcher Coryn Bailer-Jones. "Unfortunately, in certain situations traditional statistics plays to that particular weakness."


Comment: There's also a strong tendency by authoritarian scientists to bury their heads in the sand when new data comes along that contradicts their holy Uniformitarian theories. We suspect there's a strong possibility such is the case here.

It should be noted that the author is really confusing matters when he states that "statistical techniques employed may be producing false indications of a pattern." The MPIA team has based their findings on evidence from visible earth impacts at least 35 km in diameter and younger than 400 million years, whereas Matese and Whitmire, the scientists searching for the hypothetical Nemesis/Tyche body, are looking at statistics from long-period comet orbits. According to the latter, there definitely are statistical patterns showing up. Obviously, the comets are what are hypothetically cyclical and not the visible craters themselves - even though the former may sometimes cause the latter. Since we suspect that comets can cause devastation whether they impact the earth or not, the exclusive focus on visible impacts over a certain size threshold seems hopelessly flawed.


INTERVIEW: Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?

So, Bailer-Jones approached the statistical problem with an alternative way of evaluating probabilities -- a method known as "Bayesian statistics." According to the MPIA press release, this method avoids many of the pitfalls that hamper traditional analyses of impact crater data.

Immediately, Bailer-Jones found simple periodic variations in impacts could be ruled out. If there's no obvious cycle of impacts through Earth's history, the perceived "swarms" of impacts through the ages are nothing more than statistical anomalies -- therefore any suggestion of a "Nemesis," "Tyche" or "Planet X" playing cometary pinball is nothing more than a fairytale.

But that's not to say he hasn't discovered something else in the newly analyzed data. There appears to be a general trend that demonstrates a steady increase in impact rates over the past 250 million years. However, there may be a good (logical) reason for this.

As per the MPIA release:
Smaller craters erode more easily, and older craters have had more time to erode away. The trend could simply reflect the fact that larger, younger craters are easier for us to find than smaller, older ones.

Comment: The only fairytale here is that this MPIA group believes visible craters are the only evidence for encounters with comets. Given the inherent problems in 1.) finding and confirming impact sites and 2.) accurately dating them, suggests that any conclusions drawn from such an impact study, like the one mentioned here, are going to be way off the mark.


There is, however, some supporting evidence to suggest the impact rate is increasing. By looking at craters on the moon that aren't worn down by atmospheric erosion processes, there does appear to be an increasing rate of impact events.

Whether or not the rate is increasing, one thing is for certain, according to Bailer-Jones: the strongest piece of cited evidence for the existence of Nemesis has been ruled out by this new research.

"From the crater record there is no evidence for Nemesis," concluded Bailer-Jones.