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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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……
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.
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?
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.
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
Yes, I agree. I don’t think censorship is viable. Wouldn’t make this site any better than SkS, Tamino, etc.
I guess we’re stuck with them.
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’.
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.
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 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.
good night Leif, signing off
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…
Gene Selkov says:
December 1, 2013 at 11:20 pm
#1. Where is evidence of water in comets?
Its spectrum, e.g.
http://sci.esa.int/herschel/49386-herschel-finds-first-evidence-of-earth-like-water-in-a-comet/
or http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/136543/
so scratch #1 of your list.
lsvalgaard says:
Not so fast. Both observations were made using telescopes over long distances. In the Herschel experiment,
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.
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.
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/images2013/02dec13/ison_strip2.gif
http://spaceweather.com/
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.
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.
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?
That’s ook, there will soon be anoother sent froom the imaginary Obutt cloud. Oops, Oort.
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.
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.