CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

Um, my active region was in fact "active" during the entire period I selected.

That is silly MM - an active regions is defined as a region that is active. So of course the active region the active during the entiire period that you selected.
If it was not active it would not be an active region !

So why did you pick the least likely of the three active regions to do something?

I did not. I picked the region most likely to produce activity according to the SolarMonitor we site because it was better than flipping a coin.

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly which part of "Dark filament eruptions cause CME's and flares", do you not understand?

Exactly which part of "correlation does not imply causation"", do you not understand?
You have produced no evidence that dark or bright filament eruptions cause CME's and flares.
I gave you the evidence that CME's and flares are correlated with filament eruptions:
On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections

And one more time (if you have forgotten your education on basic statistics then this Wikipedia article should remind you):

Correlation does not imply causation
​

What exactly do you not understand about spotting dark filament eruptions?

What is there to understand about spotting them?.
They are dark. They are easy to spot. Someone looking for easy things to spot can fixate on dark filaments and ignore bright filaments.

 

[Reality Check]

How exactly did you decide that I decided that I was the only person in the world who could do this? I simply said that *I* could do so, not that nobody else on planet Earth could do it. In fact if I believed that nobody else could do it, what would be the point of discussing it in the first place?

I really should have thrown a "yet" in my post but:
How exactly I decided that you was the only person in the world who could do this is simple: You have never been able to state how you decide in such a way that someone else in the world can do the same, e.g. with actual numbers.

That part is true. Evidently my INTERPRETATION of active region stability s quite different from yours based upon your previous statements about them all looking "unstable".

That is right:
You have an INTERPRETATION.
I have an INTERPRETATION.
Anyone else can have an INTERPRETATION.
All of the INTERPRETATIONS can be different because they are based on SUBJECTIVE criteria not numbers.

So how might you do that? FYI, there is an effective way to do that with SDO IMO.

I have no realistic ideas - I am not an astronomer. Since you are not an astronomer either, I suspect that you have no realistic ideas either. But maybe you have been smart enough to consult an astronomer or do a literature search on the topic (or not ).

They are visually obvious at specific wavelengths that I am interested in, but they would be QUANTITATIVELY different as well. It's not just that they are visually unique, they are mathematically unique as well.

You have produced no evidence that they are "visually unique".
You have produced no evidence that they are QUANTITATIVELY different.
You have produced no evidence that they are mathematically unique.

All we have is your interpretation of solar images. The problem is that you have been wrong several times in the past and have shown that you cannot learn from your mistakes.
Why should we trust the opinion of a person who is wrong so often?

My "trivial" predictions have thus far been far more accurate than yours. Why is that?

That is because I am definitely guessing to emphasis that you are definitely guessing. I expect to be wrong. I definitely do not intend wasting my time in the trivial exercise of looking at active regions, INTERPRETING whether one is more active than the rest and guessing that there will be more activity from the already more active active region.

You have not bothered to learn how astronomers predict activity from active regions. Why is that?
You have not produced any numeric predictions Why is that?
You have posting your guesses on an internet forum rather than publishing then in a journal. Why is that?
You are ignoring decades of existing data and just looking at current data (presented in pretty ways). Why is that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have produced no evidence that they are "visually unique".

That's only because you're in pure denial about they fact the are "dark" (or light depending on the type of flare).

You have produced no evidence that they are QUANTITATIVELY different.

Except of course that you provided a paper that *MEASURED* those *DARK* filaments and notice when they erupted.

You have produced no evidence that they are mathematically unique.

Again, that is only because you're in denial about how their software *MUST HAVE* isolated those dark filaments in the first place. You're in denial of your own 95% correlation too. I guess denial is the name of the game eh?

That is because I am definitely guessing to emphasis that you are definitely guessing.

If that were so, we'd have the same results. You're 0 for 48 hours, whereas I had 1 M class and 4 C class flares in my chosen 48 hour window. I haven't missed. You have.

I expect to be wrong.

Whereas I do not expect to be wrong because I'm not guessing.

I definitely do not intend wasting my time in the trivial exercise of looking at active regions, INTERPRETING whether one is more active than the rest

Well, in that case you're definitely never going to be able to accurately predict EM flares. I'm afraid that it is a necessary requirement to figure out which ones are more active than others, but it's not necessary to "interpret" it other than to decide which wavelengths works best. Oh ya, you also have to look for "lighter" and "darker" areas, and I know how much you hate that.

and guessing that there will be more activity from the already more active active region.

Your last "guess" demonstrates that "guessing" doesn't work. You'll need an actual visual/mathematical way to predict them.

You have not bothered to learn how astronomers predict activity from active regions. Why is that?

How do you know what I've done and not done? Where might I go on the internet to find an "astronomer" predicting a flare/CME from a specific active region or a specific location on the sun in a specific window of time?

You have not produced any numeric predictions Why is that?

I certainly did. My 48 hour window produce 1 M class and 4 class flares. Your 48 hour window was a total dud. They were both numerical predictions with numerical limits. Your denial process is bizarre IMO.

You have posting your guesses on an internet forum rather than publishing then in a journal. Why is that?

Well, for one thing, I am interested in "testing" my methods in real time and I can't do that in journal. I suppose if the methods are successful in this thread, we might have timed stamped material for a paper to publish in a journal.

You are ignoring decades of existing data and just looking at current data (presented in pretty ways). Why is that?

Well, that's damn obvious. I'm A) not ignoring anything, but B) SDO is a QUANTUM LEAP forward in technology. I could not possibly do what I'm doing now with SOHO or STEREO data. The real time resolution was simply not sufficient. SDO is a game changer in terms of high resolution, quick cadence and solar atmospheric detail. This kind of "prediction" (real time) wasn't even possible prior to SDO IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Exactly which part of "correlation does not imply causation"", do you not understand?

Are you talking "motive cause", or "source of mass"? There is a causation that is related to the mass itself. That "eruption' of mass from the filament eruption is the same mass flow that we observe in LASCO/COR.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Darn it, I waited too long and got busy at work. FYI, it looks like 1117 produced a C class flare a little while ago. That's the region I've had my eye one for days now. I knew it was "heating up", but I waited too long to "predict" that flare. IMO that region easily "could" produce additional C class flares.

 

[GeeMack]

Exactly which part of "Dark filament eruptions cause CME's and flares", do you not understand?

Your claim is that the dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. Support your claim scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, or admit that you can't. Don't forget to show your work and list your references, just like any sixth grade kid would be required to do if he/she were making such a claim. Show the math. Or admit that you can't.

 

[GeeMack]

Darn it, I waited too long and got busy at work. FYI, it looks like 1117 produced a C class flare a little while ago. That's the region I've had my eye one for days now. I knew it was "heating up", but I waited too long to "predict" that flare. IMO that region easily "could" produce additional C class flares.

Darn. Missed your chance at another guess.

 

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina: Cite you prediction of "1 M class and 4 class flares"

That's only because you're in pure denial about they fact the are "dark" (or light depending on the type of flare).

That's only because you're in pure ignorance:

• Dark filaments are not dark because of the type of flare that they produce.
  Dark filaments are dark because they appear dark against the solar disk in certain wavelengths.
• Bright filaments are not bright because of the type of flare that they produce.
  Bright filaments are bright because they appear bright against the solar disk in certain wavelengths.

Except of course that you provided a paper that *MEASURED* those *DARK* filaments and notice when they erupted.

Except of course that you cannot understand that that paper that *MEASURED* those *DARK* and *BRIGHT* filaments and noticed when they erupted.
On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections

Again, that is only because you're in denial about how their software *MUST HAVE* isolated those dark filaments in the first place. You're in denial of your own 95% correlation too. I guess denial is the name of the game eh?

Again, that is only because you're in ignorance about how their software *MUST HAVE* isolated those dark and bright filaments in the first place. (Hint: read the paper)
I am not in denial of the 95% correlation
I am the one that noted it to you.

You're remain ignoirant that Correlation does not imply causation

I guess ignorance is the name of the game eh?

If that were so, we'd have the same results.

That is really silly: We are two people guessing. We will get different results.
As I have stated many times: I expect to be wrong because I am doing teh same as you - just guessing.

Whereas I do not expect to be wrong because I'm not guessing.

You are guessing until you can tell us how to replicate your results.

Your last "guess" demonstrates that "guessing" doesn't work. You'll need an actual visual/mathematical way to predict them.

You have at least one guess that is wrong. Your wrong "guess" demonstrates that "guessing" doesn't work. You'll need an actual visual/mathematical way to predict them.

How do you know what I've done and not done? Where might I go on the internet to find an "astronomer" predicting a flare/CME from a specific active region or a specific location on the sun in a specific window of time?

I only know what you have stated here, i.e. you have presented no evidence that you have

Bothered to learn how astronomers predict activity from active regions. Why is that?
​

Your question betrays that you have ignored the vital step of researching the literature. The internet does contain several well known places that you can do astrophysics litertaure research. For example: The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System.

I certainly did. My 48 hour window produce 1 M class and 4 class flares. Your 48 hour window was a total dud. They were both numerical predictions with numerical limits. Your denial process is bizarre IMO.

My guess was a dud.

Your guess was also a dud:

• you did not predict "1 M class and 4 class flares"
• you did not predict 4 flares.

In fact I canot recall any prediction with numbers. My guess is that you mean:

Well, for one thing, I am interested in "testing" my methods in real time and I can't do that in journal. I suppose if the methods are successful in this thread, we might have timed stamped material for a paper to publish in a journal.

Then you are doomed to failure. Whay you will end up is a forum thread filled with the debunking of your trivial predictions.

Well, that's damn obvious. I'm A) not ignoring anything, but B) SDO is a QUANTUM LEAP forward in technology. I could not possibly do what I'm doing now with SOHO or STEREO data. The real time resolution was simply not sufficient. SDO is a game changer in terms of high resolution, quick cadence and solar atmospheric detail. This kind of "prediction" (real time) wasn't even possible prior to SDO IMO.

All you are doing is looking the images and guessing what will happen from your presonal interpretation of the images. The problem is that you have been wrong several times in the past and have shown that you cannot learn from your mistakes.
The resolution of the images should not matter. Unless you have a need to see small filaments for numeric analysis. But you have presented no evidence that you done any.

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

You do not need real time data to test your method against existing data.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Yes, Michael. You have never provided a quantitative, objective, legitimately scientific method explaining how you make your guesses, yet you continue to dishonestly claim that you have. Why the holdup... and the persistent dishonesty? If you have no such method, which truly seems to be the case, what's the problem with having the honesty and courage to admit it? Would Birkeland have lied?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your claim is that the dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. Support your claim scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, or admit that you can't.

That paper RC provided already did all of that for you. How long did you intend to remain in denial?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, Michael. You have never provided a quantitative, objective, legitimately scientific method explaining how you make your guesses, yet you continue to dishonestly claim that you have.

Dishonesty and denial seem to be all you're any good at. When exactly did you intend to rise to the challenge GM, or did you just intend to admit you can't?

 

[Reality Check]

Are you talking "motive cause", or "source of mass"? There is a causation that is related to the mass itself. That "eruption' of mass from the filament eruption is the same mass flow that we observe in LASCO/COR.

I am talking about: Correlation does not imply causation
So the paper On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections states a statistical correlation between filament eruptions, flares and CME, i.e.

• 55% of CME are associated with a previous filament eruption that happened within 2 hours of the CME being seen by LASCO.
• 95% of flares are associated with a filament eruption. There is no time lag since they are observed in the same observation and confirmed in GOES observations.
• The paper makes no distinction between dark and bright filaments. It does not mention the darkness or brightness of any filament.

What this means is that if every filament eruption produces a flare or CME then roughly one in 3 filament eruptions produce a CME and the rest produce a flare.

You have given no evidence that the eruption of mass from the filament eruption is the same as the same mass in the CME that we observe in LASCO/COR. Just assuming it is really bad science. You need to do a literature search to confirm your assumption.

ETA:
I personally think (without any evidence - like you) that the materal in the filament cools and sinks back down to the photosphere. The energy of the eruption often causes a flare that in turn though blows coronal material away from the Sun, i.e. a Coronal Mass Ejection

Coronal mass ejections are often associated with other forms of solar activity, most notably solar flares, but a causal relationship has not been established.

 

[Reality Check]

That paper RC provided already did all of that for you. How long did you intend to remain in denial?

Try understanding what the paper (On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections) actually states:

There is a statistical correlation between eruptions of any filaments, flares and CME. Dark filaments are not mentioned in the paper but there is 1 image that could contain a dark filament.
​

How long do you intend to make unsupported assertions about this paper?

P.S. Dark filaments are not mentioned here either:
Development of an Automatic Filament Disappearance Detection System

This paper presents an efficient and automatic method for detecting filament disappearances. This method was applied to the Big Bear Solar Observatory's (BBSO) full-disk Hα images. The initial step is to detect the filaments in the solar image, then determine if they are growing, stable or disappearing. If a disappearing filament is found, the solar community can be automatically alerted in near real time. This system is proven to be accurate and fast. In addition, three statistical studies of the appearance and disappearance of all filaments in 1999 are presented.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try understanding what the paper (On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections) actually states:

There is a statistical correlation between eruptions of any filaments, flares and CME. Dark filaments are not mentioned in the paper but there is 1 image that could contain a dark filament.​

Could contain? Come on RC, is that filament in the upper left corner image "darker" or "brighter" than the rest of the sun? Besides the difference in intensity, how *EXACTLY* did you think that the software was able to isolate those filaments to determine when they "disappeared"? Their "dark" quality isn't "made up" like your mythical invisible entities, you can actually "see" that this type of plasma is "darker than" the rest of the sun.

RC, there would be no way for them to isolate those filaments in a computer software program other than to measure the intensity of each pixel and look for "filaments" in the data! You're completely ignoring the fact that they use computer software to isolate the filaments and that software *MUST HAVE* used the fact that they are "dark" to find them!​

 

[Reality Check]

http://ej.iop.org/images/0004-637X/614/2/1054/Full/fg1.gif

Could contain? Come on RC, is that filament in the upper left corner image "darker" or "brighter" than the rest of the sun?

It is rendered darker in that image as is obvious.
The best that this is is evidence of 1 (count them Michael Mozina: one) dark filament.
And the caption of that image:

Two bipoles emerged on 2000 September 12 alongside an eruptive filament. The top two panels are H images taken before and after the eruption obtained at KSO and BBSO, respectively. The bottom two panels are MDI magnetograms. The two bipoles, as indicated by the square boxes, emerged on the positive polarity side of the filament.

Besides the difference in intensity, how *EXACTLY* did you think that the software was able to isolate those filaments to determine when they "disappeared"?
...usual rant...

Some basic physics for you, Michael Mozina: Bright things are also easily detected. They also are different in intensity.
Astronomers are quite capable of detecting bright things against bright backgrounds.

However do not be lazy MM. Try reading:
Development of an Automatic Filament Disappearance Detection System

This paper presents an efficient and automatic method for detecting filament disappearances. This method was applied to the Big Bear Solar Observatory's (BBSO) full-disk Hα images. The initial step is to detect the filaments in the solar image, then determine if they are growing, stable or disappearing. If a disappearing filament is found, the solar community can be automatically alerted in near real time. This system is proven to be accurate and fast. In addition, three statistical studies of the appearance and disappearance of all filaments in 1999 are presented.

Dark filaments are not mentioned in the abstract (but...read on!)

 

[GeeMack]

That paper RC provided already did all of that for you. How long did you intend to remain in denial?

Your claim is that the dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. The paper Reality Check referenced had nothing to do with any such claim. So... your claim is that the dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. Support your claim scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, or admit that you can't.

 

[GeeMack]

Dishonesty and denial seem to be all you're any good at. When exactly did you intend to rise to the challenge GM, or did you just intend to admit you can't?

Completely neglects to address my post... You have never provided a quantitative, objective, legitimately scientific method explaining how you make your guesses, yet you continue to dishonestly claim that you have. You may describe your method or admit that you can't.

Oh, and we've gone over how eleven year old kids understand that it's dishonest to try to deflect the burden of proof. Would Birkeland have lied. too?

 

[Reality Check]

This is an earlier paper on the association
The association of coronal mass ejection transients with other forms of solar activity

Coronal mass-ejection transients observed with the white-light coronagraph on Skylab are found to be associated with several other forms of solar activity. There is a strong correlation between such mass-ejection transients and chromospheric H-alpha activity, with three-quarters of the transients apparently originating in or near active regions. It is inferred that 40% of transients are associated with flares, 50% are associated with eruptive prominences solely (without flares), and more than 70% are associated with eruptive prominences or filament disappearances (with or without flares). Nine of ten flares that displayed apparent mass ejections of H-alpha-emitting material from the flare site could be associated with coronal transients. Within each class of activity, the more energetic events are more likely to be associated with an observable mass ejection.

 

[GeeMack]

[qimg]http://ej.iop.org/images/0004-637X/614/2/1054/Full/fg1.gif[/qimg]

Looks-like-a-bunny "science" is for ten year old kids. I'm sure you agree. Got anything quantitative and objective like a real scientist might have?