CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

Famous first words.


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".

IMO you missed the point RC. My point is that you're *IGNORING* filament eruptions as it relates to CME/flare prediction forecasting *AT YOUR PERIL*. They aren't being considered in forecasting, and that's my whole point.

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.

I'm aware of how the EM flare prediction process works. As I said before, it's "pretty good" in terms of it's predictive usefulness. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any predictive process related to dark filament eruptions and yet dark filament eruptions *CAUSE* a fair percentage of all mass ejections (flares and CME's) that we observe coming from the sun.

The EM flares are more "dangerous" to terms of the effect on astronauts in space, and satellites in space, but spaceweather in general is also heavily influenced by dark filament eruptions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, the sun looks pretty boring today. The only filaments worth watching are fairly unremarkable in terms of size and imminent eruption potential.

 

[GeeMack]

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any predictive process related to dark filament eruptions and yet dark filament eruptions *CAUSE* a fair percentage of all mass ejections (flares and CME's) that we observe coming from the sun.

Yet you haven't offered any support for that claim, so are you ever going to do that?

And you've overlooked this one again... 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?)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet you haven't offered any support for that claim, so are you ever going to do that?

I have already done so on numerous occasions in this thread.

Be honest.

What do you know about honesty? You won't even acknowledge the '"successful predictions" I've already made based on filament eruptions that directly led to mass ejections right where I said you would find them.

 

[GeeMack]

I have already done so on numerous occasions in this thread.

I mean besides saying you see something in a picture that you think shows the filament eruptions cause CMEs, which clearly isn't scientific support. Do you have anything other than that? You know, quantitative, objective, something with an actual described cause/effect relationship rather than your correlation/causation fallacy?

What do you know about honesty? You won't even acknowledge the '"successful predictions" I've already made based on filament eruptions that directly led to mass ejections right where I said you would find them.

I have no idea why you continue to ignore the question. But here it is again...

You don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, do you? It's a simple yes or no question. You say "yes" then we move on to where you actually describe that method. You say "no" and we can leave that issue behind.

So, yes or no, you don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, do you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean besides saying you see something in a picture that you think shows the filament eruptions cause CMEs, which clearly isn't scientific support.

A) Those predictions of what we would see in LASCO/COR *ARE* scientific support.

B) I gave you quantified time lines, directional components, etc which you are simply ignoring.

 

[GeeMack]

A) Those predictions of what we would see in LASCO/COR *ARE* scientific support.

B) I gave you quantified time lines, directional components, etc which you are simply ignoring.

Would you like a little help understanding the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy? That seems to be the problem with your failed argument.

Oh, and here's the one you continue to ignore...

Do you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs? That's a simple yes or no question. You say "yes" and we move on to where you actually describe that method. You say "no" and we can leave that issue behind.

So what do you say, yes or no, you don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, do you?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yet you haven't offered any support for that claim, so are you ever going to do that?

And you've overlooked this one again... 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?)

The above summarizes this tiresome thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Would you like a little help understanding the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy?

No, because you've never demonstrated that it's simply a "correlation" to begin with. Statistically speaking there is such a thing, but in terms of the actually physics, it's a direct CAUSE of the mass flow as I have *SHOWN* you in satellite image.

That seems to be the problem with your failed argument.

Actually, your whole complaint in a "failed argument". Sunspots are not the "cause" of flares, but there is a useful "correlation" that allows us to "predict" EM type of flares based on sunspot arrangements. So what if only was a "correlation"? It wouldn't make it any less valuable and terms of filament eruption flare "prediction".

The only one ignoring anything is you including every single one of that *SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS* you keep trying to sweep under the carpet.

 

[GeeMack]

No, because you've never demonstrated that it's simply a "correlation" to begin with. Statistically speaking there is such a thing, but in terms of the actually physics, it's a direct CAUSE of the mass flow as I have *SHOWN* you in satellite image.

No, you haven't. You can't point at something in a picture and claim that something is causing something else. That is simply not legitimate science. It's a totally imaginary argument based on the same kind of crap science that had people believing the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the Universe, or that maggots spontaneously appeared in raw meat.

It's exactly as stupid as those arguments were when people believed them, and far, far stupider today since science has become a rather sophisticated method used very successfully to learn how our Universe operates. So no, you have absolutely not showed any such thing, and your argument that you have shows an utter disdain for contemporary science.

Actually, your whole complaint in a "failed argument". Sunspots are not the "cause" of flares, but there is a useful "correlation" that allows us to "predict" EM type of flares based on sunspot arrangements. So what if only was a "correlation"? It wouldn't make it any less valuable and terms of filament eruption flare "prediction".

If it's only a correlation then it's not a cause, and you're wrong to continue claiming it's a cause with no support for your claim. The terms are not interchangeable. Like I said, if you'd like some help understanding the "correlation does not equal causation" logical fallacy that you continue to use as your failed argument, just ask. I would be willing to help, and if you ask politely, I expect Reality Check would probably be glad to help. I'm sure he understands.

The only one ignoring anything is you including every single one of that *SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS* you keep trying to sweep under the carpet.

I'm not ignoring anything, and for you to claim I am is another lie. I am properly defining what you're doing as guessing, since you have been wholly unwilling and/or unable to describe a quantitative, objective, scientific method for making your "predictions". Of course you could change that by describing your quantitative objective method, or you could let the issue of that claim rest by admitting that you have no such method.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I am properly defining what you're doing as guessing, since you have been wholly unwilling and/or unable to describe a quantitative, objective, scientific method for making your "predictions". Of course you could change that by describing your quantitative objective method, or you could let the issue of that claim rest by admitting that you have no such method.

Since Mozina remains on *IGNORE,* let me know if there is ever an honest attempt to respond to this question.
By the way, do you think these dark filaments are strands of iron unravelling from the iron surface of the sun?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, you haven't. You can't point at something in a picture and claim that something is causing something else.

Oh, for crying out loud. You folks point to *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* in an image and claim it's *PROOF* (not evidence mind you, "proof") of magical invisible forms of matter and energy!

That is simply not legitimate science. It's a totally imaginary argument based on the same kind of crap science that had people believing the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the Universe, or that maggots spontaneously appeared in raw meat.

Considering the fact that 96 percent of the universe is "dark" to you, you'll pardon me if I don't find your criticism particularly "stinging".

It's exactly as stupid as those arguments were when people believed them, and far, far stupider today since science has become a rather sophisticated method used very successfully to learn how our Universe operates.

Pfft. 96 percent of it remains a complete mystery to you, yet you claim to know how it operates. You aren't even aware (willing to accept) the electrical nature of solar wind, and you don't know it's "cause", so that's simply an absurd statement from my perspective.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If it's only a correlation then it's not a cause...

It *DOESN'T EVEN MATTER*! For purposes of flare prediction it is absolutely irrelevant if it's a "cause" or a "correlation". There is no "cause/effect" association between "sunspots" and "flares", yet that is *EXACTLY* they they use to calculate the odds of an EM flare. So what? You're absolutely intent on ignoring the accurate predictions derived for either a 'cause' or a 'correlation'. Why? Let me guess? You like to argue?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since Mozina remains on *IGNORE,* let me know if there is ever an honest attempt to respond to this question.
By the way, do you think these dark filaments are strands of iron unravelling from the iron surface of the sun?

When you've made an honest attempt to read my material, and see how I did in terms of my predictions, you let me know.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh, for crying out loud. You folks point to *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* in an image and claim it's *PROOF* (not evidence mind you, "proof") of magical invisible forms of matter and energy!

I am not pointing to *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* in any image and claiming anything, so if you're counting me among "you folks", your statement is another lie. And your apparently dishonest attempt to divert the subject away from your failed argument is noted.

Considering the fact that 96 percent of the universe is "dark" to you, you'll pardon me if I don't find your criticism particularly "stinging".

Your misunderstanding of the dark matter/dark energy issue is obviously not relevant to this thread. But even so, your argument from ignorance about one area of science certainly does nothing to support your so far failed arguments in another area. Oh, and again your persistent effort to divert the topic to avoid addressing the current issue is noted.

Pfft. 96 percent of it remains a complete mystery to you, yet you claim to know how it operates. You aren't even aware (willing to accept) the electrical nature of solar wind, and you don't know it's "cause", so that's simply an absurd statement from my perspective.

And once more your argument is not relevant at all to this thread. It is again an apparently dishonest attempt to avoid the current discussion in favor of trying to bolster another of your crackpot notions that, need I remind you, you haven't been able to get a single professional physicist on the face of this planet to buy into in over a half decade of trying. Your inability to present a cogent, acceptable argument on any issue of physics certainly speaks to your qualifications in that area. By all accounts, from millions of your own words offered as evidence, any such qualifications are abysmally lacking.

Now, back to the subject of this thread and the claims you've made but are unwilling/unable to support: Do you have a quantitative and objective method for "predicting" CMEs? Yes or no? And can you quantitatively and objectively support your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs? Yes or no? Of course answering no to either question is acceptable.

 

[Reality Check]

IMO you missed the point RC. My point is that you're *IGNORING* filament eruptions as it relates to CME/flare prediction forecasting *AT YOUR PERIL*. They aren't being considered in forecasting, and that's my whole point.

IMO you missed the point MM. My point is that you're *IGNORING* that you have presented *NO EVIDENCE* of filament eruptions as they relate to CME/flare prediction forecasting. That is *AT YOUR PERIL*.

You assert that "They aren't being considered in forecasting" without any evidence, and that's my whole point.

This 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".

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any predictive process related to dark filament eruptions and yet dark filament eruptions *CAUSE* a fair percentage of all mass ejections (flares and CME's) that we observe coming from the sun.

The simple fact is that there you have presented *NO EVIDENCE* that any filament eruptions whether dark or bright *CAUSE* any flares or CME that we observe coming from the sun.

The *EVIDENCE* that you have presented is that a person who is obviously untrustworthy (Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?) imagines that he sees dark filament eruptions causing flares and CME.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to show that I am not as lazy as Michael Mozina, here is a example paper about how disappearing solar filaments (e.g. filaments that have erupted) have been used to predict geomagnetic activity.
Disappearing solar filaments - A useful predictor of geomagnetic activity (published in 1981 !)

Disappearing solar filaments have long been suspected as an indicator of terrestrial magnetic disturbances. However, because filament disappearances are a common solar event and because they failed as a candidate source for M region (recurrent) magnetic disturbances, their potential utility as a forecasting aid for geomagnetic storms has largely been neglected. A search for possible solar sources of geomagnetic storms from June 1976 through June 1979 has revealed that a significant number of the storms, including the two largest, can only be associated with filament disappearances. This result is supported by the many recent papers studying Skylab and other observations of coronal transients which always find a strong correlation between those transients and eruptive prominences. By analyzing the physical characteristics of those disappearances which precede magnetic storms and those which do not, some tentative guidelines for forecasting geomagnetic disturbances have been developed based on evidence of a significant restructuring of the implied coronal magnetic field which could release solar wind plasma favorably positioned to impact the earth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Disappearing solar filaments have long been suspected as an indicator of terrestrial magnetic disturbances. However, because filament disappearances are a common solar event and because they failed as a candidate source for M region (recurrent) magnetic disturbances, their potential utility as a forecasting aid for geomagnetic storms has largely been neglected.

That's still true to this day!

Let's recap, shall we? I *USED* a filament eruption to *PREDICT* a CME, and did so *SUCCESSFULLY* based on SDO images and I did it "real time". You and GM have been arguing it was some sort of LUCKY GUESS, all the while, YOU PERSONALLY have been providing resources that *DEMONSTRATE* that the method I am using *AND DOING REAL TIME MIND YOU* works and works well. What exactly is your point?

My point is that they *COULD* and more importantly they *SHOULD* be used in solar flare prediction and that 30 years have passed and what the authors claimed was true then is still true today. The filament eruption flare is largely being *IGNORED*, even 30 years *AFTER* it's predictive usefulness was *DEMONSTRATED*!

Holy cow. Even I am confused now as to what point you and GM are trying to make in this thread. I began by USING the filament eruption *TECHNIQUE* to demonstrate it's usefulness in flare prediction to the members of this forum. You and GM have been acting like they aren't useful at all in flare prediction, and claiming that I was somehow making a "lucky guess". Now you personally provide a paper from 30 years ago which demonstrates my technique works perfectly so now I'm just completely mystified. What is your point of all this arguing if you knew all along that filament eruption flare prediction was a useful technique???????!!!!!!??????

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me ask you this RC. Yesterday you provided a *WONDERFUL* (my favorite too) link to real time EM flare predictions based on sunspot observation and categorization techniques.

Could you point me to something similar that uses filament eruptions, which requires the potential filaments to be identified and categorized, are factored into real time CME or flare predictions in any way?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am not pointing to *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* in any image and claiming anything, so if you're counting me among "you folks", your statement is another lie. And your apparently dishonest attempt to divert the subject away from your failed argument is noted.

No, I was just pointing out that the entire industry of astronomy is based upon what is observed in pretty little images. I strongly suggest you stop treating them like dirt and start paying attention to their real time usefulness, *INCLUDING THOSE FILAMENTS THAT ERUPT* into CME's.