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.
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.
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…).
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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…
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
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.
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm (quoting Young and Battams)
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?
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?
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.
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?
French_Atkins says:
December 10, 2013 at 8:51 am
Any more recent pictures, anyone?
http://spaceweather.com/images2013/09dec13/nocomet_strip.jpg
Magnificent falsification of EU, wouldn’t you say?
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?
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.
An updated press release with movie: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/fire-vs-ice-the-science-of-ison-at-perihelion/#.UqgPItJDv3Q
It is dead, Jim
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!