CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

Oh come on! I told you it would rain in 2-5 hours, and it rained in 5 hours. Now that I have a better handle on how long it takes for the CME to show up in LASCO/COR, I can refine my numbers accordingly the next time. I told you WHERE the CME would come from too, I didn't just say "somewhere on the sun". You're oversimplifying what I did and you know it.

I am not oversimplifying.
All you are doing is guessing that it will be active (rain) in an active region (winter). That is all that you have presented.

To go further you need to state how you established the 2-5 hour window. Otherwise we have to assume that you are just guessing based on the incompetence that you have displayed before and the delusions that you have stated about solar physics (and physics in general).
You need to present the steps that you went through to get those numbers in such a way that your results can be replicated.

I think that you have an idea that the presence of a dark filament (i.e. a filament that looks dark against the body of the sun) in an acitve region is a precursor to a CME event. This could be interesting. But you need to do the work to establish whether this has any statistical significance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am not oversimplifying.
All you are doing is guessing that it will be active (rain) in an active region (winter). That is all that you have presented.

That simply won't hold water with respect to that last CME RC. I handed you a very short window (2-5 hours from my first post) and it happened 4 1/2 hours later. With respect to the first two EM flare type CME's that argument might fly, but not that last CME. I handed you a very narrow 3 hour window, and a directional component to boot.

To go further you need to state how you established the 2-5 hour window.

I've studied similar "dark ribbon" CME's, that's how!

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/010114_eit_195.mpg

You'll find a similar type of event was visible to SOHO in the last cycle. Note the 1:00 position.

I think that you have an idea that the presence of a dark filament (i.e. a filament that looks dark against the body of the sun) in an acitve region is a precursor to a CME event. This could be interesting. But you need to do the work to establish whether this has any statistical significance.

It's more than just a presence of the ribbon that's relevant, but while you work on the statistics, I'll warn you when they will happen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't believe that you can competently interpret NASA imagery.

Well, I competently nailed that three hour window between my prediction and that last CME. RC wouldn't even risk a beer.

Oh, and predicting activity in an active region and calling that prediction significant is wrong in my books.

I made a very specific prediction with that last CME, and handed you a three hour window to look for it in LASCO. I'd say that's pretty darn specific and it won't be last one either.

 

[GeeMack]

That simply won't hold water with respect to that last CME RC. I handed you a very short window (2-5 hours from my first post) and it happened 4 1/2 hours later. With respect to the first two EM flare type CME's that argument might fly, but not that last CME. I handed you a very narrow 3 hour window, and a directional component to boot.



I've studied similar "dark ribbon" CME's, that's how!

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/010114_eit_195.mpg

You'll find a similar type of event was visible to SOHO in the last cycle. Note the 1:00 position.



It's more than just a presence of the ribbon that's relevant, but while you work on the statistics, I'll warn you when they will happen.

Science is quantitative. You're looking at pictures and guessing. That's not quantitative and it's not science. And you still haven't offered anything here that might indicate you're qualified to understand science at the level of a typical ten year old child. Everything you claim can be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote

That simply won't hold water with respect to that last CME RC. I handed you a very short window (2-5 hours from my first post) and it happened 4 1/2 hours later. With respect to the first two EM flare type CME's that argument might fly, but not that last CME. I handed you a very narrow 3 hour window, and a directional component to boot.

That does hold water: You just guessed that there will action from an active region and got lucky when there was action.

I've studied similar "dark ribbon" CME's, that's how!

So? Read what I wrote.

To go further you need to state how you established the 2-5 hour window.

First asked 12 October 2010
What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote

• How did you work out the central value of 3 hours?
• How did you work out the uncertainty of 1 hour?

Until you give us the methodology all we can see is a person with a proven track record of incompetency and inability to answer questions (e.g. see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked) being

• incompetent yet again and
• unable to answer questions yet again.

It's more than just a presence of the ribbon that's relevant, but while you work on the statistics, I'll warn you when they will happen.

I am not going to work on the statistics. You are the person with the claim. You are going to have to do the work to convince us that you are doing better than random guesses.

But once again: It looks like you are just guessing since you cannot state your methodology.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you give a citation to an official announcement of the CME

Hi Michael Mozina:
First asked 12 October 2010
A problem with you linking to movies of the Sun is that we know the kinds of problems that you have with imagining what you want to see in solar images. As one example there was the problem that you had with thinking that an artifact in an SDO publicity image was real.


Thus it is obvious that you must have found an scientific announcement somewhere that there was a CME around your posted time and location.

• 10/10/2010 midnight UT.
• "about 8:00" on the solar disk.

Can you give a citation to that official announcement of the CME?

It looks like you are referring to active region 11112 and maybe event gev_20101010_1900 which is classified as a flare.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That does hold water: You just guessed that there will action from an active region and got lucky when there was action.

What a crock. I suppose this is typical of your denial oriented approach towards life RC. Whatever doesn't fit your preconceived mindset is simply ignored and/or rejected without even serious consideration. I suppose there's not even any point in arguing with you at the moment. I'll just wait and "get lucky" a few more times and we'll see how long you can hide out in Denialville.

FYI, my "prediction" was *HIGHLY* specific, it had *NOTHING* to do with luck, it was 100 percent accurate inside of a 3 hour window, and it won't be the last time I do it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Science is quantitative.

A three hour window *IS* quantitative!

 

[GeeMack]

A three hour window *IS* quantitative!

Your three hour window is a guess. It's looking at a cloudy sky and noticing the wind picking up and "predicting" that it might rain within a couple hours. It's BS, useless, meaningless, and when claimed to be a scientific prediction, it may be dismissed as crackpottery. You have no quantitative method. You're looking at pictures and guessing, very much like you have since the beginning of your Internet rants against rational science and math. Your arguments from looks-like-a-bunny, incredulity, ignorance, and lies have failed you, 100%, for over half a decade. And they will continue to fail you since you have no qualifications whatsoever to understand legitimate science.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's more than just a presence of the ribbon that's relevant, but while you work on the statistics, I'll warn you when they will happen.

Michael, its your responsibility and yours alone to work on the statistics. If you[\b] can't show that your predictions are statistically significant then no one will give a crap.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your three hour window is a guess.

If I hadn't told you what the "trigger" was, and offered you a legitimate scientific means of detecting it, that might not sound so absolutely ridiculous. Not only are the odds not in my favor to take a "wild guess", I specifically cited the images I used to identify the process in motion.

 

[Reality Check]

What a crock.
...snipped usual rant...

What a crock, Michael Mozina.

You made a guess. You got it right in just the same way that someone guessing that a day will be wet in winter will get it right sometimes.

In fact you have not even presented any evidence that an actual CME happened! Pretty pictures are not enough.

P.S.
What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
Can you give a citation to an official announcement of the CME?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, its your responsibility and yours alone to work on the statistics. If you[\b] can't show that your predictions are statistically significant then no one will give a crap.

I doubt any of you will much care until I've nailed about a dozen or so CME's in that same 3 hour window (preferably smaller) over a period of time. Sooner or later you'll come around because you can't deny scientific fact forever, and neither will the readers of this thread. I intend to make a number of "predictions' about CME's and when we will see them in COR and LASCO images. I have faith that sooner or later your own scientific curiosity will get the better of you. I know for a fact I can identify very specific cause/effect relationships that directly relate to CME's. That knowledge will win out over pure blind ignorance, but like all things, it will take time to demonstrate my case.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a crock, Michael Mozina.

You made a guess. You got it right in just the same way that someone guessing that a day will be wet in winter will get it right sometimes.

My how "bold" you are now that no beer is on the line. If you're so sure it's a "guess", why didn't you bet me a beer when you had the chance? To the moment in time (when I offered to bet the beer) I had not seen any LASCO or COR images that helped my case. That was a legitimate bet by the way. It's a pity you didn't take me up on it. Are you willing to "bet' me the next time I make a wild three hour window guess (oh, and I'll even throw in the general vicinity for you)?

In fact you have not even presented any evidence that an actual CME happened!

LOL! Talk about hard core denial. Wow!

Pretty pictures are not enough.

So why put up satellites in space if you don't intend to analyze the pretty pictures and do something useful with them (like "predict" something)?

I've already explained to you how I did it RC. If you don't care to pay attention to my methods, ignore them. I'll be back when those same methods give me a several hour heads up on a CME like they did the last time. Sooner or later you'll "get it", even if you *REFUSE* to 'get it' at the moment. You can't say I didn't *TRY* to explain it to you, pretty new SDO pictures and everything.

 

[GeeMack]

If I hadn't told you what the "trigger" was, and offered you a legitimate scientific means of detecting it, that might not sound so absolutely ridiculous. Not only are the odds not in my favor to take a "wild guess", I specifically cited the images I used to identify the process in motion.

You looked at a couple of pictures of some activity on the Sun and "predicted" that there would be more activity. Virtually every ten year old kid on Earth, you know, all those people with your same qualifications to understand science and/or math, can do the same thing. Again, big deal.

 

[D'rok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we currently near solar maximum? In active regions, don't CMEs occur 5-6 times a day near solar maximum?

If so, any 2-5 hour prediction in any active region at any time of day will always be accurate.

Kinda sad Mike.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I suppose you've done a full analysis of the mean rate at which CME occur and know how good your predictions need to be for them to be statistically significant.

That might involve a bit of mathematics, so I predict that Michael Mozina will not do that analysis.

Prediction confirmed:

Oh, I'll do better than that. I intend to isolate the exact surface areas, basic direction and eventually I'll explain the "cause(s)" that are responsible for the CME, not just predict an event. It may take me awhile to figure out the directional components with any accuracy, but I'm working on figuring out directional components *BEFORE* it's visible in LASCO/COR images.

Michael, its your responsibility and yours alone to work on the statistics. If you can't show that your predictions are statistically significant then no one will give a crap.

Prediction doubly confirmed:

I doubt any of you will much care until I've nailed about a dozen or so CME's in that same 3 hour window (preferably smaller) over a period of time. Sooner or later you'll come around because you can't deny scientific fact forever, and neither will the readers of this thread. I intend to make a number of "predictions' about CME's and when we will see them in COR and LASCO images. I have faith that sooner or later your own scientific curiosity will get the better of you. I know for a fact I can identify very specific cause/effect relationships that directly relate to CME's. That knowledge will win out over pure blind ignorance, but like all things, it will take time to demonstrate my case.

Moral of story: Predicting that Michael Mozina will not do some particular calculation is like predicting local noon will be brighter than local midnight. The prediction is so easy that empirical confirmation of the prediction is not statistically significant.

Tubbythin has suggested that Michael Mozina's predictions may not be statistically significant. If Michael Mozina wishes to claim that his predictions are significant, then the burden of calculating their statistical significance rests with Michael Mozina. Thus far, Michael Mozina has shown absolutely no sign of understanding this issue. I predict that he will continue to show no sign of understanding why both his predictions and mine are exceedingly unimpressive.

 

[Reality Check]

My how "bold" you are now that no beer is on the line. If you're so sure it's a "guess", why didn't you bet me a beer when you had the chance?

Beacuse I cannot trust you. Someone who has consistantly lied about solar images for many years is not a trustworthy person.

It was a guess. Guesses sometimes are right!

LOL! Talk about hard core denial. Wow!

LOL! Talk about hard core ignorance. Wow!

So why put up satellites in space if you don't intend to analyze the pretty pictures and do something useful with them (like "predict" something)?

Asronomers actually analse the images and predict things.

You though a proven track record of being unable to analyse solar inmages and only using "I see bunnnies in the clouds" logic.

I've already explained to you how I did it RC. If you don't care to pay attention to my methods, ignore them.

No you did not. All you have posted implies that you made a guess based on somthing, e.g. "I see bunnnies in the clouds" logic.
Your "method" seems to be guessing that there a CME event will peak 3 to 5 hours after the appearance of the dark filament in an active region.

What I am asking is how you got the actual numbers.

What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
​

and whether there was an actual CME rather than a unsupported assertion from you:

Can you give a citation to an official announcement of the CME?
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we currently near solar maximum?

No, not really. We are at least a year or so away from maximum. There are clear differences when we hit maximum, particularly in the iron ion wavelengths (171A,195A,284A,94A, etc). You'll observe MANY more active regions both in the northern and sourthern hemispheres.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/010114_eit_195.mpg

That's an images that's a little closer to solar maximum. You can compare it to current STEREO and SDO images and see that there are fewer active regions present today than are typical at maximum.

In active regions, don't CMEs occur 5-6 times a day near solar maximum?

Not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

The frequency of ejections depends on the phase of the solar cycle: from about one every other day near the solar minimum to 5–6 per day near the solar maximum. These values are also lower limits because ejections propagating away from Earth (backside CMEs) can usually not be detected by coronagraphs.

Not every active areas produces a CME, and when they discuss frequency at maximum, that's simply an "average" and it relates to the WHOLE sun, not just the side that faces us.

If so, any 2-5 hour prediction in any active region at any time of day will always be accurate.

No because not every active regions produces a CME, and the frequency relates to the whole sun, not our side. FYI, the last CME was *NOT* and electromagnetic flare induced CME from that active region. It was a dark filament CME that did not produce any extraordinary x-ray flares. Not all CME's come from active regions, and not all active regions produce CME's.

Kinda sad Mike.

It's kinda sad you're judging me based on false information too.

 

[D'rok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we currently near solar maximum? In active regions, don't CMEs occur 5-6 times a day near solar maximum?

If so, any 2-5 hour prediction in any active region at any time of day will always be accurate.

Kinda sad Mike.

Hmmm...some conflicting info.

This site says 5-6 per day:

The frequency of ejections depends on the phase of the solar cycle: from about one every other day near solar minimum to 5–6 per day near solar maximum.

http://www.universetoday.com/59230/coronal-mass-ejections/

While NASA's page says 2-3 per day:

Near solar maximum we observe an average of 2 to 3 CMEs per day

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/CMEs.shtml

Guess I should go with NASA.

Still, 2-3 per day makes for darn good prediction odds.