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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
From reports of on again off again, undead, zombie.
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:13 pm
From reports of on again off again, undead, zombie.
Then find ‘turmoil’ in those reports.
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.
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?
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.
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].
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You’re wasting your foul breath and my time, Dr.
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.
Prove that your breath is not foul, Dr. Have you had tongue scrapings and other examinations?
I’m ready to talk about the one legitimate part of a post that you have made.
Back to on topic, or never, Dr.?
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.
First is to check if only Dr. Battams is to be the subject. Let me look to see if that is correct.