CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

You claimed to have predicted a CME when it turned out in fact, through Reality Check's research, that no CME was recorded.

Recorded how? I assure that the event was "recorded" in the mass flow patterns in COR and/or LASCO images. Which specific event are we discussing?

The only difference between a flare and CME is the size and directional component of the mass flow. Who gets to decide if it's categorized as a "CME" vs. a "flare"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I said...

In all the times people have asked you to provide your quantitative, scientific, objective method for making your "predictions", you've refused to provide one.​

Whenever you're ready you may describe your method.

How many times do I have to explain it to you? That paper RC provided is a great reference for the overall "method" I'm using for tracking filament type CME's, only I'm doing it real time, on a public forum, where everyone can see how I do in real time. I'm categorizing them as they did. I'm finding them essentially the same way they did, although I'm using satellite images instead of H-Alpha images to isolate the filaments. I'm categorizing them in terms of their proximity to active regions, their size, their shape, stability aspects, and I'm looking for key changes over time. SDO provides me with an opportunity to do that in near real time and frankly that's good enough to "test" my methods to find out if they are valid and that is what this thread is intended to test.

Mass flows related to filament eruptions turn into mass flows we can see in few hours in LASCO. It's a mass flow from the moment the filament moves away from the surface. That mass has to go somewhere and that somewhere is away from the surface. If it has any momentum (which is almost always the case), it's going to show up sooner or later in LASCO images.

 

[GeeMack]

How many times do I have to explain it to you? That paper RC provided is a great reference for the overall "method" I'm using for tracking filament type CME's, [...]

Great reference. But you were claiming to have a method before you were even aware of that paper.

So far you've admitted you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs. That's getting somewhere. But there's still this...

Describe in detail your quantitative, objective, scientific method you were using to "predict" CMEs before you became aware of the method in the paper Reality Check referenced (that paper which you also don't seem to be able to explain quantitatively, scientifically, or objectively). Or acknowledge that you have no such method.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Great reference. But you were claiming to have a method before you were even aware of that paper.

I do. I don't use H-Alpha images, but essentially it's the same technique. The categorization process turns out to be nearly identical as well. I had not read that particular paper until RC posted it, but it is an excellent reference and timely too. That's one of RC's greatest redeeming qualities IMO. Tim too.

So far you've admitted you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs.

No, that's your spin. We all agree EM fields provide the motive force. That's never been in doubt. You of all people could *NEVER* confuse the issue unless you wanted to.

Describe in detail your quantitative, objective, scientific method you were using to "predict" CMEs before you became aware of the method in the paper Reality Check referenced (that paper which you also don't seem to be able to explain quantitatively, scientifically, or objectively). Or acknowledge that you have no such method.

I'm not going back to figure out which papers I read to figure out various correlations now! RC's link is plenty. It's actually much better than anything I remember reading before hand. My "method" is pretty much self taught, but essentially it's the same method. That's hardly surprising IMO since it's *THE* best way to spot them in advance that I can think of. I'm sure others have thought of that connection too. The fact you wish *ME PERSONALLY* to do that math is ridiculous. Who cares who did the math? The method works and I've demonstrated that it works in real time.

 

[Reality Check]

The only thing "special' about them RC is that they are "dark" and they "erupt" from time to time, spewing mass into the solar system as they do. I really don't grasp your aversion to the term "dark". IMO you're fixated on what amounts to trivia and you're ignoring that there's a physical, mechanical connection between the movement of mass in the erupting filament and the movements of mass we observe in LASCO, 95 percent of the time it occurs near an active region. That's not an accident, there is a physical acceleration process taking place in the erupting filament that shows up as mass flow in Lasco/COR. It's really that simple.

IMO it is you that is fixating on trivia.
The fact that some filaments appear dark in some wavelengths and not in other (or when viewed on the limb) is trivial. If someone was obsessed with pretty pictures of the Sun then they may fooled into thinking that dark filaments were "special" just because they look special.

There is nothing special about dark filaments erupting. Any filament can erupt. Any filament can also just vanish without erupting. This is known as thermal disappearance as opposed to dynamic sudden disaperance, which is due to restructuring of the magnetic field and leads to an eruption.

You are ignoring that there is a no known causal connection between the mass in the eruption and the mass in the CME. Lets wiki you:
Coronal mass ejection

A coronal mass ejection (CME) is a massive burst of solar wind, other light isotope plasma, and magnetic fields rising above the solar corona or being released into space.[1]
Coronal mass ejections are often associated with other forms of solar activity, most notably solar flares, but a causal relationship has not been established. Most ejections originate from active regions on Sun's surface, such as groupings of sunspots associated with frequent flares.

(my emphasis added)

There is a statistical correlation between the occurrence of a filament eruption and the occurrence of a CME as shown in On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections.

There is no known causal relationship between the occurrence of a filament eruption and the occurrence of a CME, despite your Birkeland assertion:

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME and flares?
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

IMO it is you that is fixating on trivia.
The fact that some filaments appear dark in some wavelengths and not in other (or when viewed on the limb) is trivial.

No it's not. How do you figure they "detected" a disappearing filament in that paper RC? It's a "feature" that we're looking for if we ever expect to predict a filament eruption. There's also an important physical "cause" that makes that particular plasma "dark" in various wavelengths, including H-Alpha and the iron ion wavelengths I'm using.

If someone was obsessed with pretty pictures of the Sun then they may fooled into thinking that dark filaments were "special" just because they look special.

The are in fact "special", particularly the large ones around highly active regions. Those have the most potential to eject a lot of mass.

There is nothing special about dark filaments erupting. Any filament can erupt.

Well, the fact that any plasma filament can erupt doesn't mean it's not "special". I fail to see the how one precludes the other.

Any filament can also just vanish without erupting. This is known as thermal disappearance as opposed to dynamic sudden disaperance, which is due to restructuring of the magnetic field and leads to an eruption.

Sure, but that is why we need to categorize them based on how they "disappear".

You are ignoring that there is a no known causal connection between the mass in the eruption and the mass in the CME.

Technically the motive force comes from the EM field. The dark filaments however tend to "erupt" as a massive "blob". That's what makes them "special".

 

[Reality Check]

I have done so twice now, and I'll continue to do it every single time I see it happen.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(First asked 12 October 2010)
To make this clearer:
For the predictions that you made before I told you about On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections.

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

I added the last 2 since first 2 are based on my assumption that your guesses were based on the observation of dark filaments but you seem to have changed this to be based on their eruptions after I cited the above paper.
The minimum any competent scientist would so is give a list like

• The UTC time of the observation of the dark filament.
• The UTC time that you predicted for the following flare or CME (with uncertainty).
• The UTC time of the eruption of the dark filament.
• The position of the dark filament in solar coordinates.
• The UTC time of the flare or CME.
• The position of the flare or CME.
• Optionally
  • the size of the dark filament may be significant in case there is a correlation with the flare class or CME angular size.
  • the flare class.
  • the CME angular size.

So why do I have to do that same math for you when it's already been done and I agree with the "experts" on the time lag? Notice a pattern of foot dragging?

No one has asked you to do the same math that is in the paper.
What you have to do is show the math that you didfor the predictions before you knew about this paper. That is why I asked you What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote? on 12 October 2010.

Notice a pattern of foot dragging and inability to answer simple questions from you, Michael Mozina?

N.B. A valid response is just stating that you did no such analysis. That makes your numbers into a guess. If you were an astronomer it would be an informed guess. You are not so the guess is not informed.

Since when was it necessary for me personally to replicate the math of a scientifically studied and published fact for it to be "true"?
...snipped usual MM "will not bark math" stuff...

No one is asking you that. You had not seen the paper before I cited it.
The question I have been asking since 12 October 2010 (8 days and counting) (What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?) has nothing to do with the paper. It about the numbers that your quote.

So now answer the rest of my post, e.g.

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME and flares?​

 

[Reality Check]

No it's not. How do you figure they "detected" a disappearing filament in that paper RC? ...

They detected disappearing filaments as described in the paper. Read it. Notice that no point do they mention dark filaments.

The are in fact "special", particularly the large ones around highly active regions. Those have the most potential to eject a lot of mass.

There are large non-dark filaments as well around highly active regions. Those have just as much potential to eject a lot of mass.

Well, the fact that any plasma filament can erupt doesn't mean it's not "special". I fail to see the how one preclude the other.

The fact that any filament can erupt just means that it can erupt. That is not special. That is just what they do except when they just vanish without berupting.

Technically the motive force comes from the EM field. The dark filaments however tend to "erupt" as a massive "blob".

What does this mean?
It has nothing to do with a causal relationship. The best that I can say is that you are saying that electromagnetiss accelerates plasma in eruptions, flares and CME. Well Duh ! That is trivial and what astromomers have been saying for decades.

You are still ignoring that there is a no known causal connection between the mass in the eruption and the mass in the CME.

 

[Reality Check]

This SDO closeup says otherwise RC. Notice how the filament is "flowing", it's not "frozen". Notice how the filament 'lights up" at one end and not the other. Notice how it rotates like any ordinary "Birkeland current".
...snipped..

That is rather ignorant of you, Michael Mozina. You are ignoring the fact that

• plasma flows.
• plasma is not frozen
• plasma "lights up" (heat and cool)
• plasma rotates.
• etc.

More "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic from you as usual.

There's one MAJOR fallacy in your understanding of moving plasma.
...ignorance of physics snipped to spare MM further embarrassment ...

This of course is you ignoring what I stated yet again:

Some plasma gets hotter. Maybe it is because there is a current flowing through it. Maybe a magnetic field is squeezing it.
So what?

High school science students know that a current is not an electrical discharge.

(emphasis added)
Did you see any mention of moving plasma there?
Can you understand that the post was about the MAJOR fallacy in thinking that an electrial discharge is a current?

 

[GeeMack]

Technically the motive force comes from the EM field. The dark filaments however tend to "erupt" as a massive "blob". That's what makes them "special".

Okay, so you're admitting you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs.

 

[Reality Check]

Technically the motive force comes from the EM field. The dark filaments however tend to "erupt" as a massive "blob". That's what makes them "special".

Okay, so you're admitting you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs.

I missed that !

Technically MM is stating that the cause of the flares and CME is "the EM field" (whatever he means by this) not dark filaments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They detected disappearing filaments as described in the paper. Read it. Notice that no point do they mention dark filaments.

Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you figure the software picked out the filaments without relying upon the fact they are 'dark'?

There are large non-dark filaments as well around highly active regions. Those have just as much potential to eject a lot of mass.

Sure, but those types of "bright" flares occur at a "maximum load" point and it's entirely different prediction process. The filament eruption process is a completely different animal. The dark plasma can at times erupt as a whole, or as a "chunk" and that is the start of the mass flow we observe in LASCO a few hours later. The bright filaments aren't like that. They can "short circuit", but that tends to be a localized event between a couple of small filaments. The explosive force of the ensuing explosion is what triggers that type of mass flow. It's not directly related to either of the "reconnecting" filaments, it's related to the total "circuit energy" of the two filaments.

The fact that any filament can erupt just means that it can erupt. That is not special. That is just what they do except when they just vanish without berupting.

Sure, and that's the difference between a flare and a non event. There are additional "observations" about the way the dark filament dissipates that we're looking for that are specifically related to flare events. There is a weeding out process that is necessary simply to identify the erupting filament type from other types of filament dissipation processes.

What does this mean?
It has nothing to do with a causal relationship. The best that I can say is that you are saying that electromagnetiss accelerates plasma in eruptions, flares and CME. Well Duh ! That is trivial and what astromomers have been saying for decades.

Exactly. What we're talking about now is how that EM motive force manifests itself in the atmosphere and exactly which processes produce flares and CME's. We all agree that the EM field is doing the plasma acceleration, but detecting where and how isn't trivial or easy.

You are still ignoring that there is a no known causal connection between the mass in the eruption and the mass in the CME.

You can trace the mass flow through the satellites now RC. There is a cause effect process in play. The mass inside that erupting filament is the same mass that we observe a few hours later in LASCO and COR images. Just because there is a delay between the time it leaves the surface and the time it can be observed in LASCO doesn't mean it's not exactly the same mass, only more "spread out". That is in fact exactly what's happening.

You simply cannot ignore that 95 percent correlation between active region filament eruptions and flares. There is a 'causal' connection, because it's exactly the same mass. It's simply traveling from point A) in 193A to point B) in LASCO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I missed that !

Technically MM is stating that the cause of the flares and CME is "the EM field" (whatever he means by this) not dark filaments.

Since we've discussed a cathode solar model for months on end, you couldn't possibly be confuse about my belief that the EM field is the motive force behind the particle acceleration. I won't even go into the whole surface/heliosphere charge separation aspect again in this thread. It is not necessary for purposes of this discussion. Neither of you could *POSSIBLY* be "uniformed" as to my personal beliefs on that topic. You're both acting like a couple of legaleaze layers looking for any slip of the tongue. The two of you can't possibly be confused as to my actual beliefs on that topic. Suffice to say we aren't even discussing the motive force yet, just how it manifests itself in the atmosphere. I intend to keep this particular thread highly specific and completely related to coronal loop activity and flares/CME's. Nothing else is actually relevant to our discussion about CME's and flares.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is rather ignorant of you, Michael Mozina. You are ignoring the fact that

[*]plasma flows.

Sure you are. You guys publish papers all the time about "frozen in magnetic fields". What utter nonsense. The whole thing is moving and flowing and there are no "frozen in" magnetic lines in moving plasma.

plasma is not frozen

Then the magnetic lines you are writing about cannot possibly be 'frozen" either, so all your mathematical models are unrelated to the actual physics inside the moving, spinning, flowing plasma.

plasma "lights up" (heat and cool)

That spaceweather.com video makes it clear that it "heats up" when it 'connects' to the active region. The easiest way to explain that observation is to accept that "current flow" is the "cause" of that heating process.

plasma rotates.

Yes, it's called a "Birkeland Current". It has a proper name. You guys keep referring to it in euphemistic magnetic spiral/helix terms rather than it's proper scientific name.

More "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic from you as usual.

No, I see flares and CME's headed our way, hours and actually days before they happen.

I've already demonstrated that this process works RC. It's only a matter of time before it will happen again and I will be able to 'predict' the event in advance based on careful observation of those pretty million dollar images that you keep treating like dirt.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so you're admitting you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs.

You cannot *POSSIBLY* be confused as to what I actually believe is the force behind particle acceleration from the surface of the sun. I was 100 percent right that the mass ejection process often begins with the filament eruption. That mass from the filament eruption is the *CAUSE* of the mass flows that we observe in LASCO images. Care to accept that fact yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, for anyone that is actually interested....

The miniature flaring process that took place today in the active region that is directly facing us in the northern hemisphere shows the clear physical relationship between the energetic mass flow of the coronal loops and the surface of the photosphere. The mass flow from the flaring loops (brightening loops) can be seen to "light up" the surface of the photosphere in 1600A and even 1700A. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the filaments are highly energetic as they pierce the surface of the photosphere. They don't just become visible at some magic point it some 'transition region' that sits high above the photosphere. That magic heating in the transition region concept is utterly falsified by the SDO 1600A and 1700A images.

 

[Reality Check]

Sure you are. You guys publish papers all the time about "frozen in magnetic fields". What utter nonsense. The whole thing is moving and flowing and there are no "frozen in" magnetic lines in moving plasma.

What utter nonsense, MM.
The frozen in magnetic fields are frozen into the flowing plasma ! They flow with the plasma. That is a simple definition of a frozen in magnetic field!
Scientists publish papers about frozen in magnetic fields all the time.
Scientists publish papers about non-frozen in magnetic fields all the time.

Then the magnetic lines you are writing about cannot possibly be 'frozen" either, so all your mathematical models are unrelated to the actual physics inside the moving, spinning, flowing plasma.

Wrong again, MM.
MHD is applied succesfully all the time to the actual physics inside moving, spinning, flowing plasma.

That spaceweather.com video makes it clear that it "heats up" when it 'connects' to the active region. The easiest way to explain that observation is to accept that "current flow" is the "cause" of that heating process.

That spaceweather.com video makes it clear that the not-dark (wow!) filament

• emits more light (heats up) as time passes.
• erupts.
  This looks like gev_20101018_1526 that happened on 2010/10/18 15:26:00 17:00:00 at 16:43:00 - a C2.5 flare at S23W60.
• all of the activity seems to happen over active region 11112.

There is no "connect'. There is no "current flow" because you cannot see an electric current flowing in an image of the Sun. You have to measure the electric field (a hard task) or measure the magnetic field (much easier and often done) and deduce the current.

The scientifically verified way to describe that process is a magnetic field reconfiguring and releasing energy that propels plasma away from the Sun. That is a solar flare

Solar flares affect all layers of the solar atmosphere (photosphere, corona, and chromosphere), heating plasma to tens of millions of kelvins and accelerating electrons, protons, and heavier ions to near the speed of light. They produce radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum at all wavelengths, from radio waves to gamma rays. Most flares occur in active regions around sunspots, where intense magnetic fields penetrate the photosphere to link the corona to the solar interior. Flares are powered by the sudden (timescales of minutes to tens of minutes) release of magnetic energy stored in the corona. If a solar flare is exceptionally powerful, it can cause coronal mass ejections.

Yes, it's called a "Birkeland Current". It has a proper name. You guys keep referring to it in euphemistic magnetic spiral/helix terms rather than it's proper scientific name.

No, its called a feature of plasma that you call a "Birkeland Current" without any evidence that is is a Birkeland current.
Its proper name is a filament (later an flare). You guy keeping referring to it in nonscientific, "I see bunnies in the clouds", unsupported assertion terms rather than it's proper scientific name.

Birkeland currents have (as far my quick research reveals) never been detected in solar events. Strictly speaking they can only happen around the Earth but the term is also used for the same effect around other planets.

I see no helix or spiral in the movie. That is the problem with just looking at pretty picture. You may imagine a spiral filament. I look at the same picture and imagine a randomly twisting filament. Someone else looks at it and sees a bunny !

No, I see flares and CME's headed our way, hours and actually days before they happen.

No, you do not see them. They are not in the images until they appear in the images. What you have is

• You have an unspecified way of predicting (otherwise known as guessing) that CME's will happen after filament eruptions.
  That is in fact a well known fact as this 2004 paper shows:
  On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections.
• You state that there will be a flare from an active region over the next 48 hours.
  That is about what the rough average that I worked out is. Astronomers have much better statistics, methodolgies and produce real estimates of the probabilities of flares from an active region:
  SolarMonitor (summary for 18 Oct 2010)
  Region most likely to flare: NOAA 11112 -- Probabilities: X(1%) M(19%) C(43%)

I've already demonstrated that this process works RC. It's only a matter of time before it will happen again and I will be able to 'predict' the event in advance based on careful observation of those pretty million dollar images that you keep treating like dirt.

Once again: You have not demonstrated that the process works.
You have no process as far as we know except guessing.
The guesses actually happen to be good guesses eye-poppi) because they fit what astronomers already know about the Sun. However they can produce detailed numeric estimates rather than your guesses. They also have scientific theories about the processes invoved.

 

[Reality Check]

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

You have missed this part of a previous post making the 12 October 2010 question clearer so here it is to remind you for tomorrow.
Remember that a valid answer is that you did not do any numeric analysis.

What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(First asked 12 October 2010)
To make this clearer:

For the predictions that you made before I told you about On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections.

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

I added the last 2 since first 2 are based on my assumption that your guesses were based on the observation of dark filaments but you seem to have changed this to be based on their eruptions after I cited the above paper.

The minimum any competent scientist would so is give a list like

• The UTC time of the observation of the dark filament.
• The UTC time that you predicted for the following flare or CME (with uncertainty).
• The UTC time of the eruption of the dark filament.
• The position of the dark filament in solar coordinates.
• The UTC time of the flare or CME.
• The position of the flare or CME.
• Optionally
  • the size of the dark filament may be significant in case there is a correlation with the flare class or CME angular size.
  • the flare class.
  • the CME angular size.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, for anyone that is actually interested....

The miniature flaring process that took place today in the active region that is directly facing us in the northern hemisphere shows the clear physical relationship between the energetic mass flow of the coronal loops and the surface of the photosphere. The mass flow from the flaring loops (brightening loops) can be seen to "light up" the surface of the photosphere in 1600A and even 1700A. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the filaments are highly energetic as they pierce the surface of the photosphere. They don't just become visible at some magic point it some 'transition region' that sits high above the photosphere. That magic heating in the transition region concept is utterly falsified by the SDO 1600A and 1700A images.

FYI, for anyone that is actually interested....

Michael Mozina needs to really be more specific than a "miniature flaring process" in an unspecified active region within a 24 hour period. That is just polite rather than making people downlod big movies that may or may not contain his process. He needs to state

• The UT time of the process.
• A better position than "northern hemisphere".
• What the process actually looks like.
  It is not a flare. The last flare in the northern hemisphere was on 4 Oct 2010. The only flares since were in active region 11112. Active region 11112 is in the southern hemisphere.

Any flare that took place anytime in any active region shows the clear physical relationship between the energetic mass flow of the coronal loops and the surface of the photosphere. This physical relationship is that they happen in about the same place.

There is no doubt that all flares are highy highly energetic as they rise up from the chromosphere above the surface of the photosphere. They never "pierce the surface of the photosphere".

That observed heating in the transition region concept is utterly verified by the SDO 1600A and 1700A images and many, many more images from many instruments over decades (millions or just thousands?).
In fact a surprise from the TRACE measurements was that coronal loops heat up really fast from the top of the photosphere and into the chromosphere and then have a roughly constant temperature until the top of the loop in the corona.

 

[GeeMack]

You cannot *POSSIBLY* be confused as to what I actually believe is the force behind particle acceleration from the surface of the sun. I was 100 percent right that the mass ejection process often begins with the filament eruption. That mass from the filament eruption is the *CAUSE* of the mass flows that we observe in LASCO images. Care to accept that fact yet?

I'm not confused at all. It's very clear that you're admitting you were wrong about the dark filaments causing CMEs.