Response to Wright et al. 2018: Even more serious problems with NEOWISE. (arXiv:1812.06516v1 [astro-ph.EP])
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Myhrvold_N/0/1/0/all/0/1">Nathan P. Myhrvold</a>
Wright et al. (2018, hereafter W2018) respond to some of the irregularities
and criticisms of the NEOWISE results raised by Myhrvold (2018a, 2018b).
Contradicting earlier statements by the group, the response now acknowledges
the validity of some of the most serious issues identified by Myhrvold. Among
these is the false presentation of diameters that had been copied from
previously published analyses of radar, occultation, and spacecraft
observations as diameters obtained by thermal modeling. While W2018 confirms
that this misrepresentation occurred for 117 asteroids, it fails to provide the
actual modeled diameters or to identify the asteroids for which copied
diameters were substituted. W2018 confirms an error in the NEOWISE analysis
that contributed to the issue, first identified by Myhrvold (2018b, hereafter
M2018b), that many fit curves published by NEOWISE do not pass near the data
points they claimed to fit. W2018 now documents a software bug that was found
and corrected in 2011 but that the team failed to disclose until now. This bug
apparently corrupted the vast majority of NEOWISE results, which have yet to be
corrected. Results affected by the bug were knowingly included, without
comment, in a compilation of NEOWISE results archived in 2016 to the Planetary
Data System (PDS). Although W2018 argues that the bug had only rare and small
impacts on results, W2018 elsewhere provides examples that contradict this
claim, thus rebutting their own false claim.
Other arguments offered in W2018 to rebut claims of M2018b are shown here to
be invalid and to rely on fundamental misconceptions, such as that the NEATM
predicts visible absolute magnitude H. We learn from W2018 that H values used
by NEOWISE were not taken from the literature, as previously claimed, but were
in fact derived by fitting data. The combination of acknowledged errors,
misrepresentations, and misconceptions presented in W2018 further undermines
confidence in the NEOWISE project and demonstrates the urgent need for an
independent effort to produce a full and correct error analysis of the NEOWISE
results that have been published in the literature and the PDS to date.
Wright et al. (2018, hereafter W2018) respond to some of the irregularities
and criticisms of the NEOWISE results raised by Myhrvold (2018a, 2018b).
Contradicting earlier statements by the group, the response now acknowledges
the validity of some of the most serious issues identified by Myhrvold. Among
these is the false presentation of diameters that had been copied from
previously published analyses of radar, occultation, and spacecraft
observations as diameters obtained by thermal modeling. While W2018 confirms
that this misrepresentation occurred for 117 asteroids, it fails to provide the
actual modeled diameters or to identify the asteroids for which copied
diameters were substituted. W2018 confirms an error in the NEOWISE analysis
that contributed to the issue, first identified by Myhrvold (2018b, hereafter
M2018b), that many fit curves published by NEOWISE do not pass near the data
points they claimed to fit. W2018 now documents a software bug that was found
and corrected in 2011 but that the team failed to disclose until now. This bug
apparently corrupted the vast majority of NEOWISE results, which have yet to be
corrected. Results affected by the bug were knowingly included, without
comment, in a compilation of NEOWISE results archived in 2016 to the Planetary
Data System (PDS). Although W2018 argues that the bug had only rare and small
impacts on results, W2018 elsewhere provides examples that contradict this
claim, thus rebutting their own false claim.
Other arguments offered in W2018 to rebut claims of M2018b are shown here to
be invalid and to rely on fundamental misconceptions, such as that the NEATM
predicts visible absolute magnitude H. We learn from W2018 that H values used
by NEOWISE were not taken from the literature, as previously claimed, but were
in fact derived by fitting data. The combination of acknowledged errors,
misrepresentations, and misconceptions presented in W2018 further undermines
confidence in the NEOWISE project and demonstrates the urgent need for an
independent effort to produce a full and correct error analysis of the NEOWISE
results that have been published in the literature and the PDS to date.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
