Zombie comet ISON dies again

We discussed the ISON ISOFF again nature of comet ISON in this WUWT thread, now it looks like ISOFF again.

From NASA’s Spaceweather.com (h/t Fernando): Comet ISON is fading fast as it recedes from the sun. Whatever piece of the comet survived the Thanksgiving flyby of the sun is now dissipating in a cloud of dust.  (animation follows)

(Note: The animation may take a minute or more to load, based on your Internet connection speed.) Click to view a 3-day movie centered on perihelion (closest approach to the sun):

This development makes it unlikely that Comet ISON will put on a good show after it exits the glare of the sun in early December. Experienced astro-photographers might be able to capture the comet’s fading “ghost” in the pre-dawn sky, but a naked-eye spectacle can be ruled out.

On Nov. 29th, pilot Brian Whittaker tried to catch a first glimpse of Comet ISON from Earth, post-perihelion, from a plane flying 36,000 feet over the Arctic Circle in northern Canada. No luck:

“Ideal viewing conditions from the Arctic revealed no Comet ISON,” reports Whittaker. “This negative report is to quench the thirst of other fellow dreamers under cloudy skies or further south. Later I could see that SOHO showed the comet dimming further.”

Despite Whittaker’s negative result, it is too soon to rule out observations from Earth as the twice-dead comet moves away from the glare of the sun. Meanwhile, NASA’s fleet of solar observatory will be tracking the remains.

About these ads

297 thoughts on “Zombie comet ISON dies again

  1. Far out movie. Looks like at the end it gets a swift kick in the tail from the solar eruption..but then the movie ended?
    thanks Anthony

  2. I echo Bloke down the pub’s inquiry. Any idea about the new path and how much mass is involved? Come on… get your slide rules out.

  3. Of course it is dying. “NASA discovered a large envelope of carbon dioxide around the nucleus, looking through its Spitzer Space Telescope”, that’s why.

    The most evil gas known to man has done a nasty hatchet job again, the Sun has nothing to do with it for sure.

  4. Its been the most fun I’ve had with comets without actually viewing it in the night sky. I hope it wont be too much of a disappointment for people who were expecting to see a “Comet of the Century”.

  5. There once was a Comet named ISON
    Twas promised “The best you’ll lay Eyes on”
    although near the end
    it did brighten again
    it fizzled out into a Bye-Gone

  6. I agree with Sparks – I’m disappointed not to be able to see a daylight comet, but the thrilling SOHO and STEREO images make up for it. Also I won’t need to get up early on a freezing morning to watch it – armchair astronomy is cool enough!

  7. That was the source of some of the happy anticipation of ISON surviving perihelion, NOT having to crawl out of a warm bed at 0430 to see it.

  8. It stopped outgassing. That may mean it is now invisible, but does not prove it “fully disintegrated”. There was no disintegration “event” at the end, IMO.

  9. Been there, done that:

    Before its close approach, Kohoutek was hyped by the media as the “comet of the century”. However, Kohoutek’s display was considered a let-down,[3] possibly due to partial disintegration when the comet closely approached the sun prior to its Earth flyby.

    ….it seems that the sure way to kill a comet is to declare it a “Christmas Comet” or “Comet of the Century” etc.

  10. If this was Star Trek, we would find Scotty hard at work trying to restart the warp drive after a sun grazing manuver to avoid the Klingons, telling Kirk, “I’m givin’ her all she’s got, Captain!”

  11. Well, we are still waiting for official astrobys confirmation, and I guess it is early days yet – but it looks as if my last observation/comment yesterday (before I went off to catch some zzzz’s) is still valid – i.e. it probably broke up with just a remnant trail remaining after perihelion?
    To me, it makes sense for a debris trail to have made the spread shape seen after perihelion if the the larger ‘bits’ were drawn into the sun whilst the various finer bits were slingshotted back out to space at different rates/directions? It’s a long while since I did any physics though, so I may have got that wrong in my mind…….

  12. Carla says:
    November 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Yeah, seven hours!! I guess the fact it was going some severe speed meant the wind chill kept it cool for a while longer? Or maybe all the CO2 it was giving off actually acted like a ghg blanket and kept it cool by keeping the solar radiation out too? (Oh noes, the CO2 alarmists will probs use that excuse for any future cooling too!)
    (I don’t really need to put /sarc, do I?)

  13. My thoughts on this comet are, If a portion of the comets nucleus did survive, it maybe spinning out of control and will not producing a tail or if it is spinning more slowly we may see an intermittent tail appear and disappear. ISON/ISOFF/ISON/ISOFF/…? It’s typical behavior for a sun-grazer, though, short period comets tend to right themselves faster than long period comets.

    The guys over at the ‘NASA Comet ISON Observing Campaign’ are pulling their hair out over this, I think the poor guys are so distressed that they’ve lost the will to use a spellchecker and are now calling it Schrodinger’s-Comet or “schroedingers-comet”, they’re disintegrating quicker than ISON/ISOFF.

    http://www.isoncampaign.org/karl/schroedingers-comet

  14. Brian H says:
    November 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    It stopped outgassing. That may mean it is now invisible, but does not prove it “fully disintegrated”. There was no disintegration “event” at the end, IMO.

    That was my assessement too, especially after looking at Bryan A’s projected vs actual trajectory overlay:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/zombie-comet-ison-dies-again/#comment-1488303

    So it looks like the comet has been in free fall for the last three days. Yes it passed near the sun inside the corona, But the corona is very thin, virtually a vacuum, and exerted no significant braking forces on the comet. (Otherwise the trajectory would have changed.)

    No disintegration has been observed, other than some outgassing. The outgasssing must have been caused by heating and was mostly uniform, otherwise a directed outgassing would have changed momentum into a different trajectory. But otherwise the rocky part of the comet is probably intact.

    So why did the brightness fade, causing great concern here that the comet was “dead”?

    I don’t know, but I don’t think the comet has vanished. Too much mass to account for.

    Not knowing the spectral response of C3, I’m guessing that part of the brightness was caused by solar light reflected from the gassy part of the comet, which is now gone. Another part may have been radiation from comet, glowing from absorbed solar light, which is now cooling and dimming.

    My two cents. So I’m applying Conan-Dolye logic here: “What else could it be?”

    :-|

  15. ISON is a vastly diminished young comet, with volatiles nearly exhausted, with dormancy and extinction in its future. It will not likely, certainly soon, get this hot again so its remaining volatiles are are frozen under a relatively inert layer.

  16. Assuming it has remaining volatiles sealed inside a shell formed by a frozen layer, could continued thermal contraction of the shell with cooling, lead to enough tension to tear a fissure in the shell?

  17. So can we get some of the EU folks to explain how their prediction utterly failed?

    I recall “as the comet moves further from the sun, the magicthingamajig will hooziewhatsit and it will get brighter, something arc plasma nonsense padiddle” or something roughly along those lines.

  18. Max™ says:
    November 30, 2013 at 6:23 pm
    So can we get some of the EU folks to explain how their prediction utterly failed?
    I recall “as the comet moves further from the sun, the magicthingamajig will hooziewhatsit and it will get brighter, something arc plasma nonsense padiddle” or something roughly along those lines.

    Are you refering to this, from “CO2-Rich” yesterday?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/28/comet-ison-appears-to-be-toast/#comment-1487086

    “A further question would be whether, if part of it was pulled slightly apart, as it moves further away from the Sun and the inverse cube effect decreases more rapidly than its own internal inverse square effect, could it come back together again? Someone, somewhere, may already have calculated this sort of thing.”
    That’s not a prediction. More of a speculative question, and irrelevant because (I think) he was assuming that tidal forces had ripped the comet apart, which was not the case.

    Also nothing to do with EU. [Disclaimer: I'm not an "EU folk"]

    But can we at least say that your recollection of this has “utterly failed”? :-]
    :

  19. John Day, there are a few statements you made in your post of November 30, 2013 at 4:49 pm that I would like you to clarify or expand upon. I do admit that I am a complete and total layman concerning anything scientific about comets, however some of your statements beg explanation.

    In you post you say:
    …That was my assessement too, especially after looking at Bryan A’s projected vs actual trajectory overlay:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/zombie-comet-ison-dies-again/#comment-1488303

    Well, I looked at that image you quoted and looked at that image and looked at that image and I can not see a projected trajectory versus and actual trajectory. Was this the image you meant to link to? Mind you I am older, accused of being daft and prone to posting curmudgeon post here, but I honestly don’t see what you seem to be claiming to see. What am I missing?

    This part of your post really makes me wonder:
    … So it looks like the comet has been in free fall for the last three days. …..

    Huh, yeah. It’s a comet. It has been in “free fall” for a great number of years and even though it is now outbound from Sol, isn’t it still it technically in “free fall”. What did you actually mean by that?

    ….Yes it passed near the sun inside the corona, But the corona is very thin, virtually a vacuum, and exerted no significant braking forces on the comet. (Otherwise the trajectory would have changed.) ….

    It would have changed? You sure about that? At these distances are you so sure and based on what math?

    Now this next part really makes me wonder about what the heck you are thinking or smoking:

    No disintegration has been observed, other than some outgassing. The outgasssing must have been caused by heating and was mostly uniform, otherwise a directed outgassing would have changed momentum into a different trajectory. But otherwise the rocky part of the comet is probably intact.

    Ok, outgassing is a loss of mass and therefore disintegration. “The outgassing must have been caused by heating…” Duh. “…..and was mostly uniform, otherwise a directed outgassing would have changed momentum into a different trajectory.” By what model, standard of observation or is this just your theory? And with just a few days of looking for what does remains of ISON, is it enough trajectory to accurately say that the trajectory has not changed? Does Shoemaker-Levy 9 bring anything to mind?

    Just some questions. I admit that I am under informed and I am willing to be educated. Just don’t try to bullshhitte me.

  20. @Randall_G
    >I looked at that image you quoted and looked at that image and looked at that image
    >and I can not see a projected trajectory versus and actual trajectory.

    “Bryan A” said it was “projected trajectory overlaying the actual path”. If so, then it looks perfect, at this large scale. If you zoom in you can see what looks like ‘o’ overlayed on ‘x’ (just the four corners of the ‘x’ sticking out.

    BryanA, can you confirm that it is correct?

    >and even though it is now outbound from Sol, isn’t it still it
    > technically in “free fall”. What did you actually mean by that?

    Yes, you got it right, the comet is in orbit around the Sun, so is in ‘free fall’. That wouldn’t be the case if it was being subjected to braking forces, which will steal kinetic energy and even cause it to disintegrate. But such forces, if they were significant, would cause the trajectory to change, which would have shown up as a ‘divergence’ on Byan_A’s diagram. But we didn’t see any divergence, so I claim there is no significant braking. (Assuming of course that Bryan’s diagram is correctly showing almost perfect alignment of projected vs actual trajectory)

    > It would have changed? You sure about that?… Based on what math?

    Based on the knowledge that the density of the corona is exceedingly thin, almost a vacuum. Not enough matter there to cause any _significant_ braking. Again, if there were any braking large enough to cause the comet to break apart and disintegrate, a large amount of its kinetic energy would be lost as heat (friction etc), and would be readily observable as a divergence in the trajectory. Again, we see no such divergence (assuming Byran’s diagram is correct)

    >outgassing …and was mostly uniform, otherwise a directed outgassing would have changed
    >momentum into a different trajectory.”
    >By what model, standard of observation or is this just your theory?

    The outgassing is visible in the imagery, probably accounting for its brightness (I said I was guessing there). Again, since we see no change in trajectory, the loss of mass/momentum resulting from this outgassing must have been slight. I also assumed that it was ‘uniform’, meaning in all directions, because that would tend to avoid causing any divergence in trajectory.
    >And with just a few days of looking for what does remains of ISON, is it enough trajectory to > accurately say that the trajectory has not changed?
    I confess that I came up with this assessment quickly by just looking at the videos and Bryan’s diagram, which seems to show, at a rather large scale, no divergence in the expected orbit. Also looking at the video I saw no large perturbations or trauma in the motion of comet as seen by the imagers.
    So it’s a kind of ‘back of the envelope’ assessment, but intuitively it seems correct and I haven’t seen or heard about any observations that would contradict this assessment. If I did I would certainly retract or revise my assessment.
    > Just some questions. I admit that I am under informed and I am willing to be educated.
    >Just don’t try to [BS] me.
    Those were good questions. Thanks for asking them. Hope it will further the discussion along more discussion of the science behind the events.
    :-]

  21. Now that this big lump of rock has emerged on the other side with a fantastic gravity assist and a speed still in excess of 600,000 mph, the charge difference will once again increase very rapidly, the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….
    The observational evidence being provided by Ison (along with other comets) is to mainstream astronomy what the 17 year-long Pause is to mainstream CAGW. It’s called falsifying a theory. ~French_Atkins

    There, found it.

  22. A beginners comet observer question: Why was ISON’s fragmented tail not in line with the solar wind? Most comets I thought the tail was always away from the sun.

  23. And what is this “fantastic gravity assist” he is talking about? In what frame of reference? Swings and roundabouts. Seems to have a very shaky grip on reality.

  24. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/ison-survives-changes-course

    This was the source story for the image I linked to. In the larger version, it appears that the projected trajectory is the path marked by the asterisks. The actual trajectory, while not noted, is marked at the end by the glowing coma remnant to the left of the asterisk path. I would estimate that the change in trajectory is from the 800,000 mph perihelion speed acting on the reduced mass. Comet ISON/ISOFF was likely a relative loosely packed 3 or 4k diameter dirty snowball

  25. John Day says November 30, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    So it looks like the comet has been in free fall for the last three days. Yes it passed near the sun inside the corona, But the corona is very thin, virtually a vacuum, and exerted no significant braking forces on the comet. (Otherwise the trajectory would have changed.)

    No disintegration has been observed, other than some outgassing. The outgasssing must have been caused by heating and was mostly uniform, otherwise a directed outgassing would have changed momentum into a different trajectory.

    Those two paragraphs almost look like total contradictions; covering the ‘bet’ both ways can I assume?

    I also think the term ‘outgassing’ is a poor choice of terms for what you and others may be referring to as a ‘boiling’ of some constituent material in the comet (i.e., material changing from a solid to a liquid to a gaseous state); why hadn’t most of this material already ‘boiled’ off in previous ‘grazing’ approaches in previous years’ passes? Perhaps we have seen one of the final passes of this comet?

    .

  26. mddwave says November 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    A beginners comet observer question: Why was ISON’s fragmented tail not in line with the solar wind? Most comets I thought the tail was always away from the sun.

    Let me venture to say in very general terms: it was re-grouping after experiencing mild dispersion and ‘delay’ after passing so close and in the face of ejecta (solar wind) from the sun. Heavier, more massive portions/dust/etc of the comet would be effected less than the lighter material comprising the ‘tails’ et al.

    Leif referenced this re: tails yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitail

    .

  27. Kev-in-uk said:

    To me, it makes sense for a debris trail to have made the spread shape seen after perihelion if the the larger ‘bits’ were drawn into the sun whilst the various finer bits were slingshotted back out to space at different rates/directions? It’s a long while since I did any physics though, so I may have got that wrong in my mind.

    Yes, a long while. Galileo taught us that size doesn’t matter when it comes to gravity (in a particular well defined sense). So every lump on or near ISON is tending to follow roughly the same orbit. But assuming that there are collisions between the lumps then some energy is lost to heat and some momentum is exchanged from one lump to another. If a bigger lump hits a smaller lump then the smaller one will have its momentum changed by more. Depending on the direction of the impact this might accelerate it outwards or inwards from its original orbit. So a spread, or fan, of debris around the nucleus is not in my view an unlikely outcome.

    The thing that does surprise me though is that overall the comet appears to have moved outside its original trajectory (see Bryan A’s clarification above), which suggests a gain in energy (unless counteracted by an extra loss in velocity). If it had been completely atomized at some point then perhaps radiation pressure could explain that. Or, when it went ‘poof’ did some energetic CME give it a big enough nudge to push its (mean) orbit outwards?

    Rich.

  28. Small correction: the smaller lump doesn’t have its momentum changed by more. Momentum of equal magnitude but opposite direction is exchanged between the lumps, and since momentum is mass times velocity the smaller lump gets a bigger change in velocity.

    Rich.

  29. @Bryan A
    >The actual trajectory, while not noted, is marked at the end
    >by the glowing coma remnant to the left of the asterisk path.

    I think you posted the wrong image from the Noory site. The image at the very bottom does show the overlay of the expected path. Yes, it diverges slightly coming out. But it wasn’t even following the expected path exactly coming in either, so it wasn’t 100% accurate.

    Kinetic energy can disappear by conversion to heat through friction. But the total momentum of a closed system can’t change unless it is transferred to another body by collisions etc. But it looks like it the comet is still following its intended orbit around the sun.

    Some mass was obviously lost in the observed outgassing. That could change the motion if the percentage of mass is large compared to the solid residue, because it would have move in the opposite direction to conserve momentum. But if the outgassing was uniform in all directions, then the net change in momentum would be zero. This again is consistent with the smooth orbit.

    As I said before, I didn’t see evidence of major changes in motion or any big path-changing impulses, so based on this preliminary ‘eyebal’l assessment of the imagery, Ison looked relatively unscathed by its adventure around the Sun. It has dimmed but it’s not dead.
    :-|

  30. It looks like Comet Ison was a very small comet anyway. It wouldn’t have produced much for us on Earth.

    Compare the out-gassing on SOHO Lasco C3 from other relatively unknown comets “Neat” and “Bradfield”. As Ison exited Lasco C3, it was nothing to compared to these comets and they turned out to be nothing when visible from Earth.

  31. mddwave says:
    November 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    A beginners comet observer question: Why was ISON’s fragmented tail not in line with the solar wind? Most comets I thought the tail was always away from the sun.

    You’d think that this would be instantly noticed 1st thing by everyone who looks at the vids. But you’re only the 2nd person alive I’ve seen independently point it out .

    The tail spins to 10deg off the tangential and then maintains this angle. This is 80deg off where theory predicts it should be, so can’t be ignored. When I commented on this, Leif evaded by talking about the trailing tail. when I asked again he said it was because of our perspective ( point of view ), our projection ( magnification of view ), and aberration effects. I thought this was obviously wrong.
    perspective : If a line points to or away from an object, it does so from ALL perspectives, so this doesn’t explain a 80 degree anomaly
    projection : no effect on angle at all
    aberration : would curve the tail ( not observed ), would also have similar effect on trailing tale ( knock it out of expected angle by large angle ) , but this is not observed.
    When I pointed this out Leif evaded not providing an explanation but instead saying trailing tail dynamics have been studied for over 50 year – i.e. ( who was I to dare question astronomers! )

    At that point I didn’t bother debating with him any more, I was convinced he was wrong, so I had no more to gain. And I wanted to see if anyone else here would raise a red flag at Leif to say perspective, projection and aberration can’t cause angles to be off by 80deg. There was a few comments of support, but no one pointed out his 1+1=3 style error. A mixed bag of they weren’t reading, they are too scared to question him, they are blind faith supporting him, or they don’t know that a line pointing to or away from an object does so from all perspectives.

    I’ve asked around in dedicated comet forums, and no one can explain with conventional theory why the angle was off by 80degrees. The word from NASA is that the comet has defied a lot of theory and left them baffled. The only supposed authority in the whole world who seems to think the comet hasn’t done anything unusual by conventional astronomy is …. Leif.

    links to COR2 satellite views of ison perihelion

    http://www.isoncampaign.org/karl/a-trail-of-questions

  32. @meemoe
    >The tail spins to 10deg off the tangential and then maintains this angle.
    >This is 80deg off where theory predicts it should be, so can’t be ignored.

    But how do you know that it’s not aligned with solar wind? This close to the Sun there is more turbulence from filaments, CMEs etc. Do you have an actual (i.e. not theoretical) map of the solar wind vectors in the vicinity of the comet?
    :-|

  33. Because the solar wind is not moving directly away from the sun. There is some lateral motion caused by the Sun’s rotation and turbulence due to flares and CME’s.

    http://www.solarham.net/cmewatch2.htm

    Good point, but the lateral motion of the solar wind is small and insufficient compared to the 80degree difference in expect angle. So the conventional theory : the solar wind is knocking atoms off the comets surface and off and the collision takes them off in the similar direction as the wind. Seems wrong.

    You should consider what is forcing the solar wind to rotate.

    I really like the solar wind model in your link. I hope it’s a model in the sense its a conversion of raw data from dedicated solar wind measuring instrument, i.e. its a model in the same way a camera ‘models’ views into images.
    It offers a beautiful and clear illustration of that CME coinciding with Ison.
    Just one of the most perfect pieces of evidence we’ve got.
    Wonder if Leif fancies trying to assert it was just sheer co-incidence.
    Or will he cave in and admit that Ison interacted the the sun and provoked the CME via massive electromagnetic influence.

    Chapman derailed astronomy in the 1950s with his insane zero electricity is space obsession.

  34. But how do you know that it’s not aligned with solar wind?

    Because you can see the solar wind coming off the sun in the vids. At that close range the angle of rotation is too small to be noticeable. Compare this with the 80degree anomalous angle of the comets tail.

  35. edit : doof, i should have more faith in my theory. That explosion in the solar wind observed on

    http://www.solarham.net/cmewatch2.htm

    wasn’t a CME. It was Ison.
    I just reflex assumed anything that powerful was a CME. I think others have made the same mistake and asserted it was a CME.

    So a good question is how the heck did Ison cause such a massive CME style shock wave to the solar wind?
    Leif?

  36. @meemoe
    > So a good question is how the heck did Ison cause such a massive
    > CME style shock wave to the solar wind?

    Because it didn’t happen. You’re looking at a 4-day forecast/prediction based on a theoretical magneto-hydrodynamic model. There were no reported CMEs at that timeframe and it certainly doesn’t appear on Soho Lasco (which is orbiting a million miles from earth at the L1 Lagrangian point) imagery of Ison (which i_s_ real).
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/wmo/solar-wind.php (WSA-Enlil Solar Wind Prediction)

    I think that “sideways” tail of Ison is pointing in the direction which was “outward” when the outgassing began. So it has some momentum which will try to keep it streaming in the same direction. But if you look closely, you can see that the solar wind is trying to rotate it. It has a noticeable clockwise vorticity.

    When drawing conclusions of such grand scale, you must look before you leap!
    :-|

  37. Because it didn’t happen. You’re looking at a 4-day forecast/prediction based on a theoretical magneto-hydrodynamic model.

    You sure? Why would a model predict a massive violent shockwave days in advance without any forseeable cause?

  38. two things
    a-loss “volatile” material.
    Knowing that the region has low density, sudden decompression of ‘volatile’ material. Consequently an extra [not related to any CME] shine
    b-non “volatile” material was fragmented. These heated debris emitted light causing the illusion of a tail.
    Although not correct my interpretation. I do not see the need for a “new astronomy”

  39. Re: the comet’s tail not being straight out from the solar wind. I noticed this too, and wondered. But then I thought that maybe the comet’s angular speed across the disc of the sun had something to do with it.

    Consider a garden hose. The water comes straight out of the nozzle, like the wind from the Sun. In normal conditions, a comet is so far from the sun that it has nearly zero change in angular velocity (if I’m using the term correctly) across its disk. It’s like you pointing the garden hose in one direction and leaving it there. However, if you move the nozzle rapidly from left to right, the stream of water describes a curve due to the fact that the water that came out of the nozzle 0.1s ago is not moving on the same trajectory as the water coming out of the nozzle now. Could the rapid motion of ISON across the face of the Sun cause the same effect with a comet tail?

  40. The Tails of a Comet:

    The gas which is blown away from the coma is ionized by the Solar radiation and becomes electrically charged. It is then affected strongly by the magnetic fields associated with the Solar wind (a stream of charged particles expelled by the Sun).
    The gas tail is made visible by line-emissions from the excitation of the gas by the Sun’s radiation. This gives the gas tail its characteristic blue colour. The geometric shape of the tail is governed by the magnetic structures in the Solar wind, but predominantly, the gas tail points directly away from the direction from the comet to the Sun.

    The dust which is blown away from the coma, is blown by the Sun’s radiation and it moves in a direction which is governed by the motion of the comet, by the size of the dust particles, and by the speed of ejection from the coma. The dust tail can be complex, multiple and even curved but, in general, will point away from the Sun.
    Sometimes, due to projection effects, part of the dust tail can be seen pointing in a sunward direction. This is just due to the fact that the comet and the Earth are moving, and that part of the tail has been ‘left behind’ in such a place as to appear to point towards the Sun.

    From http://www.oarval.org/section3_15.htm (Comets, Science and Engineering Research Council, Royal Greenwich Observatory)

  41. @meemoe
    >You sure? Why would a model predict a massive violent
    > shockwave days in advance without any forseeable cause?

    I was surprised by this too. So I checked Solen (http://www.solen.info/solar/) for the CME data for that timeframe. He reported no Earthward CME activity. Then I watched the LASCO video again, several times, to see if there was any hint of an explosion around 28-Nov@1900Z. Couldn’t see anything. Something that big should have shown up clearly in the video.

    I always assumed the WSA-Enlil was tracking and forecasting at the same time, given some real CME event data. So I’m not sure what “seeded” this forecasted “event”, but note that they’re forecasting it to hit Earth on 3-Dec with a big storm bump. (Eventtually a report will be written on these CME events, but they’re six months behind in publishing these).

    I just can’t see how Ison could have caused something that big, with no effect on its own presentation and orbit, which shows nothing unusual, IMO.

    In the future I will be much more skeptical about the predictions of this NASA product.
    :-|

  42. re: direction of the tail.

    You are all assuming (it appears to me) that you are viewing the images in a flat plane from above. If ISON is behind and above the sun, the tail will appear to have a different angle relative to the CME’s etc that you also see in the frame moving directly away from the sun.

    The tail is pointing away from you (and the sun). The CME’s are moving in a different direction. Because of the different vectors the angles appear different from our flat perspective. Gotta think in three dimensions.

    “His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.” — Spock. The Wrath of Kahn

  43. In the future I will be much more skeptical about the predictions of this NASA product.

    Doh. Well if your right ( i think you are ), I don’t feel to foolish getting hyped by that model. I don’t expect NASA to just cook stuff up for no reason, and the model is set 3 days ago, so I too assumed its a measurement-prediction mix.

  44. You are all assuming (it appears to me) that you are viewing the images in a flat plane from above.
    I’m not.
    I know the positions of the satellites. SOHO is at the infront of the Earth Lagrange point and the COR2 satellites are marked on this map

    But the key assertion is unaffected by perspectives. A line that is radially aligned is radially aligned from ALL perspectives. So since it wasn’t radially aligned from the LASCO perspective it wasn’t radially aligned.
    Seems to be a trickier concept than I thought. Point a pen or a stick at a ball. then move around, No matter what perspective you have the pen will always point at the ball.

  45. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:10 am
    So a good question is how the heck did Ison cause such a massive CME style shock wave to the solar wind? Leif?
    It did not. The solar wind magnetic field if reversing directions [does that two to four times per month] it can steal the comet’s tail. We have observed thousands of comets and the tail behavior is well-studied and well-understood. ISON is not special as far as I can see.
    And, BTW, nobody is ‘baffled’ about the direction of the tails, except perhaps you.
    Several commenters have attempted to explain to you that you think in 3D. Study what they said and learn.

  46. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 10:02 am
    A line that is radially aligned is radially aligned from ALL perspectives.
    The flaw in this argument is your assumption that the tail is a stiff, rigid rod. It is not, a piece of the tail is moving away with the solar wind while the comet’s head is also moving [and in a different direction], so the line connecting the head and a tail piece changes direction constantly and will never be aligned with the radial.

  47. Comet Ison destroyed by Global warming…..
    On Thursday, Comet ISON was approaching the perihelion, the closest point to the Sun on its trajectory. Centuries ago, before the climate began to change, such a moment in the life of a comet would be an important event for the religious societies. However Comet ISON was largely destroyed. The experts are not quite sure about the cause but most of the researchers mention the global warming. The Solar System is being catastrophically heated up by the man-made emissions of CO2, especially by those produced by the corporations in countries with GDP per capita exceeding $20,000, particularly those countries which tolerate a larger number of the climate change deniers, heretics, and other contrarians.
    H/T Lubos Motl

    Print this in the “Guardian” and it will be repeated as Gospel by the brain-dead numpties in the BBC and Parliament.

  48. All comets are electrically neutral until they interact with the suns magnetic field, when a comet is traveling towards the sun it begins to experience ionization, the rate of which, increases the closer to the sun it gets, this ionization process on a comet is actually all the atoms or a molecules trying to magnetically align them selves with the suns magnetic field, this results in an ion tail as atoms or a molecules near the surface of the comets nucleus become lose and begin to free them selves from the parent comet, this also produces turbulence which causes larger dust particles and ice (which have a greater number of atoms or a molecules) to become lose from the parent body where they separate and eventually become neutral or balanced with the suns magnetic field.

  49. Hello all,

    to who is interested in science here without access to CBET telegrams,
    here is a latest CBET 3731 about comet ISON.

    Best regards,
    Jakub Cerny

    Electronic Telegram No. 3731
    Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
    INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION
    CBAT Director: Daniel W. E. Green; Hoffman Lab 209; Harvard University;
    20 Oxford St.; Cambridge, MA 02138; U.S.A.
    e-mail:cbatiau@… (alternatecbat@…)
    URLhttp://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/index.html
    Prepared using the Tamkin Foundation Computer Network

    The comet’s nucleus apparently disrupted near perihelion, with the
    comet’s head fading from perhaps a peak brightness of visual mag -2 some
    hours before perihelion to well below mag +1 before perihelion. M.
    Knight, Lowell Observatory, finds that the comet peaked around visual
    mag -2.0 around Nov. 28.1 UT, adding that the brightest feature in the
    coma of the comet faded steadily after perihelion from about mag 3.1 in
    a 95″-radius aperture when the comet first appeared from behind the SOHO
    coronagraph occulting disk on Nov. 28.92 to about mag 6.5 on Nov.
    29.98. K. Battams, Naval Research Laboratory, writes that, based on the
    most recent LASCO C3 images (Nov. 30.912 UT), there is no visible
    nucleus or central condensation; what remains is very diffuse, largely
    transparent to background stars, and fading; it appears that basically a
    cloud of dust remains from the nucleus. S. Nakano, Sumoto, Japan,
    writes that he measured the comet’s total magnitude in a 27′ photometric
    aperture from the SOHO C3 camera images to be as follows: Nov. 29.383,
    0.5; 29.755, 1.4; 30.013, 2.0; 30.496, 3.0; 30.883, 5.4.

    Z. Sekanina, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reports that, from the
    position of the northeastern boundary of the comet’s fan-shaped tail in
    three images taken with the C3 coronagraph onboard the SOHO spacecraft
    between 0.7 and 1.9 days after perihelion (Nov. 29.46 to 30.66 UT), he
    finds that the comet’s production of dust terminated about 3 hours
    before perihelion. Although this result is preliminary, it is unlikely
    to be significantly in error, because the position angles of a
    perihelion emission are off in the three images by 14-22 deg, and those
    of post-perihelion emissions still more. The peak radiation-pressure
    accelerations derived from the tail boundary’s angular lengths
    (estimated at 1.8-2.5 deg) are about 0.1-0.2 the solar gravitational
    acceleration, implying the presence of micron-sized particles. The
    estimated time of terminated activity is consistent with the absence of
    any feature that could be interpreted as a condensation around an active
    nucleus in the 20 or so images taken with the C2 coronagraph on Nov.
    28.8-29.0 UT (0.8 to 5.4 hr after perihelion) and with the appearance of
    a very sharp tip (replacing a rounded head) at the comet’s sunward end
    in the C2 images starting about 4 hr before perihelion and continuing
    until its disappearance behind the occulting disc around Nov. 28.74 UT
    (or some 50 minutes before perihelion). The time of terminated activity
    is here interpreted as the end of nuclear fragmentation, a process that
    is likely to have begun shortly before a sudden surge of brightness that
    peaked nearly 12 hr prior to perihelion. Fine dust particles released
    before perihelion moved in hyperbolic orbits with perihelion distances
    greater than is the comet’s, thus helping some of them survive. The
    post-perihelion tail’s southern, sunward-pointing boundary consists of
    dust ejected during the pre-perihelion brightening. However, the
    streamer of massive grains ejected at extremely large heliocentric
    distances, so prominently seen trailing the nucleus along the orbit
    before perihelion (cf.CBET 3722), completely disappeared. The dust
    located inside the fan, between both boundaries, was released in
    intervening times, mostly during the last two days before perihelion.
    The strong forward-scattering effect (phase angles near 120-130 deg) has
    tempered the rate of post-perihelion fading of the comet, but the
    merciless inverse-square power law of increasing heliocentric distance
    is necessarily the dominant factor in the comet’s forthcoming gradual
    disappearance.

    H. Boehnhardt, J. B. Vincent, C. Chifu, B. Inhester, N. Oklay, B.
    Podlipnik, C. Snodgrass, and C. Tubiana, Max Planck Institute for Solar
    System Research, Katlenburg-Lindau, reports that two diffuse tail
    structures were analyzed in post-perihelion images obtained by the
    LASCO-C3 corongraph onboard the SOHO spacecraft between Nov. 29.60 and
    29.81 UT. The southward tail extended toward p.a. about 167 deg to
    about 0.4 deg distance from the central brightness peak. The eastward
    tail had an approximate position angle of 68 deg and extended to at
    least 1.2 deg distance. By Finson-Probstein simulations, the eastward
    tail can best be interpretated as being caused by a dust release about 1
    hr around perihelion. The maximum beta value in the eastward tail
    reaches values up to 1.5, typical for graphite or metallic grains of
    about 0.1 micron radius. No indications are found for a continuation of
    the release of similar dust after 2 hr post-perihelion. The shorter
    southward tail may be a relict of heavier grains released about 1-2 days
    before perihelion passage. Diffuse cometary material is noticeable in
    the p.a. range covered by the two dust tails. The match of the
    synchrone pattern for the eastward tail is not optimal, which may
    indicate secondary effects to the dust grains involved.

    NOTE: These ‘Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams’ are sometimes
    superseded by text appearing later in the printed IAU Circulars.

    (C) Copyright 2013 CBAT
    2013 December 1 (CBET 3731) Daniel W. E. Green

    http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/comets-ml/conversations/messages/22839

  50. Sparks says:
    December 1, 2013 at 10:53 am
    All comets are electrically neutral until they interact with the suns magnetic field,
    They stay neutral. That something is ionized does not mean it is charged, just that free charges [of both signs] exist.

  51. lsvalgaard says:
    December 1, 2013 at 11:05 am

    They stay neutral. That something is ionized does not mean it is charged, just that free charges [of both signs] exist.

    That’s an interesting point Leif, though, my comment doesn’t refer to a charge.

  52. Sparks says:
    December 1, 2013 at 11:40 am
    That’s an interesting point Leif, though, my comment doesn’t refer to a charge.
    Then you need to get your terminology right. ‘Electrically neutral’ means ‘without net charge’. ‘Stay neutral until…’ means ‘stay without net charge until…’, thus when no longer neutral there is net charge.

  53. Fernando, something is in the air tonight, the stars are bright, Fernando. Unfortunately it is the stars and not the comet. I was just beginning to think that all the speculation here about the formation of the “fan-tail” could do with some real scientific analysis, so thank you ever so much for sharing that with us.

    Rich.

  54. Leif,
    I did mention ‘molecules’ three times in my comment, which are set-apart from ions by their lack of electrical charge in context.

  55. Sparks says:
    December 1, 2013 at 11:58 am
    I did mention ‘molecules’ three times in my comment, which are set-apart from ions by their lack of electrical charge in context
    ????

  56. How about this;

    TAKE TWO

    All comets are electrically neutral and remain electrically neutral when they interact with the suns magnetic field, when a comet is traveling towards the sun it begins to experience ionization, the rate of which, increases the closer to the sun it gets, this ionization process on a comet is actually all the atoms or molecules trying to magnetically align them selves with the suns magnetic field, this results in an ion tail as atoms or molecules near the surface of the comets nucleus become lose and begin to free them selves from the parent comet, this also produces turbulence which causes larger dust particles and ice (which have a greater number of atoms or molecules) to become lose from the parent body where they separate and eventually become neutral or balanced with the suns magnetic field.

  57. Sparks says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    How about this; TAKE TWO
    this ionization process on a comet is actually all the atoms or molecules trying to magnetically align them selves with the suns magnetic field..

    No good. By being ionized, the comet material becomes a conductor and as such can interact with a magnetic field [currents can be induced, etc], specifically the matter gets attached ['frozen in'] to the solar wind magnetic field and as the latter streams past the comet at 400 km/sec, the comet matter follows and forms a tail which then also moves at 400 km/sec away from the comet. In this way the existence and the speed of a solar wind was first deduced in 1951.

  58. TAKE THREE,

    All comets are electrically neutral and remain electrically neutral when they interact with the suns magnetic field, when a comet is traveling towards the sun it begins to experience magnetic induction, the rate of which, increases the closer to the sun it gets, this ionization process on a comet is actually all the atoms or molecules trying to magnetically align them selves with the suns magnetic field, this results in an ion tail as atoms or molecules near the surface of the comets nucleus become lose and begin to free them selves from the parent comet, this also produces turbulence which causes larger dust particles and ice (which have a greater number of atoms or molecules) to become lose from the parent body where they separate and eventually become neutral or balanced with the suns magnetic field.

  59. TAKE FOUR

    All comets are electrically neutral and remain electrically neutral when they interact with the suns magnetic field, when a comet is traveling towards the sun it begins to experience magnetic induction, the rate of which, increases the closer to the sun it gets, this process of magnetic induction on a comet is actually all the atoms or molecules trying to magnetically align them selves with the suns magnetic field, this results in an ion tail as atoms or molecules near the surface of the comets nucleus become lose and begin to free them selves from the parent comet, this also produces turbulence which causes larger dust particles and ice (which have a greater number of atoms or molecules) to become lose from the parent body where they separate and eventually become neutral or balanced with the suns magnetic field.

  60. lsvalgaard says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    “Still NFG…”

    It says on wikipedia: “solar radiation causes the volatile materials within the comet to vaporize and stream out of the nucleus, carrying dust away with them…”.

    i gave a better explanation, and implied that the process is magnetic in nature!

  61. It did not. The solar wind magnetic field if reversing directions [does that two to four times per month] it can steal the comet’s tail. We have observed thousands of comets and the tail behavior is well-studied and well-understood. ISON is not special as far as I can see.
    Yes, it looks like NASA got it wrong there with that massive supersonic explosion in their model. But no need for detail other than ask why did NASA plonk such an event in their model?

    The flaw in this argument is your assumption that the tail is a stiff, rigid rod.
    In theory its not a rod. But a tail can approximate a rod if the matter is ejected from the nucleus with high enough velocity to make other factors negligible.
    And what do we see with Ison? After perihelion, the ion tail is curved until about 04:00UT from the COR2-A view, after which it is a good approximation to a rod. We would expect this because the gravity acceleration and comet velocity which had become significant during perihelion weaken, therefore the nucleus emission velocity of tail material returns to being the only dominant factor in shaping the tail, just as before perihelion. The rod-like ion tail ends up at around 70degree off the angle predicted by conventional theory. On the LASCO view the angle is greater, about 80degrees. The COR2-B view has the tail spinning towards radial alignment. But since a line that isn’t aligned on a point will still appear to be aligned from some angles, we can expect this, but since it isn’t aligned from other perspectives, we should know it doesn’t mean its aligned.

    Aaaaanyway, I was ideally hoping to lead a few of the open minded viewers to the correct answers via some common sense questions and their astute inquisitive nature.
    But its moving slowly, so I’ll just tell you what’s actually happened with Ison’s tails.

    Over the last 20 years comets were observed by probes to have active jets. The photos were clear cut evidence that ion tails weren’t produced by the solar wind blowing off dust and ice, but by these jets on the comet.

    Convention says the jets are powered by trapped pressured gas within the comet. EU says they are ion jets because the comet is highly electrically charged ( debye shield stops short out discharge )

    Given a time period over days or weeks, these ion jets often prefer to align with the solar wind, and often they become strengthened in power\luminosity when they are aligned.
    For Ison, the ion jet alignment was lost at perihelion. The comet spun and with it so did the direction of ion jet ( for its position and direction is fixed to the comets surface ), but it spun out of alignment, ending up 70-80degrees off. Once out of alignment with the solar wind, the jets lost power.
    This offers a better explanation why the angle was wrong, and why the comet’s light died – because it span into an angle such that its jets were not aligned with the solar wind.
    Note that conventional theory can’t explain too well why comets light up and go off.

    Also time for this….

    EU based predictions
    We’re in a fun time right now because next month Ison flys past Earth. Great time to make predictions to be tested soon!
    For a comet to light up, it needs to have jets aligned with some electro-magnetic energy source. Most obviously, the solar wind. Ion jets ‘want’ to grow and become prominent as the comet become electrically charged. On the way in, Ison got pretty bright. But will it do so on the way out ?
    Yes.
    Why?
    - It will be travelling thru the same region of space as the space which charged to brightness.
    - 2ndly, from the evidence at perihelion, Ison isn’t spinning much. No spin lets the jets grow on one region of the comet. Ison wasn’t spinning with its axis tangential to the sun on the way in.
    - It will be brighter than on the way in. This is often the case with comets. But not because its warmer as convention says, but because the solar wind and solar magnetic field is stronger closer to the sun, and charges the comet harder.
    CMEs and solar wind shockwaves can pop a comets debye shield, resulting in short out of electric charge on the comet. Since we are at solar minimum there’s less chance of that happening. If a CME blasts the comet on its way out then it reduces the chance of bright comet.

    Also, implicitly with this post I’m asserting Ison hasn’t disintegrated to dust as some people wonder with this 2nd ‘lights out’ occurrence. Just takes time for new ion jets to emerge and power up.

    Note that Leif denounces my every word on WUWT comments and says comets are fully understood, but he himself was rather quiet when Ison seemed to go poof, while I raised a flag straight after I read the article, saying I didn’t think it had been destroyed.
    Now I’ve just beaten him to predictions of Ison’s Earth flyby.

    What say ye, Leif? The ‘not even wrong’ label you erroneously throw at me applies when no predictions are made, but then excuses are made post-event. So it was appropriate to mention it, but you applied it to the wrong commentator.
    Same again this time round? I make prediction and you don’t? I’ve waited till the old ion jets fizzle out b4 making this prediction.
    If I was you, I’d play safe and cook up conventional reasons why everything I’ve just predicted is going to happen. Straying away from the EU prediction could leave you being proved wrong. And unlike me, seems you are afraid of being wrong.

  62. And what else can these cometary tails (or tales) tell us?

    About the ubiquity of the “charge exchange” process, producing XRays in the universe.

    Solar system X-rays from charge exchange processes

    K. Dennerl1,, C.M. Lisse2, A. Bhardwaj3, D.J.Christian4, S.J. Wolk5, D. Bodewits6, T.H. Zurbuchen7,
    M. Combi7, and S. Lepri7

    http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/91180/324_ftp.pdf?sequence=1

    …2 Charge exchange in comets
    Comets play a central role in the investigation of the charge
    exchange process, because their X-ray emission is the direct result
    of this interaction between highly charged heavy
    ions in the solar wind and cometary neutrals. As the gas
    around comets is cold, there is essentially no thermal X-ray
    emission, and as it is not subject to a strong electric or magnetic
    field, X-ray emission by energetic electrons is negligible.
    Furthermore, the cometary nucleus is so small, and the
    gas and the embedded dust grains are so diluted, that there
    are not enough targets for solar X-ray scattering to become
    important. This has the exciting consequence that the Xray
    emission of comets is essentially pure charge exchange
    emission (Fig. 1).
    Thus, comets represent perhaps the best laboratory
    for studying the physics of charge exchange. With highly
    charged heavy ions streaming into the cold, tenuous
    cometary gas, nature is providing a clean experimental setup
    and a textbook example of a system which is far away
    from thermal equilibrium….

  63. edit : “solar minimum” I mean the 85-100 year gliessburg cycle minimum, not the 9-13year schwabe cycle. SC24 is very weak as most of us know here

  64. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Can you please direct me to your meemoe_uk.org page where you have linked all your published papers on the subject, the papers that explain in detail the math and science from which you draw your conclusions. I would be interested in learning more.

  65. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    In theory its not a rod. But a tail can approximate a rod if the matter is ejected from the nucleus with high enough velocity to make other factors negligible.
    The comet moves at high speed: 300 km/sec so other factors are not negligible.

    Note that Leif denounces my every word on WUWT comments and says comets are fully understood, but he himself was rather quiet when Ison seemed to go poof, while I raised a flag straight after I read the article, saying I didn’t think it had been destroyed.
    Didn’t I say that ISON could not have been tidally disrupted… This was clear long before perihelion.

    What say ye, Leif?
    I say you have not said anything worthwhile.

    I’ve waited till the old ion jets fizzle out b4 making this prediction.
    Predicting after the fact?

    Straying away from the EU prediction could leave you being proved wrong.
    It is a hallmark of science to be wrong at times, that is what makes it self-correcting science. EU is claimed to be never wrong, so is not science. Tell me, when was the last time EU was wrong? Or better, how many times do you know where EU was wrong?

  66. Ya know if we weren’t so fixated on trying to “get” Dr. S., maybe we might finally “get” what he is trying to tell us.

    Maybe or maybe not?
    toss coin maybe
    toss coin again maybe not
    Oh well shoot for sometimes we’ll get it. maybe

  67. Leif wrote Predicting after the fact?
    No, my predictions above are for the return Earth fly by of Ison. I wasn’t ambiguous about that.
    Your decoys and obfuscations are getting more obvious ( and desperate) every post.

  68. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    No, my predictions above are for the return Earth fly by of Ison. I wasn’t ambiguous about that.
    Perhaps only obscure. What is that prediction again? Hard to find one’s way through your verbiage…

    Predictably, you went quiet on:
    It is a hallmark of science to be wrong at times, that is what makes it self-correcting science. EU is claimed to be never wrong, so is not science. Tell me, when was the last time EU was wrong? Or better, how many times do you know where EU was wrong?

  69. Can you please direct me to your meemoe_uk.org
    sure tom
    its here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/zombie-comet-ison-dies-again/#comment-1489008

    xD

    The comet moves at high speed: 300 km/sec so other factors are not negligible.
    370km/s max.
    During perhelion yes, the tail was curved.12 hours after perhilion, the comet velocity had significantly dropped and the tail straightened and remained straight.
    Observation trumps theory, the observation was the ion tail was set straight and off angle for 2 days.

    Tell me, when was the last time EU was wrong?
    The last big blunder was when Alfven hypothesized a new type of magnetic field – a ‘frozen’ magnetic field. It was the only bit of his work he would have like to have been discarded, but it’s ended up as one of the very few bits that conventional astronomy has embraced.

    @sparks
    Try starting…
    TAKE 5
    A comet is a charged body….

  70. lsvalgaard says:

    December 1, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    The comet moves at high speed: 300 km/sec so other factors are not negligible.
    Didn’t I say that ISON could not have been tidally disrupted… This was clear long before perihelion
    ——-
    Thanks Dr. S.,
    One of the most exciting movies on ISON for me, was seeing the solar wind passing over it and making its tail wiggle. lol

    From spaceweather.com time machine.

    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?day=24&month=11&year=2013&view=view

    The movie link below

    ..””In the movie, which spans a two+ day period from Nov. 20 to Nov. 22, the sun is to the right, off-screen. “The dark ‘clouds’ coming from that direction are density enhancements in the solar wind, and these are what are causing the ripples you see in the comet tails,” explains Karl Battams of NASA’s Comet ISON Observing Campaign..””

  71. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    During perihelion yes, the tail was curved.12 hours after perhilion, the comet velocity had significantly dropped and the tail straightened and remained straight. Observation trumps theory, the observation was the ion tail was set straight and off angle for 2 days.
    Misunderstood observations do not trump anything. People have looked at the orientation [corrected for projection] on hundreds of observations, e.g. as reported here http://www.leif.org/EOS/1968-Brandt-Comet-Tails.pdf and found that there true orientation conforms to theory, including the 4 degree aberration.

    The last big blunder was when Alfven hypothesized a new type of magnetic field – a ‘frozen’ magnetic field.
    Observations [in space and in the laboratory] show that Alfven was correct about that after all. Besides, he suggested the frozen-in magnetic field in the 1940s, long before there was any EU theory. Are you saying that this was the only blunder? Are there none other?

  72. Tom in Florida says:
    December 1, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    Can you please direct me to your meemoe_uk.org page

    Seriously I do have my own science website, but it’s not an EU or astronomy site.
    If you want more EU theory try google thunderbolts. ( I’m not going to link, the WUWT mods don’t like EU )

  73. I find it very funny that the “Science” Channel (aka all AGW all the time) is running a special on “Super Comet ISON” this Saturday. Based on all that’s happened, not only was that ballsy programming decision which had to have been made several weeks ago, but due to the comet’s alleged and likely death it seems quite a poor decision. Perhaps Morgan Freeman narrating it might salvage the show. /sarc

  74. meemoe_uk says: During perhelion yes, the tail was curved

    Oh, and I’ve left something hanging. While I agree with you about curved tails during perihelion. I disagree as to why the tail is curved. It curves cos the comet rotates with its orbit, and so do the ion jets that are fixed in position and direction on the surface of the comet.

    Conventional theory is flawed. This explains why I can use a single simple geometric principle when analysing Ison ( a line radially directed to a point, points to the point from any perspective ) to disprove convention, but you have to invoke the max planck institute with their dozens of scientists and super computer, or 20 page academic papers with walls of text. Because its heavy work trying to fudge up knowledge to fit in with a crank theory.

    4 degrees aberration sounds sensible. Just another 76degrees to go and I’ll swap over to conventional astronomy.

  75. Do we know if the angle it’s coming back from the Sun has changed? If it’s any lower that’s a problem.

  76. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    “Seriously I do have my own science website, but it’s not an EU or astronomy site.
    If you want more EU theory try google thunderbolts. ( I’m not going to link, the WUWT mods don’t like EU )”

    No, I do not want a site you read from and repeat here. I want the site which shows the list of published papers on the subject that you have written that shows the scientific reasons you believe Dr S is wrong. Just repeating what is on the thunderbolts website because you think it is correct is not good enough. Where is your research that causes you to have these opinions?

  77. We discussed the ISON ISOFF again nature of comet ISON in this WUWT thread, now it looks like ISOFF again.

    =================================================================
    Whoever first came up with that (ISON ISOFF) deserves some kind of award.
    (I also liked the “CO2 at it’s core” explanation.8-)

  78. Max™
    November 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm

    quotes me as saying on the parallel WUWT thread « Comet ISON appears to be toast – goes “poof” in video, then comes back to life » :

    “Now that this big lump of rock has emerged on the other side with a fantastic gravity assist and a speed still in excess of 600,000 mph, the charge difference will once again increase very rapidly, the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….
    The observational evidence being provided by ISON (along with other comets) is to mainstream astronomy what the 17 year-long Pause is to mainstream CAGW. It’s called falsifying a theory.”

    having just before thrown out the challenge; “So can we get some of the EU folks to explain how their prediction utterly failed?”

    Sorry for not picking up on this earlier, I’ve just got back from a day out.

    Max, I fully assume what I said and must express some surprise about your assertion that my “prediction utterly failed”.

    You apparently know very little about the more recent history of cometary observations, which has provided numerous examples of unexplained and inexplicable cometary behavior in terms of MS astrophysical theory. Otherwise, you would not make such a rash statement so early in the day….

    Your crowing seems even more surprising given the utter confusion being manifested in your own, MS ranks at the behavior of ISON. Karl Battams, leading investigator at NASA’s Comet ISON Observing Campaign said only a little more than 24 hours ago:

    “Matthew Knight and I are ripping our hair out right now as we know that so many people in the public, the media and in science teams want to know what’s happened. We’d love to know that too! […] We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end.”

    Doesn’t sound to me exactly like someone who’s completely happy with his (MS) theoretical basis to explain comets…

    So what is your take on this, precisely, Max? “We are completely wrong for sure, but so are you”? Is that it?

    I think not. For sure, YOUR side is necessarily wrong again about this one since your top experts are (again) self-confessedly groping in the dark as they always have done to explain to observed cometary behavior.

    EU proponents, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem accounting for ISON’s ISON ISOFF ISON ISOFF behavior, since the question of whether any comet is ON or OFF at any given point of its trajectory (note the electrical image which everyone seems to have happily espoused…) is simply a matter of the difference in charge at that particular point between the negatively charged rocky nucleus of the comet and the positively charged sun. The electromagnetic exchanges which occurred between ISON and the sun as ISON made its closest approach to the sun visibly produced a reduction and perhaps even a complete leveling of charge difference between the two, such that ISON became invisible to all instruments, having reverted to being a mere electrically neutral (with respect to the sun), and probably quite small, asteroid for a few hours. The reason why ISON briefly switched back ON again just after perihelion is understandably inexplicable for MS astrophysicists, who had logically (according to THEIR logic) given it up for dead. In reality, it was simply due to renewed build-up of charge difference.

    The reason why ISON has now apparently switched OFF again cannot YET be known. I indeed stated that:

    “the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….”

    Maybe I overstated the “Great Comet” case, but it’s still too early to say. It remains the case though, admitted even by the MS, that a substantive body (maybe reduced in size) re-emerged after perihelion and again briefly grew a coma. Its second demise (!) is again being pronounced, without any reason being given for it than a presumed, mysterious, “disintegration” or “evaporation”.

    In EU terms, the case is much simpler: the nucleus is still probably intact and may begin discharging electrically again at any time over the coming days, weeks or months, depending on charge difference parameters which, in the present state of our knowledge, we are unable to estimate with any semblance of precision. What is sure, however, is that if ISON does indeed come back ON again, to whatever degree, it could ONLY be as an electrically charged lump of rock: MS astrophysicists wouldn’t have a snowball in hell’s chance of convincing anyone who prefers observational evidence to theoretical dogma that ISON, after all it has gone through and the panic it has caused in MS circles, is still to be considered as a phantom or zombie “dirty iceball” which is “outgassing” or “boiling off” its melted ice content.

    ISON’s behaviour over the past 48 hours has already falsified MS comet theory (again) and may still provide much more evidence to that end in the near future.

  79. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    Conventional theory is flawed. This explains why I can use a single simple geometric principle when analysing Ison ( a line radially directed to a point, points to the point from any perspective ) to disprove convention
    Convention is not ‘convention’ but the result of careful reduction of hundreds of observations of real comets. You still don’t get the thing about the non-rigid line. You reminds me of the story of two little boys discussing where babies come from. One has learned something and began to explain about eggs, DNS, birth, etc. The other one listened for a while, then categorically declaimed: “I don’t understand any of this, I think the theory that the stork brings them makes a lot more sense”. You are believing in that stork.

    Observations [in space and in the laboratory] show that Alfven was correct about that after all. Besides, he suggested the frozen-in magnetic field in the 1940s, long before there was any EU theory. Are you saying that this was the only blunder? Are there none other?
    No frozen-in fields, no Alfven waves, no magnetic field in the solar wind, etc.

  80. Max, I’ve just done a little more research to understand more about the sort of person you are:

    I note that in your post on the parallel thread:

    “Max™ says:
    November 29, 2013 at 5:35 pm”

    you “wish” EU proponents could be “electrocuted” like one of the “poor animals” Thomas Edison used in his experiments to demonstrate the power of electricity (horses, weren’t they?)…

    I didn’t pick up on it at the time, thinking it was just one more moronic rant from a crazy non-entity. I’ve only just realized you were apparently talking about ME and I don’t particularly appreciate it….

    Thus resorting to so violent an image clearly denotes how disturbed you are by the idea that a theory might be confirmed by actually bothering to address “things from the real world” (Quelle horreur!), i.e. observational evidence, thus daring to question “WHAT WE KNOW” through your so perfect mathematical/computer models. I assume you are also an unrepentant warmist (except, of course, if you are happy with accepting “real-world” observational evidence in the field of “climate science” while at the same time ardently defending gas-light era theories in the field of astrophysics…) I believe it’s a condition known as schizophrenia (or perhaps it’s just simple contortionism…). For my part, I am utterly skeptical about the MS theories in both fields of so-called “science”, which would seem to be a rather more coherent approach. Particularly since I adopt a holistic approach in which it is precisely the electromagnetic properties of the sun which account for the natural variability of the Earth’s climate.

    Whatever…. If you prefer to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, that is YOUR PERSONAL problem, it has nothing to do with CONSISTENTLY applying correct scientific method, which seems to be precisely what is throwing you into such a fury.

    By the way, I assume that most of your MS buddies would dissociate themselves from your so charmingly expressed electric chair fantasy wish…. (Any takers from the rest of the field?)

  81. Ok, ignoring all the squabbling type posts – I’ d be interested to hear some reasons for the observed appearance of the ‘comet’ after perihelion as shown in the images.

    In particular, I would like to know why the ‘tail’ seemingly moves/spreads in two directions both away and kind of the sun – at one point it looks rather like the tail has spread out to an almost 180 degree ‘front’? (see around 30/11 at 1900hrs in the gif movie link) and the apparent fact that the sunside ‘arm’ takes longer to form than the farside ‘arm’?

    I am postulating to myself (bad thing to do – I know – but I can’t help it) that this may be a visual artifact of post perihelion dispersal/disruption or indeed ‘explosion’ of the comet nucleus.
    I am thinking that if the comet ‘exploded’ shortly after passing perihelion – the visual effects of that disruption might give us the ‘spread’ of apparent tail that we see in the images? In my mind, I am visualising some kind of ‘moving’ shockwave of dust and debris creating the tail spread we have observed?
    any comments?

  82. French_Atkins says:
    December 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    The reason why ISON has now apparently switched OFF again cannot YET be known.

    Hi French
    We don’t know for sure. But from observations, comet ion jets prefer to stay on one side of the comet ( wrt the sun ). Given that, at perihelion, Ison’s jets spun out of alignment with the sun, it was expected to fizzle out. I don’t think Ison will spin much on its return path so new jets can form in positions that will stay aligned with the sun. Hence I think it’ll get bright again. The only unknown for me is if it gets zapped by a CME, which will discharge it again.

    Tom in Florida says:
    December 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    No, I do not want a site you read from and repeat here. I want the site which shows the list of published papers on the subject that you have written that shows the scientific reasons you believe Dr S is wrong.

    The CAGW group have papers enough to sink an oil tanker, yet still I don’t believe their hypothesis. Published papers mean nothing.
    Strikes me you require consensus from experts as a substitute for confidence in your own ability to reason. Don’t let the emperors cloths intimidate you. Ask a straight, sensible question like why is the comet’s tail pointing the wrong way, and don’t cave in to any authority until you have a satisfactory explanation that _YOU_ understand. One day you might find your explanation to be wrong, but you can always discard it for another.
    If you stick with this method you can still be wrong, but never fooled.

    Just repeating what is on the thunderbolts website because you think it is correct is not good enough. Where is your research that causes you to have these opinions?
    Knowledge and understanding tends to involve repetition of ideas from one human to another. The location of my research is the internet. I’ve linked to vital sources in these WUWT comments and given the essential rational for my predictions in the comments. I’ve given you every bit of rational and info you need right here on this thread and the previous ison thread.
    As I say to my students, understanding is DIY, and it isn’t observing and trying to weight up a stack of papers from a safe distance.

  83. Hi Kev, Leif would roughly agree with your take on what is seen. According to him the odd angles of the comet are a visual trick which you won’t understand, and the tail dynamics are a mix of blown off dust and ion dynamics.
    If you want a different take, just search this page for meemoe and read all my comments

  84. … how foolish someone is for decrying published papers.

    If a hypothesis is wrong and you publish a paper on that hypothesis then it is still wrong.

    A problem often abused today is that folk often think a published paper is a magic wand that qualifies a theory. It doesn’t.

  85. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm
    “The CAGW group have papers enough to sink an oil tanker, yet still I don’t believe their hypothesis. Published papers mean nothing.”

    Neither do I but the purpose of my asking for your published papers is so that we all can see the how and why you believe what you do based on your research. Then, and only then, can your methods and research be subject to scrutiny by others. It is that scrutiny that will unveil the truth, much as we can finally unveil the truth about the CAGW scam they have been hiding from us.

    “Strikes me you require consensus from experts as a substitute for confidence in your own ability to reason. Don’t let the emperors cloths intimidate you. ”

    That is not true. I do, however, respect and give great weight to the opinions of those who have studied science that I have not AND published those studies AND have had them put to the test by others. I do not give much credence to the expression of personal beliefs simply because they are posted as supposed facts on blogs. One cannot claim the ability to “reason” correctly when one is limited in the details of a field of science. In most cases, the inferior knowledge will lead to simplistic, incorrect conclusions that may sound plausible to the untrained but fall apart when the details of the actual processes become evident.

    So, unless you can link me to one of your research papers on comets that has been published, I will simply read your comments as from someone who has a belief that they are willing to express but cannot substantiate. It’s the same reason I do not discuss religion with those who believe in god (and that doesn’t mean I am right and they are wrong, it is just futile to discuss opposite points of view that are based solely on personal beliefs that cannot be proved or disproved)

  86. If a hypothesis is wrong and you publish a paper on that hypothesis then it is still wrong. ~meemoe_uk

    So, I’m gonna take this as an admission that the EU hypothesis is wrong.

    • Max says:

      So, I’m gonna take this as an admission that the EU hypothesis is wrong.

      It does not matter two hoots whether the EU hypothesis is wrong, as long as it motivates people to seek and find faults in the presently dominant hypothesis that is taught at school as a fact. Give them credit for pointing out the facts that falsify the orthodoxy.

      Independently, credit is due to people at NASA, astronomers, and everybody who helped make these discoveries, whatever their motivations are, and however right or wrong are their favourite hypotheses. They are all awesome.

  87. French_Atkins says:
    December 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    What is sure, however, is that if ISON does indeed come back ON again, to whatever degree, it could ONLY be as an electrically charged lump of rock
    Apart from the ‘reasons’ you give [which are nonsense], that statement is just silly. There could be many other reasons for ISON reviving, e.g. a vent opening due to heating and a sudden expulsion of gas, which when ionized will glow, etc. ‘to whatever degree’: even if it brightens 0.00000001%? can’t you see how utterly dumb you pretend to be?

  88. I agree with most of what your trying to say Tom. But the seed of blind faith in your mind is entwined and betrayed in your writing.

    e.g. here.
    I will simply read your comments as from someone
    You don’t need to identify the someone who wrote a sentence in order to judge its validity.

    Instead use reason, deduction and logic on the theory, and wait for the test results on the predictions.

    I don’t have a stack of EU papers and I don’t think a stack of my EU papers would convince you of EU. EU people ( other meemoes ) published their astrophysics work in electric engineering journals for decades. And I bet you haven’t read a single one.
    All those other meemoes went and did exactly what you said would convince you, but it hasn’t.

  89. Tom in Florida says:
    December 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    So, unless you can link me to one of your research papers on comets that has been published
    Or for that matter ANY paper published on the EU theory for comets.

    meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    A problem often abused today is that folk often think a published paper is a magic wand that qualifies a theory. It doesn’t.
    It allows the theory to be openly discussed and reviewed [e.g. by peers]. If there are NO papers, that disqualifies a theory.

    And you [understandably enough] evades to answer:
    “Observations [in space and in the laboratory] show that Alfven was correct about that after all. Besides, he suggested the frozen-in magnetic field in the 1940s, long before there was any EU theory. Are you saying that this was the only blunder? Are there none other?”

  90. Leif wrote can’t you see how utterly ***** you pretend to be?

    If little meemoe can manage not to use direct insults then surely the great Leif can too

  91. Isn’t there an upwind/downwind and inward/outward thing happening.
    Like it’s now travelling with the solar wind?

  92. Kev-in-Uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    Ok, ignoring all the squabbling type posts – I’ d be interested to hear some reasons for the observed appearance of the ‘comet’ after perihelion as shown in the images.

    =======================================================================
    At times I begin a comment reminding people that I am a layman. Here, I am an extreme layman but perhaps there was a solid chunk in the middle that produced what appeared to be the split tail?

  93. Shouldn’t we be seeing some comet ISON images and movies from some of the other solar observatories soon..?

  94. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    Leif wrote can’t you see how utterly DUMB you pretend to be?
    If little meemoe can manage not to use direct insults then surely the great Leif can too

    Well, you place yourself squarely in that same category by your willful inability to see that too.

  95. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    Leif wrote can’t you see how utterly ***** you pretend to be?

    If little meemoe can manage not to use direct insults then surely the great Leif can too

    ==================================================================
    I’m late to this party. I haven’t read all of the post or the comments. I might be inserting my foot in my mouth. (It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve tasted my toes.) But maybe “little meemoe” might actually provide an answer to whatever question Leif asked?
    Or is that asking to much?

  96. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    “Instead use reason, deduction and logic on the theory, and wait for the test results on the predictions.”

    Again, if you do not know the underlying science behind the theory you are in no position to use what you believe to be reason and logic. What may look like reason and logic to the untrained is not necessarily reasonable and logical to the trained. It’s why most people don’t know a golf cart will not protect you in from a lightning strike.

    “I don’t have a stack of EU papers and I don’t think a stack of my EU papers would convince you of EU. ”

    Any stack of EU papers you would have written may or may not convince me of the correctness of EU but that is not the point. It would allow me to (as you say) use reason, deduction and logic in my trust in what YOU say here on this blog.

    “EU people ( other meemoes ) published their astrophysics work in electric engineering journals for decades. And I bet you haven’t read a single one. All those other meemoes went and did exactly what you said would convince you, but it hasn’t.”

    Nor have I read all the astrophysics and solar journals. However, since it is YOU that are posting here it is up to YOU to provide the rest of us with YOUR published research and data if you are going to call out someone who DOES have a stack of publications outlining his opinions based on the data he has researched and studied. So using logic and reason based on both of your publications on the matter (or lack thereof), who’s comments shall I tend to put more trust in at this time?

  97. And you [understandably enough] evades to answer:
    You can have my answer to that Leif, but we both know it won’t change things between us. The fun part of this thread was making predictions based off EU.

    Are there none other?”
    Sure there’s others blunders. Like at the start of this thread, I mistook a NASA model for an exciting and crucial bit of evidence.
    When I audit EU papers I sometimes find errors.
    There’s stuff I think our main media guys have got wrong. At the mo they are pushing for electric landscaping of planets and moons, and while I think it does play a part, they seem too eager to say assert too many features are due to electric arcing.

    If you want more testable predictions from EU so we can be falsified by the evidence you have to give us more funding to do experiments. Since EU hasn’t had much funding over the last century we haven’t been able to do what we need – craft fine quantitative computer models or do space experiments. Thus we have to make mostly qualitative predictions on observations, which weakens the ability to falsify.

    But our tied hands ( for lack of funds ) over 100 years, preventing us from falsifying EU won’t stop us in the 21st century. I’m happy with the current progress of EU in academia. We are allied to strong communities in plasma lab and electric research. The internet has strengthened us.
    And even the conventional space establishment are sowing the seeds of the falsification of the 20th century gravity dominated view of the cosmos – Better space probes can only help the situation.
    I think the study of Ison will convert a few more young minds over to EU, and i hope they can think of more ways to falsify EU, cos if done properly thats what will make it strong. Unlike conventional cosmology which has been botched and made un-falsifiable with its dark matter and energy. What a shambles and eternal stain on the history of science.

    there. You happy you got my answer?

  98. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    “you [understandably enough] evades to answer…”
    Like at the start of this thread, I mistook a NASA model for an exciting and crucial bit of evidence…
    You happy you got my answer?

    No, because it is no answer. That you make a mistake does not mean that EU theory was wrong. So, my question stands: do you know of any case where the theory of EU has failed?

  99. lsvalgaard says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    Well, you place yourself squarely in that same category by your willful inability to see that too.

    You should know I enjoy reading this. All you are giving me is an image of you getting mad at your computer screen. Why gift me with this? You wind me up more when you don’t crack under pressure by resorting to insults.
    Besides, the mods can’t turn a blind eye to it forever, and no one here wants to see you banned.

    It would allow me to (as you say) use reason, deduction and logic in my trust in what YOU say here on this blog.
    @tom
    Yes, but reading and questioning my comments on this blog will also give you trust.
    btw you’ve let it slip again. Science isn’t about trust. It’s about the opposite – sceptism.
    All this effort you are putting in to questioning my philosophy, could have been used to question my theory.

  100. No, because it is no answer. That you make a mistake does not mean that EU theory was wrong. So, my question stands: do you know of any case where the theory of EU has failed?

    You make we wonder if you’re holding onto some goodies that I don’t know about.
    Based on what I said before, I’d say the straightest most direct answer is

    NO

    I’ve never read any report of an experiment that falsifies EU.

    Now, have you got some results you’d like to share with me which you think falsify EU? Or are you just setting me up for the punchline – ‘EU is not even wrong.’ — if so here my response in advance :
    Yawn. zero on the achievement \ influence \ annoyance scale. I’ve heard that one b4.

  101. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    You should know I enjoy reading this. All you are giving me is an image of you getting mad at your computer screen. Why gift me with this?
    Contrary to your assertion, I don’t get mad, angry, frustrated, or otherwise bothered. I am just amazed at times at the displays of willful ignorance, [and yes] lack of reason some people without hesitation or thought are willing to perform here. When I see such nonsense, I do try to correct it where I can. Mostly I fail, but having brought up several children I have learned to live with such failure, yet I can’t help trying.

    You wind me up more when you don’t crack under pressure by resorting to insults.
    It is quite impossible for you and followers to exert ‘pressure’ of any kind by all your faulty ideas. And what you call ‘insults’ I see as [as someone put it] ‘ruthless honesty’.
    Now, there are times limits to my patience and I in such cases just leave you to wallop in your nonsense, trusting that reasonable people will already have seen that your story doesn’t hold together and is not science. I feel at times that the value of WUWT is diminished by the blatant pseudo-science on display here.

    meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    I’ve never read any report of an experiment that falsifies EU.
    How about the neutrino flux from the Sun? just to take an easy example. Perhaps your problem is that you don’t want to read the demonstrations of failure.

    I’ve heard that one b4.
    That you have heard something before does not mean that you have understood anything.

  102. Nor have I read all the astrophysics and solar journals. However, since it is YOU that are posting here it is up to YOU to provide the rest of us with YOUR published research and data if you are going to call out someone who DOES have a stack of publications outlining his opinions based on the data he has researched and studied.

    You sure are using a lot of words to say you have blind faith to experts.
    Knowing that you won’t study a paper until u understand it isn’t making me want to write a paper. If anything, I’d prefer to build trust with people by informal exchanges over to internet. Pointing them at a stack of papers just doesn’t seem as fun to me.

  103. Why are you guys entertaining these EU acolytes. These religious fanatics love it when you respond to their comments. It just gives them an excuse to hi-jack/troll at will.
    Anthony would be better off starting up a religious theory page and let them preach there.

  104. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    “But our tied hands ( for lack of funds ) over 100 years”

    And there you have it. As always, given enough rope……

  105. Contrary to your assertion, I don’t get mad, angry, frustrated, or otherwise bothered. I am just amazed at times at the displays of willful ignorance, [as yes] lack of reason some people without hesitation or thought are willing to perform here.

    There’s a saying that of people 95% aren’t capable of rational thought. I think I 1st became aware of this when I was about 18, I was hoping that grown ups were smarter than all the dumb kids I’d had to put up with growing up. My hopes were dashed. Adults are just as bad. While in acedemia things weren’t half as bad, the way was still clear for any of the 95% to get to the top, as long as they did everything they were told. i.e. just parrot all the texts etc.
    I always resented that. Me, at every opportunity I would take a very sceptical view of what I was being taught. Ideally I refused to believe it until I had battered it with a list of ideas I had for showing it was wrong. Of course this is very time consuming, but when I was forced to just blindly accept what was being taught due to time constraints I never felt I fully understood. This feeling was re-enforced when I’d ask my peers who got better grades than me. I’d ask ” how did you do so well in the exam ? ” ” I don’t know, I’m rubbish at it “. Later, I’d find they were weak at science and they’d forgotten what they had been taught. Spending my education thinking about how to falsify all the rules that were thrown at me had hard wired a lot of the most essential rules of science into my brain, and given me an edge over the 95%. I was one of 5%.

    When I see such nonsense, I do try to correct it where I can. Mostly I fail, but having brought up several children I have learned to live with such failure, yet I can’t help trying.

    For sure, you have more tenacity than most. But why? Being motivated by trying to convince someone who you think is in the 95% that they are wrong isn’t a winning strategy. Me, I’ve argued with so many that aren’t worth my time. These days I’m more hurt when I sense intelligence in people only to find they aren’t smart as Id hoped. I don’t have any kids. I wonder if just getting the most academically bright wife is the best strategy or should find one with a brain that seems to cover my weaknesses…

    btw I notice that’s quite heavy stuff you’ve told me there about your kids. I’m guessing they didn’t make it into the high echelons of academia as you would have liked. Generations are funny. Neither of my parents were smart enough to be acedemics, but they do have special acute skills. I got lucky and got all the best bits of their brains and none of the worst bits. My bro wasn’t as lucky, but he’s better looking than me and does better with the women so its worked out even.

    I feel at times that the value of WUWT is diminished by the blatant pseudo-science on display here.
    On the contrary, I enjoy it here more when theories are contested. The place brightens up. There’s only so many angles to make the CAGW debate interesting. I credit WUWT contributors for finding so much fun stuff that discredits CAGW over the years, but for me its waned badly the last couple of years.

    How about the neutrino flux from the Sun? just to take an easy example. Perhaps your problem is that you don’t want to read the demonstrations of failure.
    IIRC correctly Scott investigated the EU explanation on solar neutrino flux. You wouldn’t like it. For a start you have to completely throw out the standard model of the sun, and say instead it has an iron surface and that all the fusion goes on in the surface and corona.
    I can read up on it before bed time.

    That you have heard something before does not mean that you have understood anything.
    The prob with these pokes you keep sending me thru the mirror is that from my point of view the same thing applies to you. So they never wind me up.

  106. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    I was one of 5%.
    I’m sorry to inform you that your comments demonstrate that you firmly belong to the 95%. Most people down there think they belong to the 5%, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    btw I notice that’s quite heavy stuff you’ve told me there about your kids. I’m guessing they didn’t make it into the high echelons of academia as you would have liked.
    Two of them have PhDs…

    There’s only so many angles to make the CAGW debate interesting.
    the CAGW debate has nothing to do with EU. The EU debate debases Anthony’s fight against CAGW alarmism.

    IIRC correctly Scott investigated the EU explanation on solar neutrino flux.
    Scott is completely in the dark as far as this is concerned. He has no clue. The solar neutrino problem was solved by experiments right here on the Earth. The solar neutrino problem was resolved with an improved understanding of the properties of neutrinos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

    So they never wind me up
    Impervious to reason?

  107. ClimateForAll says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    Why are you guys entertaining these EU acolytes. These religious fanatics love it when you respond to their comments. It just gives them an excuse to hi-jack/troll at will.
    Anthony would be better off starting up a religious theory page and let them preach there.

    That is on the surface a good suggestion, but outright censorship is not a good idea. Also, by discussing the flaws one can sometimes squeeze in some real science. I have also found that some insight in those people’s behavior can be extracted which helps get real science across. The insults you just deal with as they come, they are mostly lame anyway.

  108. Gene Selkov says:
    December 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm
    Give them credit for pointing out the facts that falsify the orthodoxy.
    Except there is no credit due as they have not pointed out any such ‘facts’.

  109. Two of them have PhDs…
    Dare I ask, what in? I hope not EU theory for family’s sake.
    You’ve left me guessing as to why you said you’d learned to live with failure in the context of your family.

    The solar neutrino problem was solved by experiments right here on the Earth.
    That’s the problem. Researchers can’t go inside the sun to check to see if their theory is evidenced. So instead they do their experiments on Earth to check theory. But what theory and science? Solar? No. They call it solar, but that doesn’t make it solar. The experiments are done on Earth so they are Earth experiments, and the theory that describes them is also an Earth theory. I credit them for learning stuff about neutrinos on Earth, and building a theory that seems consistent within itself.
    But any scientist should know thats not enough. I’m not allowed to call them solar scientists.
    Remember you brought this up to falsify EU theory. I think you made a bad choice of subject, unless u tell me your cunning plan to get deep inside the sun.

    I acknowledge you sent me 2 more pokes.

  110. Except there is no credit due as they have not pointed out any such ‘facts’.
    I’d like to think Gene means my Ison tail pointing wrong way fact. But watching any of the EU material fills your mind with observations that seemed to defy conventional theory.

    • meemoe_uk says:

      I’d like to think Gene means my Ison tail pointing wrong way fact. But watching any of the EU material fills your mind with observations that seemed to defy conventional theory.

      I do mean all that, but because people are loath to watch or listen to any of the EU material, we can help them, one point at a time (although one can really easily find good summaries on youtube, with papers cited, for those who appreciate the magic of paper).

      #1. Where is evidence of water in comets?

      Please don’t give us the usual PR spin on experiments that failed to find water in comments, like the Stardust experiment. Raw data, please. We want to see simple, incontrovertible evidence of water or any other volatiles that can generate a coma and a gigantic tail (or several) by “outgassing” at near-zero temperatures.

  111. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 10:26 pm
    Dare I ask, what in? I hope not EU theory for family’s sake.
    You can’t get a PhD in EU ‘theory’. One is in Physics, the other is in Economics.

    You’ve left me guessing as to why you said you’d learned to live with failure in the context of your family.
    The failure is that children everywhere don’t listen and in the end do what they like, regardless of parental good advice and admonishments. If you had children yourself you would know or find out.

    The solar neutrino problem was solved by experiments right here on the Earth.
    That’s the problem. Researchers can’t go inside the sun to check to see if their theory is evidenced.

    We can certainly do that. I can see a mountain on the other side of a river without crossing the river and going there. We can measure the speed of sound throughout the Sun. We can measure the rotation rate in the interior and the plasma flows. We can see through the Sun to discover sunspots days before they erupt and on the backside.

    So instead they do their experiments on Earth to check theory.
    In good EU spirit: Only believe what you can empirically check in the laboratory.

    The theory that describes them is also an Earth theory.
    Most scientists firmly believe that the laws of Physics are valid everywhere. The Z-pinch observed in the laboratory is also an Earth theory. Does EU go out to the galaxies to check?

    I’m not allowed to call them solar scientists.
    What higher authority prohibits you from being honest?

    I think you made a bad choice of subject, unless u tell me your cunning plan to get deep inside the sun.
    This is a very good subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem references 7 papers. Go read them, then you can no longer claim that you “have never read about an experiment falsifying EU”.

    I acknowledge you sent me 2 more pokes.
    You will get all you deserve…

    • lsvalgaard says:

      so scratch #1 of your list.

      Not so fast. Both observations were made using telescopes over long distances. In the Herschel experiment,

      The telescope beam sizes at the frequencies of the three lines are very similar (half power beam widths of 38.1ʹ′ʹ′, 38.7ʹ′ʹ′ and 41.6ʹ′ʹ′ for the H2O, H218O, and HDO lines, respectively), so that the three molecules were observed in the same, ~6500 km diameter, region of the coma.

      This just tells me they sensed water in an earth-sized volume of the coma, providing no evidence or even a hint for the amount of water contained in the nucleus. The 8P/Tuttle observation is no more enlightening is that regard. Assuming that all water in the coma originates in the comet’s nucleus is a huge leap of faith.

      I suspect it was for this reason that an impactor was sent to probe Hartley 2. How much water did we see during the impact? Did the impact itself go as planned? Was there anything looking like ice found on the surface of any comet examined up-close? Does anything with an albedo of 0.028 look like it’s made of ice? Even the dirty ice we are told it is?

      I’m not ready to scratch #1 based on remote spectroscopy, however interesting it’s findings.

  112. It’s almost like nobody knew that you can make use of spectral properties to identify materials at a distance.

    I should have known better than to try and point out a falsification of a prediction with EU folk around… sorry everyone.

  113. See – owe to Rich says:
    December 1, 2013 at 11:54 am
    Fernando,…… I was just beginning to think that all the speculation here about the formation of the “fan-tail” could do with some real scientific analysis, so thank you ever so much for sharing that with us.

    Sorry:
    Debris,

    COMET ISON, R.I.P.: Following its Thanksgiving Day brush with solar fire, sundiving Comet ISON is now just a cloud of dust. Among experts, a consensus is building that the comet broke apart shortly before perihelion (closest approach to the sun).

    After perihelion, the comet emerges as a diffuse remnant of its former self. No one knows for sure what is inside that fan-shaped cloud. Possibilities include a small remnant nucleus or a “rubble pile” of furiously vaporizing fragments. By the end of the day on Nov. 28th, Comet ISON was spent.

    As of Dec. 2nd, the cloud of debris is no brighter than a star of approximately 8th magnitude. Experienced astrophotographers might be able to capture the comet’s fading “ghost” in the pre-dawn sky of early December, but a naked-eye spectacle is out of the question.

    http://spaceweather.com/

  114. Max™ says:
    December 1, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    “So, I take it you don’t have anything to say about your prediction?”

    I DID! Can you read? I wrote:

    “Maybe I overstated the “Great Comet” case, but it’s still too early to say. […] THE NUCLEUS IS STILL PROBABLY INTACT AND MAY BEGIN DISCHARGING ELECTRICALLY AGAIN AT ANY TIME OVER THE COMING DAYS, WEEKS OR MONTHS, depending on charge difference parameters which, in the present state of our knowledge, we are unable to estimate with any semblance of precision.”

    And I stick by it. Let me spell it out for you even more clearly so that you no longer have any excuse whatever to make this sort of dishonestly false claim: even if ISON never becomes a “great” comet, I predicted and I still predict that IT WILL AGAIN FORM A COMA AND A (PROBABLY SHORT) TAIL AND BEHAVE LIKE COMETS ARE EXPECTED TO BEHAVE, BUT PERHAPS ONLY IN A FEW DAYS, WEEKS OR MONTHS.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Your other, initial, claim that my prediction “utterly failed” is therefore totally premature (even apart from the fact that ISON DID ALREADY briefly switch back on again shortly after perihelion, which is the MS experts are “tearing their hair out”).

    I further assert that if we do indeed have a case of ISON ISOFF ISON ISOFF ISON AGAIN and if this third ISON occurs after some time and at a considerable distance from the Sun, this will be further, conclusive proof of the EU properties of comets (and the Sun, etc. etc….), since it could in no way be expected, predicted or explained by conventional MS theory. (I don’t know about where YOU live, but where I live, if you lift a pan of boiling water off the gas or if you turn the gas down, the water actually stops boiling, it doesn’t start boiling even harder. So why on earth should greater distance, hence less heating from the sun cause sudden renewed “outgassing” or “boiling off” of the alleged ice whereas none of this was occurring during the few crucial hours of closest approach, when temperatures were way up in the thousands?) For me, then, the later ISON switches back ON again, the better actually, whereas you guys should be living in trepidation lest the unthinkable, inexplicable lightshow should start up again…

    You added:

    “Ignoring the rest [of your post] because it doesn’t matter.”

    Sure, just shut your eyes to the evidence, it’s much more comfortable that way. Why indeed should it “matter” to you if your fellow MS experts are, for their part, “tearing [their] hair out” trying to cobble up some kind of ad hoc explanation for “this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object [which] continues to amaze, astound and confuse us”. You presumably know much more about it than they do.

    Just carry on putting blind faith in what you “KNOW” while averting your eyes from anything resembling confounding evidence. After all, your continued livelihood probably depends on it. Mine doesn’t.

  115. Gene Selkov says:
    December 2, 2013 at 1:06 am
    Assuming that all water in the coma originates in the comet’s nucleus is a huge leap of faith.
    Where else does it come from? A bucket-brigade of Little Green Men bringing in water from outer space?

    Was there anything looking like ice found on the surface

    http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

    “The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 µm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 µm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations, ∼45 min after impact. Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1 ± 1 µm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory impurities.”

    Scratch #1 off the list.

  116. Comet ISON Is Dead, Nasa Confirms – huffington post
    Comet Ison is Dead: Astrophysicist Karl Battams Writes Obituary For Comet of the Century
    - Some headlines in the last hour.

    What say ye Leif? Does the latest max Plank model prove Ison is a now disintegrated load of dust and vapour?

  117. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 7:50 am
    What say ye Leif? Does the latest max Plank model prove Ison is a now disintegrated load of dust and vapour?
    You should rely more on observations and empirical evidence. I think the evidence is that ISON is dead. There will still be some dust along the orbit. If there are no volatiles left, it is unlikely that ISON will grow an ion tail. If it does, that just means that there still are some volatiles left. The ion tail consists mostly of CO+, N2+, OH+, CO2+, and CH+, with none of the stuff that makes up rocks.

  118. Yeah, French_Atkins, I’ve got other stuff to do, can you condense your crazy into a bite-sized package for me?

    Incidentally, I’m a teacher, so no, my livelihood doesn’t depend in any way on a particular model, I just prefer an evidence based and sensible description of the universe over others.

  119. thankyou Leif. Thats a good contrast with my prediction – still in one piece and will brighten once the ion jets reorganise on a new side, happening before Earth pass.
    The primarily volatile content of the ion tail suggested to me Ison is now healthy, just resting after the excitement.

  120. That’s ook, there will soon be anoother sent froom the imaginary Obutt cloud. Oops, Oort.

    hehe, yeah. Leif oort to know EU people think the oort cloud is a myth.

  121. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 9:12 am
    EU people think the oort cloud is a myth.
    Ah, another false claim. Well, ISON disposes of that.
    I asked if there was anywhere a published paper on EU comets. Still asking.

  122. ison’s hyperbolic trajectory suggests it was from interstellar space, not from a high orbit.

    I asked if there was anywhere a published paper on EU comets. Still asking..
    Yes there is. But whats your point? A paper isn’t a magic wand. You are just going to say EU paper is rubbish.

  123. I think there is a problem with the explanation of why comet ISON was the color green, it is being parroted about the web that “this is probably due to Cyanogen”, but I’ve been reading up on the Physical Properties of Cyanogen and I’ve noticed some flaws, the two that stuck out are “When cooled below -35° C liquid cyanogen freezes to a crystalline mass which melts at -34.4° C.” that would mean a percentage of Comet ISON was in a liquified state, the other flaw is with its spectrum, the ‘Detection and Estimation’ of Cyanogen contains prominent bands in the blue and violet. There is also Its critical temperature (when it becomes a gas) which is 124° C.

  124. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 10:57 am
    ison’s hyperbolic trajectory suggests it was from interstellar space, not from a high orbit.
    Perturbations to the Oort cloud now and then sends a comet from there in a orbit [which is close to a parabola and can be either elliptic or hyperbolic, depending on the details of the particular perturbation] towards the inner solar system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
    “Analysis of the carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in both the long-period and Jupiter-family comets shows little difference between the two, despite their presumably vastly separate regions of origin. This suggests that both originated from the original protosolar cloud, a conclusion also supported by studies of granular size in Oort-cloud comets and by the recent impact study of Jupiter-family comet Tempel 1.

    Yes there is. But whats your point? A paper isn’t a magic wand. You are just going to say EU paper is rubbish.
    If a paper is good it is a magic wand. You are correct in that if the paper is rubbish it will not be a magic wand. A published paper can be discussed, your hand waving cannot. So, show us the BEST EU published paper on comets.

  125. meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    @sparks
    Try starting…
    TAKE 5
    A comet is a charged body…

    i don’t know anything about the Electric Universe theory, but, Einsteins theory E=MC2 means that that energy and mass are interchangeable, are you interpreting mass as a charge?

    • I’m with Leif, this electric universe stuff is all bad science

      It’s also not something we embrace by our policy here at WUWT. Its in the same category as UFO’s/bigfoot as far as I’m concerned. Further comments on it will be snipped.

  126. wow. this went downhill fast. mostly I just ignore people who talk a lot but don’t say much. far better than getting into a battle of wits against someone who is unarmed. best that can happen is they drag you down to their level. just makin’ an observation…

  127. I shall say nothing about any particular theory, but only to notice that certain proponents have made predictions, though the degree of specificity and therefore falsifiability is somewhat doubtful. Still, I am happy to sit here and wait for any such predictions to come true, or not, and then apply the appropriate Bayes factor to my current subjective probabilities of validity of said hypotheses.

    I’m sorry, I can’t help being a Bayesian. Except of course when I get into a frequentist mood :-)

    Rich.

  128. See – owe to Rich says:
    December 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    I am happy to sit here and wait for any such predictions to come true, or not
    Predictions are only useful if they are decisive, i.e. makes it possible to decide which theory fits best. The problem is that the predictions made are not of that caliber, as standard comet theory predicts the same outcome:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=comet-ison-sun-approach

    “Just how bright it will get largely depends on whether ISON withstands its encounter with the sun or breaks up under the intense solar heat and tidal forces. If it survives, ISON is likely to flare much brighter than it is now as it curves back around the sun”.

    As ISON now looks dead, it is doubtful it will revive. If it does, we still don’t know which theory to go with. If it does not, the same thing.

  129. Leif, if the standard theory is correct it would, I think, be very unusual for ISON to brighten from now on at this late stage. So if it does brighten again, I’m going to add a brightness-dependent number of quatloos to the log Bayes pot belonging to the people who predicted that it will brighten. And if it doesn’t brighten I’m going to take some quatloos away from them and put some in the pot for the standard theories.

    Of course, as you say, we all love a decisive “falsification” test, but in the absence of such we have to argue by the accumulation of evidence.

    I do wish, though, that we had a spacecraft near enough to measure the size of the largest remaining lump of ISON.

    Rich.

  130. See – owe to Rich says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    So if it does brighten again, I’m going to add a brightness-dependent number of quatloos to the log Bayes pot belonging to the people who predicted that it will brighten.
    but that prediction was predicated on ISON surviving. If there is only a dust cloud left, neither theory would predict brightening, so you would have to have a third pot for your quatloos in and nobody would be the wiser. It is hard to tell if only dust is left. The best evidence would be if there was no brightening. If brightening occurs it may simply mean [in both theories] that more than just dust is left. Either way, you can’t tell. The prediction is not decisive.

  131. but then, if one theory is indecisive while another is decisive and the evidence agrees with the decisive theory, science should discard the former and prefer the latter.
    I agree with Leif, conventional theory is indecisive on the matter of Ison’s current integrity as a comet. There were aspects of the perihelion that I think weren’t given proper recognition which signalled the state of the comet.

  132. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    conventional theory is indecisive on the matter of Ison’s current integrity as a comet.
    both theories are indecisive, so you can’t tell. Unless you make the claim [falsified by the observations] that ISON did not disintegrate and is intact as a significant rocky body.

  133. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    I haven’t seen any evidence indicating Ison has disintegrated. Where is it?
    You mean where is ISON? It is gone, obviously. From empirical observations one must conclude that ISON is nowhere to be seen.

  134. meemoe_uk says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    No I mean Where is evidence indicating Ison has disintegrated
    ISON is nowhere to be seen. Where is evidence that it is still there, just invisible?

  135. lsvalgaard says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    dr svalgaard:
    pearls before swine, and whatnot.
    I may nitpick over grammar; I know better than to attempt to teach you anything about the sun. i read and learn. others might try that as well.

  136. I suppose we return to normal science [I was trying to control the "Gavin " that exists in all(/sarc) .... thank Rev]
    Leif, please. [you know how much I respect you]
    The math is simple.
    SB ….sigma T ^ 4 …..
    One million kilometers distance from the Sun
    3 km diameter object [exaggeration]
    Without greenhouse.
    I have limitations in doing inquiry in English [sorry]
    I suppose anything is volatile.
    ?? very wrong???
    Gracias

  137. fernando says:
    December 2, 2013 at 3:44 pm
    Leif, please. [you know how much I respect you]
    The math is simple.

    1000000 km from surface is 88 times closer to the center than the earth, so the radiation is 88^2 = 7744 times stronger. The fourth root of that is 9.4, so the temperature will be 9.4 times higher than the Earth’s. Say the Earth’s ‘bare’ temperature is 255K, then the comet’s would be 2400K or 2100C. Hot enough for you? You can play a bit with albedos etc, but the order of magnitude stays.

  138. Leif Svalgaard says:
    ….then the comet’s would be 2400K or 2100C. Hot enough for you?

    yea.[thanks]
    Fully satisfactory.
    I believe it is not necessary to discuss what is volatile. in these circumstances.

    clear that “left margin” to speculate on residence time, thermal conductivity, and finally all the terms that the Navier Stokes equation allows.
    ======
    PS: An old friend. student of Max Planck …. long time ago … told me: Do not be arrogant …. ask who can help you.

    Thank you sir Leif.

    The WUWT community thank your commitment.

  139. Max™ says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    “That is an ex-comet, this comet is no more, it is pining for the fjords.”

    Love the Monty Python allusion. One thing, at least we can share, with the timeless (and comet-less) laughter that goes with it. :)

    Do you also know the cult seventies BBC Fawlty Towers series, also starring John Cleese (as the irascible, bigoted British guest- house owner, Basil Fawlty), and in particular the “The Germans” episode (probably the best of all) which features Basil Fawlty’s famous “Don’t mention the War” instruction to his long-suffering staff. For a short version, all of you, PLEASE watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0 : the clip lasts under two minutes and Cleese( and his writing) far surpass even the Norwegian Blue Parrot sketch . For context, you can find the full version by youtubing “Fawlty Towers Germans”).

    On a slightly more (but not completely) serious note, ( and incidentally as a sort of parallel to the “Don’t mention the War” theme), I have noticed that since Anthony instructed his no doubt long-suffering moderators a couple of hours ago to snip all further comments on the elec. univ. as being “in the same category as UFOs” (personally totally disabused and disappointed about that, as an unconditional, two-year long follower of WUWT… I thought it was all about looking at the observable evidence as refuting math- and model-based theories, whatever the field…), the different protagonists (except myself, I’ve only just got back home) have been continuing their exchanges on exactly the same topic, with the same gusto, while skillfully avoiding any “mention” of the forbidden ee-you abbreviation…

    It’s all a bit like students in the class-room passing notes to each other under the table, under the teacher’s very nose (though nowadays they do it with their cell-phones, of course). (I’m a teacher too, Max…).

  140. Wow, gone awfully quiet around here for the past few hours, presumably as a mark of respect for ISON’s second and (possibly) ultimate demise and the truly moving obituary pronounced in the last few hours by NASA’s leading ISON observer Karl Battams. See, for example:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/526806/20131202/comet-ison-dead-broken-up-astrophysicist-writes.htm

    Hope things liven up again when ISON comes back to life again in the near future.

  141. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 6:24 am
    Hope things liven up again when ISON comes back to life again in the near future.
    Dead is dead. No reason to believe ISON will revive.

  142. lsvalgaard says:
    December 3, 2013 at 7:48 am

    “Dead is dead. No reason to believe ISON will revive.”

    Thanks for the clear statement of faith. We’ll see.

  143. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 7:54 am
    “Dead is dead. No reason to believe ISON will revive.”
    Thanks for the clear statement of faith. We’ll see.

    Your statement should not have been ‘when ISON comes back to life’, but more reasonably: ‘if ISON comes back to life’.

  144. lsvalgaard says:
    December 3, 2013 at 7:59 am

    “Your statement should not have been ‘when ISON comes back to life’, but more reasonably: ‘if ISON comes back to life’.”

    My choice of conjunction was deliberate. That’s precisely the point.

  145. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 8:12 am
    My choice of conjunction was deliberate. That’s precisely the point.
    Well then. In that case: Thanks for the clear statement of faith. So we are awaiting a falsification moment. I hope you’ll follow through when it arrives.

  146. lsvalgaard says:
    December 3, 2013 at 8:15 am

    “Thanks for the clear statement of faith. So we are awaiting a falsification moment. I hope you’ll follow through when it arrives.”

    Hope YOU will, too, regarding what I earlier called your OWN “statement of faith” (December 3, 2013 at 7:48 am: “Dead is dead. No reason to believe ISON will revive.”). We will indeed know within a few weeks, if not before, whose position has been falsified. For my part, I shall certainly be coming back to challenge you to concede the argument as soon as ISON lights up again.

  147. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 9:14 am
    “Dead is dead. No reason to believe ISON will revive.”
    Unfortunately it is not a potential falsification for the standard theory. Based on empirical observations at the moment ISON looks dead, but perhaps later observations by Hubble will show that there still is a small nucleus, in which case ISON might brighten, so brighten or not, standard theory is intact.
    On the other hand, you claim that ALL comets are rocks and thus do not turn to dust and so the comet MUST brighten. If it does not, the claim is falsified. This is what we are waiting for.

    I shall certainly be coming back to challenge you to concede the argument as soon as ISON lights up again
    And also come back to concede falsification, if ISON does not light up again, right?

  148. lsvalgaard says:
    December 3, 2013 at 9:22 am
    “On the other hand, you claim that ALL comets are rocks and thus do not turn to dust and so the comet MUST brighten.”

    I do indeed claim that all comets are rocks, largely because the images of the FIVE comet nucleus which space missions have so far obtained (Halley, Hartley 2, Tempel 1, Borrelly, Wild 2) ALL SHOW rocks, several of them with perfectly visible cliffs and “impact” craters (Wild 2 in particular, which is literally covered with “impact” craters – I don’t see how anyone who looks at this picture objectively can claim that they’re just dinky little dents in the snow). None of them look in the least like the “dirty iceball” which MS theory predicts.

    As to the two complete non sequiturs contained in the second part of your sentence (“AND THUS do not turn to dust AND SO the comet MUST brighten”), I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. I leave you with the entire responsibility for both of them.

    I can only assume that you’re trying to pervert what the alternative theory actually says about dust production and observed brightening. I’m not going to be drawn into going any further at this point because Anthony has expressly forbidden any further discussion of the theory containing the e word. I’m not letting you draw me into being snipped just so that you can have the illusion of having had the last word.

    I’ll certainly be back.

  149. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
    As to the two complete non sequiturs contained in the second part of your sentence (“AND THUS do not turn to dust AND SO the comet MUST brighten”), I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. I leave you with the entire responsibility for both of them.
    To help you out: you [and meemoe] claim that ISON will brighten regardless because it did not turn to dust. If it does not brighten, that claim is falsified, right.

  150. lsvalgaard says:
    December 3, 2013 at 11:14 am

    “To help you out: you [and meemoe] claim that ISON will brighten regardless because it did not turn to dust. If it does not brighten, that claim is falsified, right.”

    Wrong. But again, I will not be drawn any further on the subject, not because I CAN’T explain the processes in question but because I DECLINE to do so: firstly out of respect for our host’s wishes for no further discussion of universal phenomena relating to the e word; and secondly because my recent, longer posts are being systematically moderated, (just like this one will no doubt be), without being snipped so far. (That also explains why I take longer to respond than you do, by the way).

    Still goading? I still haven’t worked out if your invariably condescending, if not contemptuous tone (e.g. “To help you out:” but there have been many other instances) is simply feigned, as a tactic to work people up, or whether it’s a genuine feature of a super-sized ego. If it’s the former, you’re certainly not working ME up and if it’s the latter, then that’s your problem, on which I have no advice to give you.

    Please defer to Anthony’s wishes and, for once, refrain from any further comment. For my part, I’m off to bed (It’s pretty late in Normandy).

  151. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    “you [and meemoe] claim that ISON will brighten regardless because it did not turn to dust”
    Wrong.

    Now you say that what you and meemoe claimed earlier is Wrong. Actually, I’ll agree with that…

  152. ISON is now ‘officially’ dead:
    Comet ISON is confirmed dead after brush with Sun
    A comet that grabbed attention worldwide for being likened to a massive snowball in space did not survive its brush with the Sun last week, NASA confirmed on Tuesday.
    “Though the exact time of ISON’s death is uncertain it does appear to be no more. All that is left is a cloud of debris without a nucleus,” C Alex Young of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center told AFP in an email.
    Dubbed the “Christmas Comet,” the icy giant described as a massive, dirty snowball skimmed past the Sun at a distance of just 730,000 miles (1.17 million kilometers) around 1830 GMT on Thursday.
    It had been estimated that ISON would undergo temperatures of 4,900 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 Celsius)and lose three million tonnes of its mass per second as it made its journey around the sun.
    Most astronomers had predicted the comet, with an estimated diameter of some 0.75 miles (1.2 kilometers), would not survive the flypast.
    Still, some observers had held out a sliver of hope that the 4.5 billion-year-old comet might have survived.

    Karl Battams, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, wrote a brief obituary for the comet, formally known as C/2012 S1 (ISON) after the telescope called the International Scientific Optical Network used by the Russian astronomers who spotted it in 2012.

    “Never one to follow convention, ISON lived a dynamic and unpredictable life, alternating between periods of quiet reflection and violent outburst,” Battams wrote.

    “Survived by approximately several trillion siblings, Comet ISON leaves behind an unprecedented legacy for astronomers, and the eternal gratitude of an enthralled global audience.”

    by Bryan McManus © 2013 AFP
    ——————-
    Here are some cool movies:

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/12021624-multiple-views-of-comet-ison.html

  153. French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    I still haven’t worked out if your invariably condescending, if not contemptuous tone (e.g. “To help you out:” but there have been many other instances) is simply feigned …

    Not at all, it was an honest attempt to be of help, as you lamented:
    French_Atkins says:
    December 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
    As to the two complete non sequiturs contained in the second part of your sentence (“AND THUS do not turn to dust AND SO the comet MUST brighten”), I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
    So ‘To help you out’ I tried to explain. I hope that the explanation made sense and that you are no longer clueless.

  154. lsvalgaard says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm (quoting Young and Battams)

    ISON is now ‘officially’ dead:
    Comet ISON is confirmed dead after brush with Sun
    A comet that grabbed attention worldwide for being likened to a massive snowball in space did not survive its brush with the Sun last week, NASA confirmed on Tuesday.
    “Though the exact time of ISON’s death is uncertain it does appear to be no more. All that is left is a cloud of debris without a nucleus,” C Alex Young of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center told AFP in an email.

    Karl Battams, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, wrote a brief obituary for the comet, formally known as C/2012 S1 (ISON) after the telescope called the International Scientific Optical Network used by the Russian astronomers who spotted it in 2012.

    “Never one to follow convention, ISON lived a dynamic and unpredictable life, alternating between periods of quiet reflection and violent outburst,” Battams wrote.

    “Survived by approximately several trillion siblings, Comet ISON leaves behind an unprecedented legacy for astronomers, and the eternal gratitude of an enthralled global audience.”

    Hmmmn.

    So, out of those trillions of comets orbiting the sun, how many are “dead’ like ISON (but whose debris field of several kilotons of still deadly ice and rock ARE actually still moving in earth-colliding orbits), but whose nucleus is “darkened’ and thus not able to create a visible trail?

    When will those debris field intersect earth’s orbit, but with something more serious than the pretty-but-harmless meteor storms we now see every few weeks?

  155. RACookPE1978 says:
    December 4, 2013 at 9:00 pm
    So, out of those trillions of comets orbiting the sun, how many are “dead’ like ISON (but whose debris field of several kilotons of still deadly ice and rock ARE actually still moving in earth-colliding orbits), but whose nucleus is “darkened’ and thus not able to create a visible trail?

  156. French_Atkins says:

    ” I do indeed claim that all comets are rocks, largely because the images of the FIVE comet nucleus which space missions have so far obtained (Halley, Hartley 2, Tempel 1, Borrelly, Wild 2) ALL SHOW rocks, several of them with perfectly visible cliffs and “impact” craters (Wild 2 in particular, which is literally covered with “impact” craters – I don’t see how anyone who looks at this picture objectively can claim that they’re just dinky little dents in the snow). None of them look in the least like the “dirty iceball” which MS theory predicts.”

    Sorry I’m late to the party. I do see that ISON is still dead, thus disproving EU, from what I have heard. Bummer!

    I will comment on the above. As a geologist I can claim some knowledge regarding rocks. Of course all comets are rocks. That is because ice is a mineral and rocks are solid material composed of minerals that make up the solid portion of the earth and other solid astronomical objects. As such, they will show surface features similar to other rocks.

  157. ISON ISOFF ISON ISOFF ISON again, apparently:

    http://www.universetoday.com/106976/is-anything-left-of-ison-spacecraft-continue-to-monitor-comets-remains/

    The image from STEREO A presented in the UT article is dated 2013/12/03, the same day that Karl Battams wrote ISON’s “official” obituary…. (I’ve only just come across it).

    It should be noted that in the STEREO A 2013/12/03 image displayed on the UT site, ISON is by far the biggest and brightest object in view, much bigger and brighter than the planet Mercury, despite the fact that ISON is a background object compared with Mercury: in fact, ISON is TWICE the distance of Mercury from STEREO A’s camera. (For a more precise idea of the true perspective, see the NASA site http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/comet_ison/).

    What was left of ISON on Dec.3rd looks very big and very bright.

    Any more recent pictures, anyone?

  158. I hardly think a single amateur picture from Spaceweather.com can suffice to “magnificently falsify EU”….

    Particularly since, ironically, the very following article on the same NASA –sponsored website

    speaks of “Comet Lovejoy’s Active Tail”, pointing out that “Amateur astronomers around the northern hemisphere are reporting activity in the tail of naked-eye Comet Lovejoy (C/2013 R1). In Nagano, Japan, astrophotographer Kouji Ohnishi could see big changes in less than an hour of monitoring”… Just due to TSI variations? At that distance? In less than an hour of monitoring? Decidedly, Lovejoy hasn’t finished bugging you guys EITHER…

    But coming back to ISON, Leif, do you have any clue as to how to account for the STEREO A picture I referenced? Or are you clueless, dear boy? Or is it simply inexplicable by MS theory? (There‘d be no shame in admitting it). Don’t you think that reports of ISON’s (second) demise might have been somewhat exaggerated? Or are you now claiming that we’re already witnessing its THIRD demise? In which case, when will the “guaranteed official” obituary be pronounced? And will you, personally, endorse it again, as you did the second demise?

  159. French_Atkins says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm
    I hardly think a single amateur picture from Spaceweather.com can suffice to “magnificently falsify EU”….
    I don’t think that ANY observation by anybody would suffice for you, but nevertheless, that ISON is dead is now a fact.

    could see big changes in less than an hour of monitoring”… Just due to TSI variations? At that distance? In less than an hour of monitoring? Decidedly, Lovejoy hasn’t finished bugging you guys EITHER…
    Such changes are seen in all comet ion tails and have been seen for decades if not a couple of centuries and are well-understood. They were, in fact, the observational evidence for the solar wind. The changes are brought about by the magnetic field in the solar wind interacting with the plasma in the tail.

    But coming back to ISON, Leif, do you have any clue as to how to account for the STEREO A picture I referenced?
    Of course, a dust cloud will reflect sunlight and look bright [check out zodiacal light]. With increasing distance the cloud would weaken as observed.

    when will the “guaranteed official” obituary be pronounced?
    I think it already has been: http://www.boston.com/news/science/2013/12/10/comet-ison-pronounced-dead-sun-chief-suspect/laszPrBxRAVk59ePbOeOuN/story.html

    as dead as EU one might say. They died together.

  160. I know nothing about most of this, and the arguments from both sides have been with references that I have no clue about.

    My questions are for (or about his position, if others can fill in) Dr Svalgaard.

    If the whole thing is not surprising to you, then why did it throw the other scientists into turmoil?
    Are they not fit?
    Why are they not listening to you ?

    Thanks!

  161. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 12:31 am
    If the whole thing is not surprising to you, then why did it throw the other scientists into turmoil?
    What turmoil?
    Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.

  162. “What turmoil?”

    Nothing to speak of, Leif, apart from the Head of NASA’s top ISON observing team “tearing [his] hair out” at ISON’s inexplicable antics (and not only during perihelion and post-perihelion but also throughout the whole of ISON’s inward journey….).

    Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, there was also the same Karl Battams bizarrely pleading with his worldwide audience to grant him a few days’ thinking time to cobble together some sort of ad hoc “explanation” for what no mainstream scientist (apart from your illustrious self, apparently) had anticipated or could even start to explain.

    So if you really know so much more about what completely baffles your colleagues, please start explaining it now. So far, you’ve only come up with personal insults and strange generalities such as:

    “Nothing happened that have [sic] have [sic] not already been seen before for other comets.”

    Precisely, Leif, that’s the whole point. I totally agree with you here for once and I hope you’re starting to understand: just as with ISON, mainstream “dirty snowball” theory has indeed always been at a total loss to explain the data provided by each successive comet observation (Shoemaker-Levy 9 exploding in a fireball at Saturn, Jovejoy emerging intact from a 2,000,000°F encounter with the Sun’s corona, the sudden million-fold brightening of Comet Holmes while in a state of deep-freeze beyond the orbit of Saturn, the Deep Impact/Tempel 1 pre-impact flash and the huge amounts of “talcum powder”-like dust the impact generated, the “impossible” minerals brought back by the Stardust mission, etc., etc.) or every image of rocky, cratered, comet nuclei that successive missions have obtained (Halley, Hartley 2, Tempel 1, Borrelly, Wild 2.), not to speak of the well-documeted COMETARY behavior of certain ASTEROIDS or PLANETOIDS (Chiron, 174P/Echeclus, 52872 Okyrhoe, etc., etc.) ….

    Just business as usual, in fact.

  163. Dr. Svalgaard,
    “What turmoil?
    Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.”

    Your answer offers a misdirection, in that the question was not about what has happened before.

    My enquiry was intended to sort through who is answering straight, and your answer fails that test.

    I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.

  164. “Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.”
    vs.
    “We have never seen a comet like this,” Naval Research Laboratory astrophysicist Karl Battams said during a NASA news conference Tuesday. “It has been behaving strangely.”

    • Interpreting Leif’s comment,

      Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.

      in the context of our earlier conversation about remote spectroscopy, it appears his statement is correct. The spectra of ISON’s coma and tail differ from previously observed comets about as much as all those previous comets vaired amongst themselves. But it is not a convincing argument to scratch #1. Where is direct evidence of ice in comets?

      Even if all we had was spectroscopy, it would be very difficult to form that impression.

      http://wela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/solar/Comets/atlas.html (note atomic spectra)

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ…713L..69C

      Also look for “Silicate signature” in “Physics of Comets” by K. S. Krishna Swamy (available in google books).

      I get the sense that one can find anything one wants with spectroscopy. You want water — no problem. Just look for various water and water-related spectra. You want silicates — just ask, and you will find somebody who knows which instrument to use and how to tune it to Si-O vibrations.

      Luckily, thanks to NASA, we have actual comet particles trapped during the recent comet encounters. Now it is really funny to see people get excited over troilite, among other rock-like particles. Look! FeS! The most solid evidence of water so far! Solid, indeed. It could have formed in water.

  165. “Interpreting Leif’s comment,

    Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.

    in the context of our earlier conversation about remote spectroscopy, it appears his statement is correct.”

    That is not the context of my question to him.
    The question really is about the other scientists and why his answer is completely at odds with the sentiments expressed by other experts.

    ” ‘Yawn’ Same old same old” vs “NEVER have we seen kind of behaviour or comet before!”

  166. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.
    I’m afraid you will have to.

  167. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.
    To clarify, I don’ think anybody was expressing ‘confusion’. Find me a quote of someone saying ‘I’m confused’. BTW, it is hard to give a ‘straight’ answer to a muddled question.

  168. Dr Svalgaard said

    “thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.
    To clarify, I don’ think anybody was expressing ‘confusion’. Find me a quote of someone saying ‘I’m confused’. BTW, it is hard to give a ‘straight’ answer to a muddled question.”

    Dr. Svalgaard,
    Please look at these two statements. One is from you, one is from Dr Battams.

    Yours:
    “Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.”

    Dr. Battams’s:
    “We have never seen a comet like this,” Naval Research Laboratory astrophysicist Karl Battams said during a NASA news conference Tuesday. “It has been behaving strangely.”

    They say opposites.

  169. Dr.Svalgaaard said:
    ” Find me a quote of someone saying ‘I’m confused’”

    ” “We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end.”

  170. Thisisnotgoodtogo, Dr. Svalgaaard has what might be called a literal mind. I very much doubt that you will get him to admit that “I’m confused” is strictly equivalent to saying “this […] object continues to […] confuse us”.

  171. lsvalgaard says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    “Here are some cool movies:

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/12021624-multiple-views-of-comet-ison.html

    An updated press release with movie:http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/fire-vs-ice-the-science-of-ison-at-perihelion/#.UqgPItJDv3Q

    “Cool movies”? Sure, we’ve presumably all studied these images pretty closely over the past few days.

    Problem is, they show nothing after 2013/11/30, whereas the image I referenced on the (albeit 100% mainstream!) UT website in my December 10, 2013 at 8:51 am post

    http://www.universetoday.com/106976/is-anything-left-of-ison-spacecraft-continue-to-monitor-comets-remains/

    which clearly shows a very big, very bright object (several times bigger and brighter in the image than Mercury, even though it’s twice as far from STEREO A’s camera as Mercury is) DATES FROM 2013/12/03.

    I don’t know about what happens where you live, but over here in France, a video showing someone visibly still alive on Dec 3rd will carry much more weight in a law-court than videos purporting to show the corpse of the same person three days earlier. Anyone publishing an obituary on Dec 4th would be laughed out of court.

    As for the “updated press release”, it features, in particular, Karl Battams who had apparently just managed to get his act together after several days of self-inflicted hair-tearing, sufficiently in any case to present the semblance of a cobbled-up, ad hoc “explanation” for the behaviour of what, up until then, had been a “ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object [which] continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end”.

    Especially loved Battams’ “something occurred – perhaps the passage of a nearby star” bit to explain ISON’s observed trajectory…! The stuff that fairy-tales of made of…

    Not impressed.

  172. French_Atkins says:
    December 12, 2013 at 3:54 am
    but over here in France, a video showing someone visibly still alive on Dec 3rd

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/11/rest-in-pieces-comet-ison/

    “The comet, which excited astronomers and the media as it zipped within 730,000 miles of the sun on Thanksgiving Day, was pronounced dead at a scientific conference Tuesday. Astronomers who had followed the ice ball mourned the loss of the sky show that once promised to light up during December”
    “”At this point it seems like there is nothing left,” Battams said at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. “Sorry, everyone, Comet ISON is dead. But its memory will live on.”
    Astronomers had hoped it would survive because some — but not most — comets make it past close approaches with the sun. Last year, Comet Lovejoy did.
    “Comets are balls of dust and ice from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago. ISON was on its first trip after leaving the Oort cloud on the distant fringes of the solar system. Unlike comets that are “hardened” by several trips around the sun, ISON just couldn’t survive its maiden voyage, Battams said. ISON, about half a mile wide, was tiny and probably smaller than originally estimated, Battams said.”

  173. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    “Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.”
    “We have never seen a comet like this,”
    They say opposites.

    No, first one says that we have seen the demise of thousands of comets before. Second one just says that it is very rare to see a pristine comet 4.5 billion years old coming our way in the inner solar system. Your statement is not good to go.

  174. So we can now check the prediction of EU:
    meemoe_uk says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    - It will be brighter than on the way in.
    …I’m asserting Ison hasn’t disintegrated to dust … Just takes time for new ion jets to emerge and power up.

    It should be clear that those predictions failed miserably.

  175. Dr Svalgaard said:

    “thisisnotgoodtogo said:
    “Nothing happened that have have not already been seen before for other comets.”
    “We have never seen a comet like this,”
    They say opposites.”

    No, first one says that we have seen the demise of thousands of comets before. Second one just says that it is very rare to see a pristine comet 4.5 billion years old coming our way in the inner solar system. Your statement is not good to go. ”

    Dr Svalgaard, You removed the telling part of the quotation. It says nothing like what you pretend.

    The second does not say “it is very rare to see a pristine comet 4.5 billion years old coming our way…”

    It says “We have never seen a comet like this. It has been behaving strangely.”

    This meaning of never having seen one like this behaving so strangely. This is made very plain and clear when the other statements are taken into account.
    “We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end.”

    I’m appalled by your dishonesty.

    Good bye.

  176. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 6:47 am
    It says “We have never seen a comet like this. It has been behaving strangely.”
    Regardless, there has been nothing strange about the demise of ISON. We have seen thousands die before.

  177. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 6:55 am
    “Regardless” ? oh my. you’ve sickened me.
    Perhaps you are still well enough to tell us what was strange about ISON’s behavior.
    Again, your comments are not ‘good to go’.

  178. I have no answers about anything in the field, Dr. Svalgaard, except for one: “No, do not expect Dr. Svalgaard to reply honestly about anything”.

  179. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 7:14 am
    I have no answers about anything in the field
    Then you are hardly qualified to comment on anything…

  180. For the record: this by no means says that the opposition’s theory is to my mind, correct.

    It’s just been a stunning intro to the debate.

  181. “Then you are hardly qualified to comment on anything”
    I am not qualified to comment on the physics or anything in textbooks on the field.

    I am now very qualified to comment on Dr. Svalgaard’s behaviour.

  182. My next question goes to the opposition.

    Please, can you lay out what was “ridiculous” “crazy” “unpredictable” “amazing, astoundng and confusing” for Dr. Battam and team.

    I’m asking for a very basic outline, just name the items that you feel are of importance that could have prompted those statements.

  183. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 7:21 am
    I am not qualified to comment on the physics or anything in textbooks on the field.
    As I said your comments are ‘not good to go’. A certain minimum of qualifications are required for meaningful commentary, otherwise it is just whining, compounded [in your case] with evasiveness, but, hey, there are many like you, so you are in ‘good’ company.

  184. I never commented on anything in the field. I expected, wrogly, to get some honest answers from Dr. Svalgaard on the discrepancy between his comments and other scientists’ comments about the comet.
    I am qualified to judge that he replied deceptively, and dishonestly, and that he continues to do so.

  185. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 8:12 am
    I never commented on anything in the field. I expected, wrongly, to get some honest answers from Dr. Svalgaard on the discrepancy between his comments and other scientists’ comments about the comet.
    Perhaps you might consider the possibility that those cherry-picked other comments were ‘over the top’ hype and do not reflect the sober assessment of mainstream astronomers.

  186. “Perhaps you might consider the possibility that those cherry-picked other comments were ‘over the top’ hype and do not reflect the sober assessment of mainstream astronomers.”

    Now you are answering better!
    But are you accusing me of cherry picking?

  187. Dr. Svalgaard, I may now assume that you are calling what I’ve presented a less than honest representation.

    Please point out a statement from the other scientist that I quoted which shows cherry picking on my part so that I may examine my statements for fault.

  188. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 8:37 am
    Please point out a statement from the other scientist that I quoted which shows cherry picking on my part so that I may examine my statements for fault.

    A small misdirection, perhaps:
    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 12:31 am
    If the whole thing is not surprising to you, then why did it throw the other scientists into turmoil?

    The difference between the ‘other scientists‘ and the ‘other scientist’, is subtle but telling. You insinuate that scientists in general are in turmoil, while in reality it is just one scientist overhyping his own opinion. Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.

    Getting stuck on your favorite quote is cherry-picking, especially when you are informed that there was nothing ‘strange’ about ISON: it was bright going in, because the icy surface easily evaporated. The furious loss of volatile mass made the comet look bigger than it really was, raising the hope that it would survive its brush with the Sun. It didn’t [as most comets don't], and we now know that the comet was too small for that. Only a dispersing dust cloud is left. All of this is expected, old hat, and not strange at all, as I patiently was at pains to explain.

  189. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 8:37 am
    Please point out a statement from the other scientist that I quoted which shows cherry picking on my part so that I may examine my statements for fault.

    A small misdirection, perhaps:
    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 12:31 am
    If the whole thing is not surprising to you, then why did it throw the other scientists into turmoil?[/quote]

    Dr. Svalgaard,
    You are to point out what I replied to when you accused me of cherry picking. What did you cite when you accused me?
    This:
    ““Perhaps you might consider the possibility that those cherry-picked other comments were ‘over the top’ hype and do not reflect the sober assessment of mainstream astronomers.”

    Now you are answering better!
    But are you accusing me of cherry picking?”

    You replied “Yes” to that. So point out which of the statements of “those cherry-picked other comments” I quoted shows me cherry picking.

  190. I quoted two:
    Pick one.

    1.“We have never seen a comet like this, It has been behaving strangely.”
    2.”We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end”

  191. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:10 am
    You replied “Yes” to that. So point out which of the statements of “those cherry-picked other comments” I quoted shows me cherry picking.
    I just did. Or do you think you cherry-picked some other statement. If so, please tell us which one.

    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:19 am
    I quoted two:
    Picking two cherries, then

  192. Let’s take # 2 first.

    You specifically requested that it be picked and placed on a platter for you, Dr. Svalgaard.

    “Find me a quote of someone saying ‘I’m confused’. “

  193. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:29 am
    You specifically requested that it be picked and placed on a platter for you, Dr. Svalgaard.
    You mean you had never seen it beofre and hadn’t already picked that one to bolster your claim?

  194. I had not.
    That is beside the point though.
    You requested in particular that I find and present to you anyone saying he was confused.
    You picked out that word from my general statement, apparently not knowing it had been said.
    I did not know it had been said, either, but as luck would have it, your attempt to find a particular word that would be not findable for me….backfired

  195. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:44 am
    I did not know it had been said, either
    is at variance with:
    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.
    Somehow you must have picked up ‘confusion’…

    backfired
    It is not about something as silly as that. My answers to you are an attempt of simple education, to raise your level of knowledge about comets [of which you say you know nothing], so pay attention.

  196. It was a rephrasing of my question to you since “turmoil” was dismissed by you.
    Still beside the point.

    You requested a particular cherry be found and placed before you.

  197. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:54 am
    It was a rephrasing of my question to you since “turmoil” was dismissed by you.
    Still beside the point.

    So, you are still trying to wiggle out of the corner you painted yourself into. It would be much more productive for you to pay attention and learn something: ISON is dead, its demise or behavior was not ‘strange’. Scientists are not in turmoil or confused [with the exception of perhaps one who is overstating his case for the possible reasons I have explained]

  198. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 9:54 am
    You requested a particular cherry be found and placed before you
    I asked you to confirm that cherry that you had already picked. Now, sometimes it is not bad to pick cherries to make a point as long as you [and everybody else] know that this is just one cherry [or two in your case]. The ‘badness’ comes in when you deny that it is a cherry.

  199. But I’m not denying that cherries should exist. The press does that all over the place.
    Your charge against me is cherry picking the quotes.

    #2 is shown to be something that you picked and asked me to find the word.

  200. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 10:06 am
    Your charge against me is cherry picking the quotes.
    And it still stands. But now is the time for you to get out of your hole and begin to learn something, rather than hide behind silly press releases.

  201. Dr.Svalgaard said:

    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 10:06 am
    Dr. Svbalgaard said:
    Your charge against me is cherry picking the quotes.
    And it still stands. But now is the time for you to get out of your hole and begin to learn something, rather than hide behind silly press releases.[/quote]

    “And it still stands”
    That is the problem we have been discussing. That and your absolutely dishonest answers.

    For me to look at what I’ve done according to your charges, I first took #2, and #2 has been shown to be presented because YOU requested it be shown. YOUR cherry pick from what I said..

    So that leaves us with #1 to examine.

  202. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 10:54 am
    and #2 has been shown to be presented because YOU requested it be shown. YOUR cherry pick from what I said..
    And your claim that you never saw it before does not hold water, but, OK, I accept that I got you to expose your cherry picked quote.

  203. I does hold water.
    My general question using the word “turmoil” was dismissed by you, so I rephrased as “confusion”.
    It’s beside the point, though, because if one supposes that had I been aware of the word being used, then there’s still nothing wrong with knowing it or presenting it as factual.

    Supposing that I had known, that would not affect what you did – requesting that the particular word be found, then accusing me of cherry picking the quote which you picked out from my words, and asked for it to be found and presented.

    Had I known, I could have presented it with my # 1 quote. But I didn’t know. I was only rephrasing to say you should .

    It went like this:

    lsvalgaard says:
    December 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    ‘I don’t think I have to list headlines quoting confusion on the events for you to understand my question.’
    I’m afraid you will have to.”

    So you demanded that I quote.

    Your demand, not mine. I thought it unnecessary in order for you to understand my question and reply on topic.

    Both #1 and #2 are now shown to have been presented on your demand.

  204. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:15 am
    Both #1 and #2 are now shown to have been presented on your demand.
    and you claim you didn’t know about them before I asked you to show them. I represent that you did, and that they were the reason for your question in the first place. That is what cherry picking is. But, if you profess total ignorance, then I can only recommend that you diligently study my replies and absorb the fact that ISON did not behave strangely at all.

  205. Dr.Svalgaard said:


    ‘Both #1 and #2 are now shown to have been presented on your demand.’

    and you claim you didn’t know about them before I asked you to show them. I represent that you did, and that they were the reason for your question in the first place.”

    None of your claims is true. You claiming it does not make it true, It is not true that I knew about #2.
    I did not claim that I had never seen #1, as you now claim in issuance of yet another false statement.

  206. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:36 am
    t is not true that I knew about #2.
    You are not credible. You used the word ‘confusion’ which appears in #2. It is not credible that you would by chance have used that word.
    I did not claim that I had never seen #1
    So we have now established that you well know that one. That leaves #2 to be examined. Now, tell me are #1 and #2 really different? Do they not come from the same source? [I'm to lazy to check, but you should know].

  207. Dr. Svalgaard said:

    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:36 am
    “t is not true that I knew about #2.’
    You are not credible. You used the word ‘confusion’ which appears in #2. It is not credible that you would by chance have used that word.” Not credible to an inveterate liar, I suppose.


    ‘I did not claim that I had never seen #1′
    So we have now established that you well know that one. That leaves #2 to be examined. Now, tell me are #1 and #2 really different? Do they not come from the same source? [I'm to lazy to check, but you should know].”

    Now you question more instead of just acknowledging that in the first place, I had originally seen no need for presenting any quotes at all.

    #1 was supplied only upon your demand, and then #2 came up unfortunately for you, upon your followup specific demand about that word.

    To make charges against me for that, needs you to think I was very very crafty and knew you so well that I could lay a trap and you would cherry pick a word for me to show – for some bizarre reason.

  208. All this stems from me asking why they were in turmoil and you were not, and why they did not look to you for guidance.

  209. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    To make charges against me for that, needs you to think I was very very crafty and knew you so well that I could lay a trap and you would cherry pick a word for me to show – for some bizarre reason.
    I usually do not assume nefarious reasons for people’s behavior [unless there is clear evidence of such], but where did you get the idea from that scientists were in ‘turmoil’? I may have errored in believing that you had some evidence for that, other than mere hearsay.

  210. I do not claim that specific reports contain the word. It is my word to describe how I saw the situation.
    I never imagined you’d demand to see exact words I used reported on this subject.

  211. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    I do not claim that specific reports contain the word. It is my word to describe how I saw the situation.
    You were not describing your own view when you claimed that ‘other scientists’ were in turmoil, so you must have seen some reports that gave you that impression. Which ones?

  212. Now the man that is “too lazy to check” is demanding that I remember and supply any reports I have seen in the past weeks.

  213. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Now the man that is “too lazy to check” is demanding that I remember and supply any reports I have seen in the past weeks.
    Because you are making a claim and I am not, so the burden is on you. And we are not looking for ‘any’ reports, just the one(s) that made you think ‘other scientists are in turmoil’. If you can’t think of or find any [you were quick with 'confused' though], I think the whole issue is moot and not worth you while [nor mine].

  214. News reports may well be considered unreliable and made by cherry pickers by trade.

    That should not be cause for a demand that I provide precisely whatever made my opinion form.
    It was my however it was formed, and I do not claim that anyone else said “turmoil”.

    Now if Dr. Svalgaard wishes to dispute that confusion or turmoil occurred, that is a legitimate line to take.
    The rest are his bizarre antics.

  215. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    Now if Dr. Svalgaard wishes to dispute that confusion or turmoil occurred, that is a legitimate line to take. The rest are his bizarre antics.
    Telling you that no turmoil occurred is bizarre? Well, some people will never learn.

  216. Dr.Svalgaard started to be more reasonable when he answered :

    “The difference between the ‘other scientists‘ and the ‘other scientist’, is subtle but telling. You insinuate that scientists in general are in turmoil, while in reality it is just one scientist overhyping his own opinion. Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.”

    That is a more reasonable approach to answering my question. But he had to start making a false accusation along with it, for lord-knows-what bizzare defense mechanism exists within him.

    Now let’s get back to where he was sane.

  217. Dr. Svalgaard said:
    “thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    ‘Now if Dr. Svalgaard wishes to dispute that confusion or turmoil occurred, that is a legitimate line to take. The rest are his bizarre antics.’
    Telling you that no turmoil occurred is bizarre? Well, some people will never learn.”

    Some people never learn to read well intead of trying by any means to protect their own fragile ego.

    I said that was the legitimate line.

  218. Now, Dr. Svalgaard.

    Your claim is that
    “You insinuate that scientists in general are in turmoil, while in reality it is just one scientist overhyping his own opinion. Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.”

    1. Not scientists in general. Just from who was involved and reported as experts on ISON, in the last weeks, that I picked up on.

    2.” in reality it is just one scientist overhyping his own opinion. Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.”

    So it is just one that this is concerned with, is your claim. That’s a reasonable reply, and a supposed reasoning behind the hyping as “has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.” ” is a reasonable interpretation for much of what we might see in news reports.

    Can we proceed from there?

  219. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    Some people never learn to read well instead of trying by any means to protect their own fragile ego.
    Your self-awareness is commendable.

  220. Thank you, Dr.
    Now about yours. Hopefully you now admit that I said that the line was reasonable and legitimate, rather than what you read.

  221. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    the line was reasonable and legitimate
    I strive to always be reasonable and certainly legitimate. So have, as a matter of course, been that all along.

  222. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    You’re wasting your foul breath and my time, Dr.
    Not a very reasonable nor legitimate comment, but some people, apparently, are like that.

  223. I’m ready to talk about the one legitimate part of a post that you have made.
    Back to on topic, or never, Dr.?

  224. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    Prove that your breath is not foul
    You are sliding [somewhat jerkily] down into a slimy abyss. May you find bliss down there.

  225. First is to check if only Dr. Battams is to be the subject. Let me look to see if that is correct.

  226. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    I’m ready to talk about the one legitimate part of a post that you have made.
    You have disqualified yourself for further consideration. It is rare that that happens here.

  227. French_Atkins, or others,
    Would you be good enough to supply any other names involved other than Dr. Battams, if you’ve noticed any?

    Thank you. I have Christmas shopping to do as well as this, so anything you can supply would be appreciated..

  228. No, Dr. You have been an embarrassment to the scientific community, and honest exchange, and still are.

  229. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    No, Dr. You have been an embarrassment to the scientific community, and honest exchange, and still are.
    Well, you are near the bottom of that slimy abyss, so perhaps you grace us with fewer spouts from the deep.

  230. I’m no longer going to respond to Dr. Svalgaard’s antics.
    Now it’s only about the reasonable part of a post he made.

    He’s indicted Dr. Battams so far in exotic hype in hopes of gaining more funding.

  231. This is not to conclude that Dr. Svalgaard is correct in proposing that any scientist expressing confusion about ISON is overhyping own opinion.

    Just to find other scientists who expressed confusion or were part of the team being spoken for.

  232. Also to find other scientists who offered self-conflicting reports as time progressed. That indicates being confused by events, too.

  233. lsvalgaard says:

    December 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    I guess that the final verdict is here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/from-agu-comet-isons-struggle-of-fire-and-ice/

    No confusion, turmoil, befuddlement, etc…
    ———————
    thanks Dr. S. lot of good info provided for anyone to learn about comets. But not that stuff where the guy keeps fighting with hisself..and uses you for a battering ram..cus he just can’t figure it out…or let it go………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  234. Dr. Battams:

    ‘Schrödinger’s Comet
    Submitted by Karl Battams on Thu, 11/28/2013 – 20:35
    I’ll just say this upfront right now: whatever you read in the following blog post, please feel free to assume it is completely incorrect and the truth is actually quite contrary to what I’m saying. It has been – and continues to be – one of those days.

    So this will be a relatively brief blog post because we’re up to our necks in media inquiries and attempting to do real science to figure out the mystery that is comet ISON, and Matthew and I are basically the only ones that have abandoned our loved ones on this US national Holiday and continued to work. Here’s what we know so far:

    After impressing us yesterday, comet ISON faded dramatically overnight, and left us with a comet with no apparent nucleus in the SOHO/LASCO C2 images. As the comet plunged through the solar atmosphere, and failed to put on a show in the SDO images, we understandably concluded that ISON had succumbed to its passage and died a fiery death. Except it didn’t. Well, maybe…

    After perihelion, a very faint smudge of dust appeared in the the LASCO C2 images along ISON’s orbit. This surprised us a little, but we have seen puffs of dust from Sungrazer tails, so it didn’t surprise us enormously and didn’t change our diagnosis. We watched and waited for that dust trail to fade away. Except it didn’t.

    Now, in the latest LASCO C3 images, we are seeing something beginning to gradually brighten up again. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that there’s a comet in the images!

    Matthew and I are ripping our hair out right now as we know that so many people in the public, the media and in science teams want to know what’s happened. We’d love to know that too! Right now, here’s our working hypothesis:[/quote]

    So we have Dr.Battams saying ISON has been a mystery and it looks to be that his team is not in the position of thinking “nothing new here” that Dr. Svalgaard was in.

  235. lsvalgaard says:

    Reposted from

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/from-agu-comet-isons-struggle-of-fire-and-ice/#comment-1499451

    boris says:
    December 12, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    Excitement liberates funding, not to mention Media.
    http://www.bellmediapr.ca/Network/Discovery/Press/A-Comet-For-the-Ages-Discoverys-HUNT-FOR-A-SUPER-COMET-Tracks-Comet-ISON-December-4-

    I don’t see from that where anyone but boris says “Excitement liberates funding, not to mention Media.”
    and I don’t see how Dr. Svalgaard could think posting that would enhance his position, or mean anything wrt to the discussion.
    He’s merely reinforcing his statement about Dr. Battams, which stands there on it’s own already.

  236. Dr. Svalgaard said

    “You insinuate that scientists in general are in turmoil, while in reality it is just one scientist overhyping his own opinion. Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before, overthrows long-held theories, leaves them befuddled, confused, stunned, etc.”

    Here Dr. Svalgaard insinuates that not only is Dr. Battams trading on excitement, but that Dr. Battams was being untruthful in what he said in order to profit.
    That’s a serious allegation to make against another scientist.

  237. I find this a perfect and concise illustration of Dr. Svalgaard’s lack of legitimacy and truthfulness throughout.

    Where I said one of his responses contained a legitimate attempt, he turned that into me saying it was illegitimate, that is, he said the reverse of the truth.

    Here:
    Me: “Now if Dr. Svalgaard wishes to dispute that confusion or turmoil occurred, that is a legitimate line to take. The rest are his bizarre antics.”

    Dr.Svalgaard:”Telling you that no turmoil occurred is bizarre? Well, some people will never learn.”

    Following up, instead admitting it, as an honest person would admit an error, he compounds it by making another untruthful statement.

    Here:
    “I strive to always be reasonable and certainly legitimate. So have, as a matter of course, been that all along.”

  238. lsvalgaard says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:28 am

    ‘ thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:15 am
    Both #1 and #2 are now shown to have been presented on your demand.’

    and you claim you didn’t know about them before I asked you to show them. I represent that you did, and that they were the reason for your question in the first place. That is what cherry picking is. But, if you profess total ignorance, then I can only recommend that you diligently study my replies and absorb the fact that ISON did not behave strangely at all.”

    When it was shown that Dr. Svalgaard cherry picked the word “confused” from my question, and demanded to see that it had been used, and it was also shown that he demanded quotes in the first place. Then, instead of withdrawing his allegation of cherry picking, he changed tack, moved the goalposts to a different topic, and made a senseless allegation that I knew them before he asked.

    Not only did he refuse to acknowledge the lack of substance to his cherry picking allegation, but he attempted to draw attention from that with allegations that I knew them prior to posting upon his demand.

    Had I known #2 and used it as bait, it would not show anything material to the discussion. As it happened, by cherry picking that word, he only made himself show as not willing, for whatever reason, to simply and straightforwardly answer my question.

Comments are closed.