Zombie comet ISON dies again

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

Here is a link to an image of the projected trajectory overlaying the actual path
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/cimages/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/coast-to-coast/repository/carousel/feature-v/500867-421-eng-US/Feature-V.jpg

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.

It was in there 7 (seven) hours. wow

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

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!”

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?)

ISON, I came, I melted.

*Produce NOT “producing”… lol

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?”
😐

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.

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”? :-]
:

@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.
:-]

@max
> There, found it.
I see and share your skepticsm about these claims.
😐

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

@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.
😐

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.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/050526neatcme.jpg
http://soho.esac.esa.int/comet1000/bradfield.jpg

@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?
😐

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.

@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!
😐

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”

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)

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

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
http://www.isoncampaign.org/files/images/blogpics/ison_stereo.gif
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.

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.

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

Leif,
Oh, I see it now lol

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.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_article_l/public/article_images/sn-hartley.jpg
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Hartley-2-close.png
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.

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

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.

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….

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.

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?

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.

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?)

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.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c3.gif
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?

should have said ‘kind of toward the sun’ (sorry – it’s late here!)

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

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)

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…

You mean where is ISON?
No I mean Where is evidence indicating Ison has disintegrated

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.

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…).

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?

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
http://spaceweather.com/images2013/09dec13/nocomet_strip.jpg
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?