CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, it's too late to ante up now. I'm already seeing the first signs of the flare emerging at the 4:30 position in the Lasco images.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, it's too late to ante up now. I'm already seeing the first signs of the flare emerging at the 4:30 position in the Lasco images.

But no method. Guessing. Got it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But no method. Guessing. Got it.

No, you clearly don't "get it". Anyone that *WANTED* to understand that when we see a filament eruption in 193A it shows up in LASCO later on, but then you don't want to hear it, let alone 'understand' it.

For the record, I haven't missed yet on a prediction, and you haven't made a solar flare/CME prediction. Got it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where? Where's the legitimately scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions", explained in detail with the relevant math, numbers, units of measurement, and all? Where?

Dude, you haven't even figured out the "cause/effect" connections yet. There's no point in worrying about the details until you at *LEAST* understand the basic cause/effect relationships.

 

[Reality Check]

Er, no. I saw your posted time.

You are right - my predictions from a scientific method are not (yet) as good as your guesses from what you imagine that you see!

From 2010 Oct 17 08:30 UTC (currently 18 October 2010 at 19:42)

• gev_20101017_0355 2010/10/17 03:55:00 04:40:00 04:19:00 B3.4
• gev_20101017_0826 2010/10/17 08:26:00 08:33:00 08:30:00 B1.7

P.S. Michael Mozina:

• What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (First asked 12 October 2010)
• Can your "method" do a postdiction from the 12 Sep 2000 dark filament?
• Can your "method" do a postdiction using an obvious dark filament in the past

 

[Reality Check]

Dude, you haven't even figured out the "cause/effect" connections yet. There's no point in worrying about the details until you at *LEAST* understand the basic cause/effect relationships.

Dude - you are the person who has not even figured out the "cause/effect" connections yet because you cannot answer the basic question of:

• What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (First asked 12 October 2010)

There's no point in worrying about the details until you at *LEAST* understand the basic cause/effect relationships.

We do know that you have demonstrated a large amount of ignorance of physics, e.g. thinking that there are electrical discharges though a conducting plasma, not being able to understand that an iron crust with the sun is physically impossible (due to observation that the temperature of the sun is > the boiling point of iron), not being able to understand that negative pressure has been measured, etc.
Why should we think that someone with your track record is capable of at *LEAST* understanding the cause/effect relationship between filaments and flares?

But there is a cause/effect relationship!
Filament eruptions are associated with flares. No filament, no eruption, no flare caused by a filament eruption.
AFAIK the actual mechanism is not known.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are right - my predictions from a scientific method are not (yet) as good as your guesses from what you imagine that you see!

From 2010 Oct 17 08:30 UTC (currently 18 October 2010 at 19:42)

• gev_20101017_0355 2010/10/17 03:55:00 04:40:00 04:19:00 B3.4
• gev_20101017_0826 2010/10/17 08:26:00 08:33:00 08:30:00 B1.7

Ok. We'll see how your 48 hours work out when your time is up and we'll compare the results.

P.S. Michael Mozina:

• What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (First asked 12 October 2010)
• Can your "method" do a postdiction from the 12 Sep 2000 dark filament?
• Can your "method" do a postdiction using an obvious dark filament in the past

I already did that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6454192&postcount=241

 

[GeeMack]

Dude, you haven't even figured out the "cause/effect" connections yet. There's no point in worrying about the details until you at *LEAST* understand the basic cause/effect relationships.

I've been asking you for days now to support your claim that there is a cause/effect connection, and you want to wait until I agree that dark filaments cause CMEs before you'll support your claim that they do? That suggestion isn't even remotely scientific.

So yes or no, can you quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs, or otherwise provide valid scientific references to support your claim? Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've been asking you for days now to support your claim that there is a cause/effect connection, and you want to wait until I agree that dark filaments cause CMEs before you'll support your claim that they do? That suggestion isn't even remotely scientific.

RC already posted a link that showed you the statistical connection GM. I am *SHOWING* you the physical cause/effect relationship in real time in satellite images. I've explained the logic behind the time lines and locations that I selected to you. There isn't much more to discuss until you at least acknowledge the connection.

So yes or no, can you quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs,

Yes. Those LASCO C2 images will (already do) show that connection *AGAIN*. There's no mystery here. The dark filaments provide the mass that is "ejected" from near the surface and it shows up a few hours later in COR and LASCO as a flare or CME depending on the size of the ejected material.

 

[GeeMack]

I've been asking you for days now to support your claim that there is a cause/effect connection, and you want to wait until I agree that dark filaments cause CMEs before you'll support your claim that they do? That suggestion isn't even remotely scientific.

RC already posted a link that showed you the statistical connection GM. I am *SHOWING* you the physical cause/effect relationship in real time in satellite images. I've explained the logic behind the time lines and locations that I selected to you. There isn't much more to discuss until you at least acknowledge the connection.

Connection or not, you've claimed the dark filaments are the cause of the CMEs, and you still haven't shown any causal relationships. You're pointing at pictures and saying, "Look at that stuff there? That's what causes CMEs." That's not even remotely scientific. That is, as has been explained to you dozens of times, the useless looks-like-a-bunny argument. Obviously that's not what I'm asking for when I say "legitimately scientific".

Also, your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged, and you have yet to show that you have any qualifications in that regard. Consequently any opinion you express or argument you make about what an image shows is unqualified and may therefore be dismissed as not supportive of your claim.

So yes or no, can you quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs,

Yes.

Then please do. Quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs. Quantitatively means expressing all your data in numbers. Show your math.

Scientifically means applying qualified analysis to the data. Please let us know the name of the qualified person, people, or organization who is helping you with the analysis of the solar imagery and describe their relevant qualifications.

And objectively means the same data can be analyzed independently by other people and they'll come to the same conclusions you've reached. Let us know who is professionally involved with data analysis in the solar research satellite programs or otherwise professionally qualified in the field of astrophysics who has also come to the conclusion that the dark filaments are the cause of the CMEs.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok. We'll see how your 48 hours work out when your time is up and we'll compare the results.

No we will not.
My predictions are based on my rough statistical analysis of the data on on web site. It is probably wrong. I do not expect it to have good results.

On the other hand all we have is your guesses from some sort of unknown method:

• What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (First asked 12 October 2010)

I already did that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6454192&postcount=241

No you did not. That post is about what you think happens.
Given that you "hedge" your numbers that definitely makes your numbers a guess. Aa actual scientist would state a sigma value and that they are using a larger then normal number of sigmas because of some factors.

What you basically say is that you observe an eruption and a CME or flare follows. That is well known. So the best that you are doing is repeating what astronomers already know.

See On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections by Ju Jing , Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn , Guo Yang , Yan Xu , and Haimin Wang

We present a statistical study of 106 filament eruptions, which were automatically detected by a pattern recognition program implemented at Big Bear Solar Observatory using H full-disk data from 1999 to 2003. We compare these events with Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite soft X-ray time profiles, solar-geophysical data (SGD) solar event reports, Michelson Doppler Imager magnetograms, and Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) data to determine the relationship between filament eruptions and other phenomena of solar activity. (1) Excluding eight events with no corresponding LASCO data, 55% or 56% of 98 events were associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs). (2) Active region filament eruptions have a considerably higher flare association rate of 95% compared to quiescent filament eruptions with 27%, but a comparable CME association rate, namely, 43% for active region filament eruptions and 54% for quiescent filament eruptions. (3) 54% or 68% of 80 disk events were associated with new flux emergence. In addition, we derived the sign of magnetic helicity and the orientation of the magnetic field associated with seven halo CMEs and demonstrated that the geoeffectiveness of a halo CME can be predicted by these two parameters.

(emphasis added)

Also:

• Radio Observations of Rapid Acceleration in a Slow Filament Eruption/Fast Coronal Mass Ejection Event
• An Erupting Filament and Associated CME Observed by Hinode, STEREO and SOHO (PDF)

You do not say how you got the actual numbers. To make this clearer:

• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following CME?
• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following flare?

You do not provide a method where anyone can take an image and reproduce your prediction.
We could trust that you have some sort of skills in physics and so the 3-5 hour/48 hour windows are based on some kind of analysis. But your track record is really bad. So you need to present the evidence that these numbers are not just a guess.

FYI: My guess is that your guesses are in the right ballpark. A pity that this has been known fro years !

 

[Reality Check]

RC already posted a link that showed you the statistical connection GM.

No I did not.
I did a quick, dirty and probably wrong analysis on the data that I have seen. The web site contains no statistical information. The best you get is that in the last 24 hours there have been X number of events per active region.
In addition there is no such thing as a "statistical connection". There are statistical correlations. This allow people to estimate future trends.
They do not always mean that there is a "connection" between the variables that were compared.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101018002859.jpg

It looks like we got one nice hit from one of the recent CME's.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No we will not.
My predictions are based on my rough statistical analysis of the data on on web site. It is probably wrong. I do not expect it to have good results.

It doesn't have to be anything fancy. We can simply go by the GEOS x-ray flux for all I care.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

It looks like you picked up a missing C class flare.

On the other hand all we have is your guesses from some sort of unknown method:

It's not a guess and I have described the method in some detail now.

No you did not. That post is about what you think happens.

It's what *DID* happen too RC.

Given that you "hedge" your numbers that definitely makes your numbers a guess. Aa actual scientist would state a sigma value and that they are using a larger then normal number of sigmas because of some factors.

Well, if we weren't trying to do this real time that might be useful. Since half the time I'm focused on other things during the day, I don't always catch the filament eruption in the act and therefore I miss a few minutes here and there. Under those circumstance, it's simply not worth my time to sit down and figure out sigmas for you. Hell, if I would have waited to do that, I would have missed those flares entirely. I only made that windows by 5 minutes or so.

What you basically say is that you observe an eruption and a CME or flare follows. That is well known. So the best that you are doing is repeating what astronomers already know.

Well that isn't what I did, and you aught to explain that it's "well known" to astronomers to GM. He's still dragging his feet.

In fact this whole conversation is a little surreal. On one hand you're telling me the connection between dark filaments and flares is already known (and spaceweather.com supports that view), yet GM is claiming there isn't a cause/effect relationship. The stats you offered show that there indeed ARE direct and high statical correlations between flares and the type of filament eruption I'm looking for. Someone needs to wake up your sidekick.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Connection or not, you've claimed the dark filaments are the cause of the CMEs, and you still haven't shown any causal relationships.

You really aught to read RC's posts and link. You and he need to get yourselves on the same page at least. Is the flare/dark filament eruption connection well known or not? The two of you at least need to make up your mind and put up a consistent front.

Also, your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged,

And I successfully predicted both types of CMEs/flares. You've yet to do that.

Then please do. Quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs. Quantitatively means expressing all your data in numbers. Show your math.

RC already *SHOWED YOU THE MATH*. You're ignoring it like you ignore everything. You don't care about the math or the pretty pictures so what's left?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No I did not.
I did a quick, dirty and probably wrong analysis on the data that I have seen. The web site contains no statistical information. The best you get is that in the last 24 hours there have been X number of events per active region.
In addition there is no such thing as a "statistical connection". There are statistical correlations. This allow people to estimate future trends.
They do not always mean that there is a "connection" between the variables that were compared.

(2) Active region filament eruptions have a considerably higher flare association rate of 95%

Emphasis mine.

According to their paper, I have a 95 percent chance of predicting a flare from a filament eruption that is anywhere near an active region. I'll take those odds.

 

[GeeMack]

No we will not.
My predictions are based on my rough statistical analysis of the data on on web site. It is probably wrong. I do not expect it to have good results.

On the other hand all we have is your guesses from some sort of unknown method:

• What is your methodogy that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (First asked 12 October 2010)

No you did not. That post is about what you think happens.
Given that you "hedge" your numbers that definitely makes your numbers a guess. Aa actual scientist would state a sigma value and that they are using a larger then normal number of sigmas because of some factors.

What you basically say is that you observe an eruption and a CME or flare follows. That is well known. So the best that you are doing is repeating what astronomers already know.

See On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections by Ju Jing , Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn , Guo Yang , Yan Xu , and Haimin Wang

We present a statistical study of 106 filament eruptions, which were automatically detected by a pattern recognition program implemented at Big Bear Solar Observatory using H full-disk data from 1999 to 2003. We compare these events with Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite soft X-ray time profiles, solar-geophysical data (SGD) solar event reports, Michelson Doppler Imager magnetograms, and Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) data to determine the relationship between filament eruptions and other phenomena of solar activity. (1) Excluding eight events with no corresponding LASCO data, 55% or 56% of 98 events were associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs). (2) Active region filament eruptions have a considerably higher flare association rate of 95% compared to quiescent filament eruptions with 27%, but a comparable CME association rate, namely, 43% for active region filament eruptions and 54% for quiescent filament eruptions. (3) 54% or 68% of 80 disk events were associated with new flux emergence. In addition, we derived the sign of magnetic helicity and the orientation of the magnetic field associated with seven halo CMEs and demonstrated that the geoeffectiveness of a halo CME can be predicted by these two parameters.

(emphasis added)

So some real scientists taught a computer to notice the filaments sometime before 1999. A pattern recognition program was finding them more than ten years ago. And real scientists have accumulated that data and done analyses with real numbers and even some of those wiggly percent thingies --> "%" and everything. And although there was mention of some association between filaments and CMEs, someone must have overlooked those filaments causing CMEs. Imagine that. In all those years of legitimate research, quantitative and objective the way real science is done, Messrs. Jing, Yurchyshyn, Xu, and Wang neglected to notice something that significant?

 

[GeeMack]

Emphasis mine.

According to their paper, I have a 95 percent chance of predicting a flare from a filament eruption that is anywhere near an active region. I'll take those odds.

Yep. Good odds. Makes for a pretty easy guessing game.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So some real scientists taught a computer to notice the filaments sometime before 1999. A pattern recognition program was finding them more than ten years ago.

So why in the world are you trying to deny that filament eruption detection is a useful mechanism in CME/flare prediction?

And real scientists have accumulated that data and done analyses with real numbers and even some of those wiggly percent thingies --> "%" and everything.

Did you see that 95 percent number thingy they came up with?

And although there was mention of some association between filaments and CMEs,

Ya, a whopping 95 percent association with the type I'm looking for!

someone must have overlooked those filaments causing CMEs. Imagine that. In all those years of legitimate research, quantitative and objective the way real science is done, Messrs. Jing, Yurchyshyn, Xu, and Wang neglected to notice something that significant?

It's not clear to me that the overlooked anything. They did in fact find a whopping 95 percent correlation between the CME's/flares that I'm now predicting and the type of filament eruptions that I'm looking for. I fail to see how they "missed" anything. The only one that seems to have missed anything is you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep. Good odds. Makes for a pretty easy guessing game.

What guess? It's not a guess. There's a demonstrated statistical correlation between dark filament eruption and flares/CME's. That's not a guess. That's a statistical fact.