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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:24 am
But are you accusing me of cherry picking?
Yes.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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
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’. “
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?
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
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.