CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Marcus]

Cute.

Of course there's nothing wrong with math, and math can be very useful in some applications. Math alone however is certainly no substitute for pure empirical physics, experimentation with real, tangible control mechanisms, and OBSERVATION.

Solar flare prediction is more about conceptual understanding and careful observation and less about math than you realize. That's not a problem for me personally, but I can see why that's a problem for some, particularly astronomers as a whole. They have a professional and emotional need to quantify everything.

The "signs" of impending eruptions/ejections are more easily "observed" than quantified, although they certainly can be quantified as long as one is willing to look for "dark" and "light" areas on the surface of the sun. There's no way however to begin to quantify anything useful until one UNDERSTANDS the physical cause/effect relationships that allow us to "observe" flares/CME's in progress.

My purpose in this thread was to discuss the cause/effect relationships that may one day lead to very precise mathematical models of flare prediction. That however will *NEVER* happen unless and until we are all clear and we all understand the cause/effect relationships we are looking for, and we agree upon a method of looking for them that allows us to properly model them mathematically.

It's pointless at the moment to fixate upon the actual motive force behind all the flares and CME's, but we should at least be able to agree upon observational cause/effect relationships in solar imagery. That *COULD* lead to some useful mathematical models, unlike those "magnetic reconnection" papers that will *NEVER* lead to anything even *REMOTELY* like accurate solar flare prediction.

I do enjoy your threads, MM, they're very educational (although not really your posts, sorry.)

I understand that you're self-taught, but you could teach yourself some barking skills, you know, math is really not that fearsome.

 

[Reality Check]

Nice movie by the way. Great reference. The filament is "dark" prior to the eruption. As the filament erupts, and lifts from the surface the "current flow" rearranges itself, an arcade flare occurs, and the material in the filament flies off at about the 4:00 position.

Nice movie. Great reference.
Followed by you being wrong:

• The filament has dark and bright areas before the eruption.
• The filament is not on or above a surface for the simple reason that the Sun has no surface.
  The filament starts above (not on) the photosphere and rises.
• There is no such thing as a "current flow" so it did not rearrange.
• There is no arcade flare.
  As the caption states there are "brightened post-flare loops".
• There is material flying off in the 4:00 position.
  It may be from the filament.
  It may be the transition region plasma being pushed away by the eruption.

 

[Reality Check]

Emphasis mine. The filament in question didn't actually "collapse" by the way, it "erupted".

A Surprising Coronal Mass Ejection

"This CME appeared after a solar filament collapsed and dropped relatively cool, dense gas onto the surface of the Sun," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "You don't need sunspots to have filaments, so these types of explosions can occur even when the sunspot number is low."

Emphasis mine.
The filament in question experienced a filament eruption.
David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, states that it collapsed and relatively cool, dense gas onto the surface of the Sun.

To make it clear:

• There was a filament eruption.
• The filament was observed to collapse (like all filaments after an eruption).
• Later a CME was observed that came from the same region.

 

[Reality Check]

Lets throw a bit of science into the thread to counter Michael Mozina's "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic:
Flare Prediction System (28 Oct 2010)
Region Flare Probabilities (%)

Number McIntosh C-class M-class X-class
11117 Ekc 54(40) 41(10) 13(1)
​

The probabilities in brackets give the NOAA/SEC probability forecast for the occurrence of one or more C-, M-, or X-class flares for the current date.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A Surprising Coronal Mass Ejection

Emphasis mine.
The filament in question experienced a filament eruption.
David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, states that it collapsed and relatively cool, dense gas onto the surface of the Sun.

To make it clear:

There was a filament eruption.

Ok.

The filament was observed to collapse (like all filaments after an eruption).

Um, could you tell me where you see the dark erupting filament in about the 1:30 position "collapses" back into the sun for me?

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/10/26/20101026_1024_0211.mpg

Later a CME was observed that came from the same region.

That CME gets its mass from the erupting filament. Of course it was observed in the same region.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets throw a bit of science into the thread to counter Michael Mozina's "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic:
Flare Prediction System (28 Oct 2010)
Region Flare Probabilities (%)

Number McIntosh C-class M-class X-class
11117 Ekc 54(40) 41(10) 13(1)
​

The probabilities in brackets give the NOAA/SEC probability forecast for the occurrence of one or more C-, M-, or X-class flares for the current date.

While they have an interesting classification system that seems to work fairly adequately for predicting EM flares, it doesn't do much in term of "predicting" filament eruption flares like one on the 26th. The erupting filament is nowhere near any of the active regions listed that day, and it's not directly related to any active region. It's an interesting classification system, but it's mainly aimed at EM flare prediction, not filament eruption predictions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do enjoy your threads, MM, they're very educational (although not really your posts, sorry.)

I understand that you're self-taught, but you could teach yourself some barking skills, you know, math is really not that fearsome.

I hear you. I've been through several years of Calculus actually. It's not the skills themselves hat bother me, it's their belief that *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls on my personal math skills that I find annoying, not to mention their endless orders for me to "bark" on command at their beckon call.

 

[Reality Check]

While they have an interesting classification system that seems to work fairly adequately for predicting EM flares, it doesn't do much in term of "predicting" filament eruption flares like one on the 26th. The erupting filament is nowhere near any of the active regions listed that day, and it's not directly related to any active region. It's an interesting classification system, but it's mainly aimed at EM flare prediction, not filament eruption predictions.

So what?
You have no system for predicting filament eruptions either. What you have is your personal opinion about the activity of activity regions where filament eruptions are expected. What you do not have is any quantitative measures that lead to any numbers that actually fit the defintion of predictions.

Who cares about filament eruptions anyway as far as predicting space weather is concerned? What is important is predicting flares and CME, i.e. space weather.

 

[Reality Check]

I hear you. I've been through several years of Calculus actually. It's not the skills themselves hat bother me, it's their belief that *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls on my personal math skills that I find annoying, not to mention their endless orders for me to "bark" on command at their beckon call.

You are wrong. No one thinks this about science.
Your personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls.
My personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls.
Bozo the clown's personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls .

Demonstrating that you have the relevant personal math skills to understand *ANY* scientific theory would show that you may understand *THAT* scientific theory.
For example: If you demonstrated that you understand that the calculation of the Casimir effect results in a pressure that has to be negative then that would indictae that you understand the Casimir effect.
In this case no calculus is really needed - just the ability to read the result, note that there is a negative sign in font of a quantity that is always positive and so the pressure is negative.

The fact that you can not "bark" on simple questions about your many unsupported assertions has no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls. It merely points out that you are unable to back up your assertions with actual numbers. Assertions without support are fantasies.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You are wrong. No one thinks this about science.
Your personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls.
My personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls.
Bozo the clown's personal math skills have no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls .

Demonstrating that you have the relevant personal math skills to understand *ANY* scientific theory would show that you may understand *THAT* scientific theory.
For example: If you demonstrated that you understand that the calculation of the Casimir effect results in a pressure that has to be negative then that would indictae that you understand the Casimir effect.
In this case no calculus is really needed - just the ability to read the result, note that there is a negative sign in font of a quantity that is always positive and so the pressure is negative.

The fact that you can not "bark" on simple questions about your many unsupported assertions has no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls. It merely points out that you are unable to back up your assertions with actual numbers. Assertions without support are fantasies.

Mozina has amply demonstrated that he does not understand the nature of scientific inquiry and scientific evidence; he does not understand how mathematics is used to describe and analyze nature; he does not understand how to use logic to think about scientific questions and his posts make it quite clear that he is unaware of these profound deficiencies. He actually thinks he can simply look at something, scratch his head and apprehend its nature and underlying mechanisms. This kind of Aristotelian-like thinking is simply anachronistic and has been *USELESS* since the time of Galileo.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what?
You have no system for predicting filament eruptions either.

You will personally never be able to "predict" them if you don't at least acknowledge their importance in flare prediction. I'm definitely ahead of you on that score because at least I know what I'm looking for and why I"m looking for them.

What you have is your personal opinion about the activity of activity regions where filament eruptions are expected. What you do not have is any quantitative measures that lead to any numbers that actually fit the defintion of predictions.

I gave you "numbers" in terms of the position of the flare, and the time it would be seen in LASCO. What you seem to want are percentage estimates that are by definition "wrong" some percentage of the time. I'm looking for 'sure bets" when making my predictions. In terms of filament eruption, that means looking for an actively erupting filament (expanding faster over time). In terms of EM flare prediction, it's based on a "grading system" not completely unlike the one based on sunspots, but it's based on my categorization of active regions in 193A and 94A. I'm also looking for something that is a "sure bet" rather than simply posting a percentage of some kind. I have to admit that the system in place to predict EM flares looks to be "pretty good". In terms of filament eruption flares, it seems to be dreadfully unprepared.

Who cares about filament eruptions anyway as far as predicting space weather is concerned? What is important is predicting flares and CME, i.e. space weather.

See, this is the kind of comment that really scares the hell out of me. Filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting and filament driven CME's directly effect space weather. The fact you are blissfully unaware of their importance to space weather forecasting is down right scary IMO.

My methods detect the mass eruption at the source in terms of filament eruption flares. Both the current method and my method of EM flare prediction are both based on classifying "active regions", albeit I'm not classifying them based on sunspot activity, but I am using the bipolar field concept that they are using. I suspect that's a big part of why their method works as well as it does actually.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Demonstrating that you have the relevant personal math skills to understand *ANY* scientific theory would show that you may understand *THAT* scientific theory.

Alfven *WROTE* MHD theory, and you *IGNORE* his warnings and peddle something he personally labeled "pseudoscience". What possible good could it do for me to throw a few MDH formulas at you if you're already ignoring the guy that wrote MHD theory? Get real. My math skills are utterly irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfven *WROTE* MHD theory, and you *IGNORE* his warnings and peddle something he personally labeled "pseudoscience". What possible good could it do for me to throw a few MDH formulas at you if you're already ignoring the guy that wrote MHD theory? Get real. My math skills are utterly irrelevant.

• Alfven did *WROTE* MHD theory as did many other people.
• Modern plasma physicist do not *IGNORE* his warnings - they apply the appropriate MHD theory in the appropriate areas.
• Who cares what he personally labeled as anything.
  What matters is if the science works not what one person thought.
  If you want to believe in the cult of the "god-king Alfven" then take this to the religion section

Only an idiot would think that modern plasma physics ignores the science that Alfven. Modern plasma physics is largely based on his work. It has of course gone way past what he did.

Only followers of the cult of the "god-king Alfven" blindly follow what he said.

Your math skills are relevant. Read what I wrote:

Demonstrating that you have the relevant personal math skills to understand *ANY* scientific theory would show that you may understand *THAT* scientific theory.
For example: If you demonstrated that you understand that the calculation of the Casimir effect results in a pressure that has to be negative then that would indictae that you understand the Casimir effect.
In this case no calculus is really needed - just the ability to read the result, note that there is a negative sign in font of a quantity that is always positive and so the pressure is negative.

The fact that you can not "bark" on simple questions about your many unsupported assertions has no application to whether *ANY* scientific theory rises and falls. It merely points out that you are unable to back up your assertions with actual numbers. Assertions without support are fantasies.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"

You will personally never be able to "predict" them if you don't at least acknowledge their importance in flare prediction. I'm definitely ahead of you on that score because at least I know what I'm looking for and why I"m looking for them.

You will personally always be able to predict them ieven if I don't at acknowledge their importance in flare prediction. I'm definitely ahead of you on that score because at least I know what I do not need to look for and why I"m looking not for them.

I gave you "numbers" in terms of the position of the flare, and the time it would be seen in LASCO. What you seem to want are percentage estimates that are by definition "wrong" some percentage of the time. I'm looking for 'sure bets" when making my predictions.

That is rather idiotic because you are assuming that 100% of the filament eruptions result in flares. There is no such thing as a sure bet for solar activity geiven the cahotic nature of the physics involved.

See, this is the kind of comment that really scares the hell out of me. Filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting and filament driven CME's directly effect space weather. The fact you are blissfully unaware of their importance to space weather forecasting is down right scary IMO.

See, this is the kind of comment that really scares the hell out of me.
You make yet another unsupported assertion.

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
​

It is downright scary IMO that you make yet another assumption about a poster.

I know that CME directly affect space weather
I am blissfully aware of their importance to space weather
forecasting.
​

 

[Reality Check]

What is your method of classifying active regions

My methods detect the mass eruption at the source in terms of filament eruption flares. Both the current method and my method of EM flare prediction are both based on classifying "active regions", albeit I'm not classifying them based on sunspot activity, but I am using the bipolar field concept that they are using. I suspect that's a big part of why their method works as well as it does actually.

Michael Mozina
First asked 29 October 2010
What is your method of classifying active regions?

This should result in something like descriptions of the McIntosh classification scheme, e.g.

• A = measurement a of active regions.
• B = measurement b of active regions.
• C = measurement c of active regions.
• Thus the Mozina classification of an active region is ABC.

Give us an example or two:

1. Pick an active region.
2. Tell us how to calculate the classification of the AR.
3. Show what the Mozina classification of the AR is.

Lastly and most importantly:
Give your numeric analysis of the classification of ARS by your scheme that allowed you to associate certain Mozina classifiaction with ARs that are "sure bets" for predictions.
If you cannot do this then all of the predictions that you have made so far are confirmed as guesses.

I suspect that this is the usual crack-pottery that we see from you. Your "classification" method is probably just looking at the pretty pictures yet again. But I may be pleasantly surprised !

 

[Reality Check]

Both the current method and my method of EM flare prediction are both based on classifying "active regions", albeit I'm not classifying them based on sunspot activity, but I am using the bipolar field concept that they are using. I suspect that's a big part of why their method works as well as it does actually.

Oh dear, your ignorance shows again rolleyes.
It looks like you are talking about the McIntosh classification scheme (or see Learning Sunspot Clasification (PDF)) used to classify active regions in order to predict flares. In that case you are blissfully unaware of what this classification scheme uses, i.e.

• class of sunspot group (single, pair, or complex),
• penumbral development of the largest spot and
• compactness of the group.

Sunspot activity is not used.
No mention of a "bipolar field concept" but you may mean whether a sunspot group is unipolar or bipolar. That is not a concept. It is a physical measurement of the polarity of the sunspot group.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh dear, your ignorance shows again rolleyes.
It looks like you are talking about the McIntosh classification scheme (or see Learning Sunspot Clasification (PDF)) used to classify active regions in order to predict flares. In that case you are blissfully unaware of what this classification scheme uses, i.e.

• class of sunspot group (single, pair, or complex),
• penumbral development of the largest spot and
• compactness of the group.

Sunspot activity is not used.
No mention of a "bipolar field concept" but you may mean whether a sunspot group is unipolar or bipolar. That is not a concept. It is a physical measurement of the polarity of the sunspot group.

When you say 'sunspot activity is not used' and then say "sunspot group" in the next sentence, you don't see any contradiction there?

Just out of curiosity, where might a find a similar scale of classification of dark filament flares and their likelihood of erupting into CME's? Oh wait, there isn't such a thing because you're blissfully unaware of their importance to flare prediction and flare forecasting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You will personally always be able to predict them ieven if I don't at acknowledge their importance in flare prediction. I'm definitely ahead of you on that score because at least I know what I do not need to look for and why I"m looking not for them.

Famous last words.

That is rather idiotic because you are assuming that 100% of the filament eruptions result in flares. There is no such thing as a sure bet for solar activity geiven the cahotic nature of the physics involved.

No, I'm actively weeding out the ones that don't "erupt" but "fizzle". I'm weeding out the ones that erupt down instead of away from the sun. I'm looking for that 5% that don't actually "blow out", but simply move or disperse and I actively remove those from consideration. What's left are the true 'erupting' filaments that are going to generate mass flows in LASCO. It's really not that difficult to weed out the ones that don't "erupt" in 193A at a high cadence. That really wasn't possible in SOHO with 12 minutes between images. There was too much that could happen in 12 minutes. SDO changes things dramatically in terms of weeding out non erupting filaments from the erupting variety.

See, this is the kind of comment that really scares the hell out of me.
You make yet another unsupported assertion.

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
​

It is downright scary IMO that you make yet another assumption about a poster.

I know that CME directly affect space weather
I am blissfully aware of their importance to space weather
forecasting.
​

Show me any sort of prediction forecasting that is directly related to filament eruptions. I'm very aware of the EM flare forecasting techniques, and FYI they certainly *DO* involve sunspot activity, penumbras, distances between them, etc. To say they don't involve sunspot activity is absurd. (edited after reviewing that flare)

 

[Reality Check]

Famous last words.

Famous first words.

Show me any sort of prediction forecasting that is directly related to filament eruptions.

That is the question that I asked you:

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
​

or maybe you were lazy and did do the research that you should have done before assuming that filament eruptions have anything to do with "prediction forecasting".

I'm very aware of the EM flare forecasting techniques, and FYI they certainly *DO* involve sunspot activity, penumbras, distances between them, etc. To say they don't involve sunspot activity is absurd.

And FYI we are not talking about "EM flare forecasting techniques" in general.
We are talking about the one technique used in the one page I linked to (Flare Prediction System (28 Oct 2010), i.e. based on the numeric analysis of solar data using the McIntosh classification scheme.

 

[GeeMack]

Lastly and most importantly:
Give your numeric analysis of the classification of ARS by your scheme that allowed you to associate certain Mozina classifiaction with ARs that are "sure bets" for predictions.
If you cannot do this then all of the predictions that you have made so far are confirmed as guesses.

So here we are, fast approaching 600 posts into this thread, and Michael still hasn't described his method, scientifically, objectively, and quantitatively, for "predicting" CMEs. I think it's safe to say all his arguments claiming to have one were simply not true.

How about it, Michael? Be honest. You don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, do you? (And if you need any help with the meanings of the words "quantitative" and "objective", you just ask, okay?)