CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Reality Check said:
FYI: That is what you get for looking at pretty pictures rather than scientific data.
Click to expand...

Huh? Those "pretty pictures" as you call them *ARE* the scientific data.

The people in charge of the pretty pictures do insist on editing them to make them pretty and sometimes make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Ya, and evidently they're rectifying the situation too. :)

I suggest that you and I try a slightly different approach. IMO it would be a whole more more productive to see what things we can 'agree to agree" upon rather than endlessly posturing in this thread. Would you agree or disagree that we can use the movement of dark filaments (dark in h-alpha, dark in 335A) to "predict" observations that we will later observe in SOHO LASCO and STEREO COR images? Would you agree or disagree that "dark filaments" are a "cause" of mass ejections?

In terms of EM flares, would you agree or disagree that in terms of "predicting" such flares, we are looking for "changes over time", specifically 'hot spots' that form that are likely to "erupt"?
 
GeeMack said:
Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted and is a dishonest argument.
Click to expand...

Nobody has attempted to shift the burden of proof. In fact my "predictions" had been directly related to 'demonstrating' the value of the methods I have used to 'predict' flares and mass ejections.

I can't have an "honest" conversation with you if you aren't willing to answer some basic questions and at least make an HONEST attempt to make *SOME* attempt to have a real conversation. Yes or no, are dark filaments related to CME's? If you won't agree or disagree, how can we have an 'honest' conversation?
 
FYI, since I picked a 48 hour window, I get *EVERY* flare that occurs in that active region in that 48 hour window. So far that's been 1 M class flare, 2 C class flares, and several B class flares. IMO there's at least 1 or 2 more C's to come, and maybe something "big" yet (M or X). There's actually a second hot spot forming on the other side of a large bundle of coronal loops. Now both hot spots could erupt at any time.
 
Reality Check said:
This is a pretty good guess because it has had 3 events in the last 24 hours
Click to expand...

Sorry, you can't have my same timeslot and active region. :) It's first come, first serve. :)

FYI, I actually think that would be a good "guess" in this case because the hot spot that has generated the flares is still extremely unstable and a second hot spot has formed on the other side of a bundle of coronal loops. There is a good likelihood there will be more activity IMO and that's part of the reason I chose a larger window in the first place. There could be several more C class flares from that region before it 'settles down'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Would you agree or disagree that "dark filaments" are a "cause" of mass ejections?
Click to expand...


The dark filaments are the cause of the CMEs the same as that breeze that comes ahead of a thunderstorm is the cause of the thunderstorm. Do you believe the breeze causes the thunderstorm?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sorry, you can't have my same timeslot and active region. :) It's first come, first serve.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you didn't notice this when I wrote it before... Science isn't a contest to see who can do something and who can't. It's not a pool with bets on certain time slots. It would be ridiculous to believe it is. Trying to support your claim from that angle doesn't make for a reasonable argument. Taunting and daring other people to duplicate your "prediction", when nobody even knows what you mean by "prediction", is wholly unscientific.

You haven't defined "prediction" the way you're using it. You're not using the word as it is commonly used when discussing predictions related to theories and hypotheses. Define it, please.

Then, after we know what you mean by your unconventional use of the term "predict", if you have a legitimately scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions", please explain it here, in detail, with the relevant math, numbers, units of measurement, and everything.
 
OMG I am right (what a big surprise)

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I actually think that would be a good "guess" ...
Click to expand...
FYI: My guess is as good or even better 'guess' than your previous guess with numbers just pulled from your imagination unless you have an anwsser to What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote? First asked 12 October 2010 - 6 days and counting :eye-poppi!

That is because I have an actual scientific method rather than your "I see bunnies in the clouds" guesswork. I use the existing statistics of the occurrence of flares and CME from the active region to predict what the future activity of the active region will be. Thus a region that produced 3 events in the last 24 hours is likely to produce another 3 in the next 24 hours and very likely to produce at least 1 event in your preferred time-frame of 48 hours (from 2010 Oct 17 08:30 UTC).
If I knew the stististics for active regions in general I could make a prediction for any active region.

And what do I see - a 2 for the price of one prediction :jaw-dropp!
So I will make another prediction:
Region 11112 will produce an event in the next 48 hours (from 18 October 2010 01:48 UT)

P.S.
Lets add another nitpick with your guessing "method".
What if you have done the sensible thing rather than guessing? You would have done a statistical analysis of dark filaments and their correlation with CME (and flares?) that you are hiding from the world for some strange reason.
However that would just give a correlation and correlation is not causation. A scientist would then propose a valid physical mechanism linking dark filaments with CME. That is another bit of the scientific process that you are missing.
 
Reality Check said:
What if you have done the sensible thing rather than guessing? You would have done a statistical analysis of dark filaments and their correlation with CME (and flares?) that you are hiding from the world for some strange reason.
However that would just give a correlation and correlation is not causation. A scientist would then propose a valid physical mechanism linking dark filaments with CME. That is another bit of the scientific process that you are missing.
Click to expand...


Michael has unambiguously taken the position that the dark filaments cause the CMEs. They trigger the CMEs.
 
I guess (because active regions are... active!) that there will be an EM type of 'flare/cme" from region 11112 on the Sun in the next 48 hours (from 2010 Oct 17 08:30 UTC)
Click to expand...

FYI, there had not been even a single C class flare on this side of the sun from *ANY* active region for something like 12 days prior to the first event. That same active region had been on our side of the sun for over a week too. You can't just "assume" that all active regions will generate a flare every 48 hours because they don't.
 
It's hard to tell from just a few frames (which is all I can see so far) but it looks to me like that last EM flare destabilized the dark filament near that active region. If so, that dark filament could erupt. We'll see.
 
Dark Filaments in H-Alpha

http://nsosp.nso.edu/VIDEOIMG/ospan/latest_h.jpg

This is an H-Alpha image of the sun from a few days ago. The "dark filaments" we observe in the 193A, 211A, and 335A images are also clearly visible in the H-Alpha images. That one long dark filament in the southern hemisphere is in very close proximity to EM flare activity. That 'combo' tends to result in a CME sooner or later. What we're looking for is any outward movement of that darkened filament.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Is that a "no"?
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Do you disagree?
Click to expand...


It's your claim and you certainly haven't done anything to support it. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You were asked to provide valid, legitimate scientific references to support it. You haven't. Whenever you're ready...

You are also apparently refusing to define "prediction" the way you're using it. You're not using the word as it is commonly used when scientists discuss predictions related to theories and hypotheses. So, whenever you're ready...

Oh, and it hasn't slipped past anyone's notice that you're also refusing to provide your legitimately scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions". Explain it here, in detail, with the relevant math, numbers, units of measurement, and everything, you know, whenever you're ready...

Reality Check also has been building a list of issues that you haven't even begun to address, so you can get started on those, too, whenever you're ready...
 
GeeMack said:
You claim that the dark filaments cause the CMEs. Prove it.
Click to expand...

You're still not answering my question. Why not? It's a simple question. The answer 'could' lead to areas of "agreement" as well. Are you so opposed to the concept of finding agreement that you're going to continue to avoid my question?

RC already posted a link to a paper that made a number of statistical links between changing dark filaments and CME's. I've also made a highly successful prediction based upon the change over time of "dark filaments". I've shown you movies that show those dark filaments "erupting" (as is moving away from the surface) and later CME's seen in COR and LASCO images. What "proof" will be 'enough" for you?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're still not answering my question. Why not? It's a simple question. The answer 'could' lead to areas of "agreement" as well. Are you so opposed to the concept of finding agreement that you're going to continue to avoid my question?

RC already posted a link to a paper that made a number of statistical links between changing dark filaments and CME's. I've also made a highly successful prediction based upon the change over time of "dark filaments". I've shown you movies that show those dark filaments "erupting" (as is moving away from the surface) and later CME's seen in COR and LASCO images. What "proof" will be 'enough" for you?
Click to expand...


There are undoubtedly statistical links between a dog lifting his leg and his peeing on a tree. So what? It doesn't mean lifting his leg is the cause of the peeing. Michael, you've made the claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs. Prove it.
 
GeeMack said:
There are undoubtedly statistical links between a dog lifting his leg and his peeing on a tree. So what? It doesn't mean lifting his leg is the cause of the peeing. Michael, you've made the claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs. Prove it.
Click to expand...

My intent is to do just that over the next several months and years in this thread. I intend to "predict" the CME events that we will see in LASCO/COR images based upon the upward movements of those dark filaments. There is a direct cause/effect link between these dark ribbons and CME's.

You however are still not "communicating", you're "arguing" for argument sake. I'm attempting to look for areas of agreement. Your answers are vague but they suggest that you disagree that dark filaments are related to CME's. Is that true?

FYI, you could in fact "predict" that a (male) dog is going to pee (mass ejection) before the pee emerges based upon them lifting their leg and you'd likely be correct most of the time. :)

My interest is in isolating specific observations that can lead us to "predict" a CME before it occurs. That dog lifting his leg would be of great interest to me if I were trying to figure out when the dog was going to pee. You don't seem even interested in exploring or discussing any observations that might be useful in predicting CME's. All you seem to be interested in is "arguing".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom