CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

Dear GM,

Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged. Will you or will you not rise to the challenge and show us that you too can predict EM flares to within 30 minutes of the main event? Will you demonstrate in real time as I have done that you can predict ANY flare or CME before it becomes visible in LASCO/COR? Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The burden of proof for your claim is yours. This is grade school science. Is there something about that concept which you find difficult to understand?

What part of "Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged" do you not understand? You've been "challenging" me for a long time now. Here's your chance to prove you can apply your hypothetical superior knowledge in real time. Are you going to rise to the challenge?

 

[Reality Check]

No RC, it was never a matter of guessing. You'd have to be a complete idiot to come to this forum and "guess" at when we might observe solar flares and CME's.

Then until I gave you the reference you were that idiot .

The point is that you have not and have still have not presented any evidence that you did anything more than guess beforehand.

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

They were informed guesses in the sense they you somehow got a gut feeling for a general time frame despite being obsessed with dark filaments. Luckily there is little physical difference between dark and ordinary filaments otherwise your informed guesses could have been wildly wrong. As it was one was wrong: Has your 10 Oct 2010 prediction failed, Michael Mozina?
The answer is yes, despite an attempt to change it after the fact to try to win a bet:
Original prediction from you:

CME would be visible in COR and LASCO a "couple of hours" after "10/10/2010 at about 19:49UT". That is about 21:49UT
​

Result from you:

CME visible right after midnight UT in COR and LASCO.
This is at least 2 hours after 21:49UT.

​

 

[Reality Check]

Dear GM,

Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged. Will you or will you not rise to the challenge and show us that you too can predict EM flares to within 30 minutes of the main event? ?

Dear Michael Mozina,

You may know the person who started this thread . It is up to him (not GM) to support his assertion that he can predict flares to within 30 minutes of the main event. The fact that someone else, somewhere in the world can predict flares does not matter in the thread. This is especially important because there are people who can do predict flares. In fact they can predict flares better than you because they can predict the probability of the different classes of flares. See SolarMonitor.

Maybe you want GM to predict flares using your method? In that case you have to tell him exactly how to do it. Whether he will do that is up to him., not you. Just badgering him to create predictions out of thin air is not smart.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then until I gave you the reference you were that idiot .

No RC, I was more than happy to "predict" them with or without that paper. In fact I had to explain to you and GM that that paper was applicable and used the same methods I'm using. Neither of you seems to appreciate the significance of the fact that it's "darkness" is a key issue and that "property" is important.

The point is that you have not and have still have not presented any evidence that you did anything more than guess beforehand.

A "guess" would not work RC. What does that term even mean to you since I have already identified the method I'm using, the images I'm using, and *YOU* provided a paper that shows the correlation between filament eruption and flares is 95 percent with little classification required. Any refinement at all brings us to close to 100 percent accuracy. Where is the 'guessing' part?

 

[Reality Check]

While I am here: A paper to satisfy Michael Mozinas fasination (dare I say obsession ) with dark filaments:
Photospheric and Chromospheric Gas Motions around a Dark Filament

In this paper, we investigate how photospheric material moves below a dark filament, and we study chromospheric gas motions inside the filament. In the photosphere we trace granular motions by means of a local correlation tracking (LCT) technique to derive horizontal velocity field, while inside the filament we obtain the line-of-sight velocity field by subtracting a blueshifted H image from a redshifted H image. We find that a typical value of horizontal photospheric velocity is 1 km s-1, and its divergence map maintains a large-scale pattern during several hours. We also find that photospheric motions around a filament channel are random in space and changeable in time. As for the motion inside the filament, our results show that there is an area of upward motions at one side of the filament axis and an area of downward motions at the other side, which means that filament material has a helical motion inside the filament. We think that these results provide new important information on theories of filament formation.

INTRODUCTION
Filaments are probably one of the most conspicuous things observed in the solar atmosphere. When they are observed in some particular line such as H, filaments have a dark, long, extended body on the solar disk, whereas they are observed to have a bright archlike structure at the solar limb. In the latter case, they are called prominences. Macroscopically, filaments are usually in a quiet state, although they sometimes suddenly enter a dynamical stage, erupting upward and finally disappearing (filament eruption). For solar physicists, it is an interesting and important problem to understand the nature of such filaments, so many studies have been done on this topic.

I included the introduction to emphasize that filaments are only dark in certain wavelengths and against the body of the Sun.

 

[GeeMack]

What part of "Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged" do you not understand? You've been "challenging" me for a long time now. Here's your chance to prove you can apply your hypothetical superior knowledge in real time. Are you going to rise to the challenge?

Dear GM,

Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged. Will you or will you not rise to the challenge and show us that you too can predict EM flares to within 30 minutes of the main event? Will you demonstrate in real time as I have done that you can predict ANY flare or CME before it becomes visible in LASCO/COR? Yes or no?

You are making claims. You claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs. You abandoned that claim because it was unsupportable. You claimed to have a scientific, objective, quantitative method for predicting CMEs. You have failed to support that claim, and as it has been demonstrated to be explainable by simple guessing, it has been debunked. You have claimed that something called a "Birkeland current type of flare" exists. You have so far failed to support that claim.

I am not the one making claims. I have no burden of proof. This concept of burden of proof is grade school science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dear Michael Mozina,

You may know the person who started this thread . It is up to him (not GM) to support his assertion that he can predict flares to within 30 minutes of the main event. The fact that someone else, somewhere in the world can predict flares does not matter in the thread. This is especially important because there are people who can do predict flares. In fact they can predict flares better than you because they can predict the probability of the different classes of flares. See SolarMonitor.

Well, let's see what they are actually "predicting" today, shall we?

Events not associated with currently named NOAA regions: None

They already missed the first flare I predicted today because that one is already visible in COR, and they haven't said a word about he last prediction. Hmmm.

Maybe you want GM to predict flares using your method?

It's a method that works, but I already explained that method. I thought you two were with "sages" around here? Don't you have "better" methods?

In that case you have to tell him exactly how to do it. Whether he will do that is up to him., not you. Just badgering him to create predictions out of thin air is not smart.

He's been "challenging" me. I challenge him right back. I've talked about my methods and I've put them to the test in a very public way. If he's such a greater "expert" lets see him do better than I have done at applying his craft and coming up with better "predictions" than I have made.

 

[GeeMack]

A "guess" would not work RC. What does that term even mean to you since I have already identified the method I'm using, the images I'm using, and *YOU* provided a paper that shows the correlation between filament eruption and flares is 95 percent with little classification required. Any refinement at all brings us to close to 100 percent accuracy. Where is the 'guessing' part?

The method you've described is looking at pictures of activity which exists and guessing that the activity will continue to exist. That's where the guessing is. Now if you could actually describe a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective for making your "predictions"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are making claims. You claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs. You abandoned that claim because it was unsupportable.

No, I *CLAIMED* time and time again that dark filament "ERUPTIONS* cause CME's and I'm using that knowledge to "predict" two flares today. One of those predictions has already panned out. I'm still waiting to see when the second mass flow becomes visible.

You claimed to have a scientific, objective, quantitative method for predicting CMEs.

Yes, and I have explained it to you publicly too, satellite images and everything. I've shown you the images I've used, the things I'm looking for, I've made actual predictions, etc. You've done nothing but complain.

You have failed to support that claim, and as it has been demonstrated to be explainable by simple guessing, it has been debunked.

I have never guessed, and I didn't guess at either flare today. The first one is visible already. The second one will become visible shortly. You can't "debunk" something that works GM. All you're doing it burying yourself in a hole. That first predicted flare is already visible in COR now. The second one will show up, I promise you. It's not a guess. It's never been a guess. I"ve even shown you the images I've used, and I've even shown you (well RC showed you) the statistical correlation to the filament eruptions and flares is 95 percent with very little more than simple categorization processes. There's no 'guess'.

You've been challenged to show you superior understanding of solar physics. Will you rise to that challenge GM?

 

[Reality Check]

No RC, I was more than happy to "predict" them with or without that paper. In fact I had to explain to you and GM that that paper was applicable and used the same methods I'm using. Neither of you seems to appreciate the significance of the fact that it's "darkness" is a key issue and that "property"

No Michael Mozina.
You did not have to this explain to me or GM that the paper was applicable. The paper clearly states the statistical correlation between filament eruptions, flres and CME.

You do not understand that the paper ignores whether filamants are dark or not. You do appreciate the significance of the fact that it's "darkness" is never mentioned in the paper and that "property" has nothing to do with their conclusions.

A "guess" would not work RC

A guess would work Michael Mozina - sometimes (a couple were right).
A guess would not work Michael Mozina - sometimes (one was wrong: Has your 10 Oct 2010 prediction failed, Michael Mozina?).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The method you've described is looking at pictures of activity which exists and guessing that the activity will continue to exist. That's where the guessing is. Now if you could actually describe a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective for making your "predictions"?

Did you even read that paper RC posted? It's not much different in the final analysis. I'm simply predicting them real time instead of doing a post mordum on the data *AFTER* the fact. I'm also using very high resolution images at various wavelengths rather than a single one. Other than that, the basic technique is very similar. The categorization process seems similar too.

You're simply in hard core denial at this point since the first prediction of the day is already under my belt, and the second one is on it's way. If and when you can show that you too can predict those flares and CME's and give us some idea of where they're coming from and how you "predicted" that mass flow would be where you said it would be, *THEN* you can "challenge" me. Until then you're just "challenged" and you haven't responded.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No Michael Mozina.
You did not have to this explain to me or GM that the paper was applicable. The paper clearly states the statistical correlation between filament eruptions, flres and CME.

So where does the "guessing" part come in?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A guess would work Michael Mozina - sometimes (a couple were right).
A guess would not work Michael Mozina - sometimes (one was wrong: Has your 10 Oct 2010 prediction failed, Michael Mozina?).

Oh baloney! I nailed that CME. You're whining about an hour! The mass flow occurred just where I said it would, and I actually PREDICTED that filament eruption *BEFORE* it erupted. You're essentially bitching because I used the term "a couple" instead of "a few". If we'd have done the beer bet with the window of time that I mentioned to you, you'd definitely owe me a beer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

While I am here: A paper to satisfy Michael Mozinas fasination (dare I say obsession ) with dark filaments:
Photospheric and Chromospheric Gas Motions around a Dark Filament

It's only an "obsession" if you're trying to predict large scale mass flows from the sun RC, so ya, I guess I'm "obsessed" with them alright. Do you really believe that the darkness aspect is 'irrelevant" in terms of mass flow prediction?

I included the introduction to emphasize that filaments are only dark in certain wavelengths and against the body of the Sun.

The are "dark" in many wavelengths and that 'darkness' is helpful in isolating the key regions of the sun that might "erupt". I really don't understand how you can thing that the darkness aspect is unimportant. It's not. It's *VERY* important. The buildup of that filament is what we're looking for.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, let's see what they are actually "predicting" today, shall we?

Wrong. That is the events that happened up to the time the web page was refreshed. Currently this is

These pages are automatically updated every 30 minutes.
Last updated: 22-Oct-2010 03:00 UT

The Flare Prediction System is one click aray from the home page (which also has a summary).

Region Flare Probabilities (%)
Number McIntosh C-class M-class X-class
11113 Hax 7(5) 2(1) 0(0)
11115 Hsx 4(5) 1(1) 0(0)
11117 Hsx 4(10) 1(1) 0(0)

They already missed the first flare I predicted today because that one is already visible in COR, and they haven't said a word about he last prediction. Hmmm.

If they say it has not happened (yet) and you say you see it hase, who can we trust? Astronomers who are experienced in detecting flares or a random person on the internet? Hmmmm.

He's been "challenging" me. I challenge him right back.

And he is free to ignore your challenge beause he did not start this thread and make unsupported assertions in it. You did. Now you have to support them.

I've talked about my methods and I've put them to the test in a very public way.

You have taked in vauge ways about your "methods", mostly I see things in the images and I interpret then this way. No one can replicate you predictions from what you say you see in images. Thus they are guesses, informed guesses at the best.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina, Please give your citations to dark filamenst being re

It's only an "obsession" if you're trying to predict large scale mass flows from the sun RC, so ya, I guess I'm "obsessed" with them alright. Do you really believe that the darkness aspect is 'irrelevant" in terms of mass flow prediction?

I have no idea.
I know that the darkness is a relative term. The same filament in a different wavelength can be bright.

If you believe that the darkness aspect is "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction" (whatever that is - I guess flares and CME) then either

• Cite the literature that shows this and/or
• Give us your analysis comparing
  1. the correlation between dark filaments and flares or CME to
  2. the correlation between bright filaments and flares or CME

Without your crazy quoting though: All filaments that erupt are relevant to flares and CME. This includes bright and dark filaments.

The are "dark" in many wavelengths

Yes they are

and that 'darkness' is helpful in isolating the key regions of the sun that might "erupt".

Not really - the only useful part about them being dark is that they are easier to pick out if you look at the images.
This may explain your obsession with them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If they say it has not happened (yet) and you say you see it hase, who can we trust? Astronomers who are experienced in detecting flares or a random person on the internet? Hmmmm.

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/22/behind_20101022_cor2_512.mpg

I suggest that you believe what you can see with your own eyes.

Do you really think that second flare isn't going to become visible around the 4:00 position soon?

FYI, if you're really looking for an 'active' active region, keep your eye on the active region coming over the horizon at about the 9:30 position. It's already blown matter out in "puffs". It's lot more active than the dud of a region you selected for the next 48 hours. FYI, you only get to have one 48 hour prediction window going around one active region at a time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really - the only useful part about them being dark is that they are easier to pick out if you look at the images.
This may explain your obsession with them.

Well, that is PART of their value, sure. The other part of the equation is that the "dark" filaments are the ones that "erupt" anywhere from the surface, whereas the "bright" filaments tend to be concentrated around "active regions" and only "circuit reconnection" causes them to blow. The bright filaments that cause x-ray flares tend to be concentrated in the most intensely active regions that are also unstable.

Since SDO is now my "satellite of choice", and AIA has only a fixed number of wavelengths available, which one of them might I find that same dark filament to be 'bright' against a darker background? If I can't watch it real time as a 'bright' filament, can you really blame me for calling it a "dark filament" to at least note it's visual quality which makes it unique?

 

[Reality Check]

I suggest that you believe what you can see with your own eyes.

I am not an astronomer.
I have done postgraduate work in solid state physics which includes undergraduate courses on astrophysics. That does not qualify me to look at solar images and say what is going on. So I do not. I wait for an expert to say what is going on.

You are not an astronomer.
As far as I know you have no astronomy education (probably high school level, maybe undergraduate courses). That does not qualify you to look at solar images and say what is going on.

If you really thought that you had a valid idea then you would ask an astronomer if it was valid. The fact that you are posting in an internet forum instead indicates that you have no such confidence.