CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[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.

So let me get this straight. You're ahead of me because you know you don't have to look for them, but you also know they are useful in predicting flares? Er, care to elaborate?

 

[GeeMack]

Holy cow. Even I am confused now as to what point you and GM are trying to make in this thread.

Well, be confused no longer. What grade of school do you think you might need to be in to understand the following question and answer it?...

Yes or no, do you have a quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

That's a yes or a no question, Michael. That's not asking for some weaseling song and dance evasion. That's not asking for you to call me a liar for asking you. That's not requesting some kind of tantrum or a bunch of lip. Here, simple as it can be...

Yes or no, do you have a quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

 

[Reality Check]

So let me get this straight. You're ahead of me because you know you don't have to look for them, but you also know they are useful in predicting flares? Er, care to elaborate?

Elaborating: I am regurgitating your gibberish back at you

 

[Reality Check]

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?

Let me ask you this MM:
What makes you unable to do this basic research yourself?

In case you are interested - I did do the research and there are papers on that subject. Start with
Physical aspects of the prediction of solar flares (Nov 1984)

The properties of a solar flare depend critically on the preflare magnetic-field configuration and the way that this configuration evolves during the flare process. The flare process often, if not always, involves the eruption of a filament or similar structure, possibly leading to complete ejection from the Sun. This eruption will generate an extensive current sheet: reconnection of this sheet contributes to the gradual phase and perhaps also to the impulsive phase. It is proposed that reconnection of a current sheet (pre-existing, or generated by filament eruption) is required for a gamma-ray event or a particle event. A particle event requires also an escape mechanism that could be provided either by a pre-existing open current sheet or by the ejection of the magnetic-field configuration associated with a filament. Following these guidelines, it is possible to propose a classification of flares into seven categories and to propose whether or not each category will lead to the following phenomena: mass ejection, shock wave, gamma-ray emission, and particle event.

 

[Reality Check]

That's still true to this day!

Yet another unsupported assertion from your ignorance of the field (see below).

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?

Let's recap, shall we?
Using Michael Mozina speak:
Michael Mozina *GUESSED* that a filament eruption can be to *PREDICT* a CME, and did so *SUCCESSFULLY* based on SDO images. He *FAILED AT LEAST ONCE*.

I and GM have been stating it was is actually a LUCKY GUESS because

• Michael Mozina has not presented his method to to determine which filament on the sun will erupt except the trivial highly active regions are ... highly active !
• Michael Mozina has been obsessing on dark filaments.
  Dark filament are just filaments that are dark in a specific wavelength. There is little physical difference between dark and bright filaments. Otherwise Michael Mozina would cite his sources for the difference and evidence that there is a different rate of flare/CME production.

All the while, I PERSONALLY have been providing resources that *DEMONSTRATE* that filament eruptions are associated with solar activity. Your ignorance of this literature shows that you have ignored the important first step in any scientific research:

Learn the state of the science.
It is idiotic to make up stuff about solar predictions involving filament eruptons if you do not know what is already known about the field. Even if you get it right you are stiill just duppicatin what was done many years ago.
​

That this has nothing to do with the "method" Michael Mozina thinks he is using *HAS OBVIOUSLY ESCAPED HIM*

What is your point of all this arguing if you knew all along that filament eruption flare prediction was a useful technique???????!!!!!!??????

You are wrong yet again.
I never knew "all along" that filament eruptions were associated with flares.
I did the thing that you are too lazy (or incompetent or ignorant or for some other reason) to do - I researched the literature. I stuck to Internet accessible resources because I do not want to waste my time with an obvious crank (a serious reseracher would not be using an internet forum).

I still do not know what role filament eruptions play in modern solar activity prediction.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Another a reminder for you MM:
What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(12 October 2010)

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME?
N.B. as mentioned before this just a request for a citation.
(19 October 2010)

If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was?
IOW: What are the physical propeties of a CME associated with a dark filament that make the CME different from the CME associated with any other kind of filament.
(22 October 2010)

Michael Mozina, Please give your citations for solar Birkeland currents
(22 October 2010)

Please give your citations to the darkness of filaments being "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction"
(22 October 2010)

What is your evidence for a difference in dark/bright filament eruption distribution?
(22 October 2010)

Micheal Mozina: Cite your prediction of "1 M class and 4 class flares"
(26 October 2010)

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
(29 October 2010)
This is you asserting that "Filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting and filament driven CME's directly effect space weather" without any evidence.

What is your method of classifying active regions
(29 October 2010)
You assert that you have a method of classifying active regions so you should be able to tell us it. My guess: you look at the AR in real time and pick the one looks most active as the most active AR and are fooled into thinking that is "classification".

In case anyone thinks that your "predictions" work all the time:
Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 "prediction" fails

And the eternal question: Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's recap, shall we?
Using Michael Mozina speak:
Michael Mozina *GUESSED* that a filament eruption can be to *PREDICT* a CME, and did so *SUCCESSFULLY* based on SDO images. He *FAILED AT LEAST ONCE*.

RC, if one *UNDERSTANDS* that filament eruptions lead to flares and CME's, it not a "guess". Your statements are irrational.

You two should be *ASHAMED* of yourselves at this point. I started a friendly conversation about solar flare prediction. Since day one the two of you have been spewing *DISINFORMATION* galore, ignoring everything I have said, demanding I do your homework for you, and acting like a couple of spoiled, ignorant children.

Instead of "fessing up" to your own ignorance on the relationship between filament eruptions and CME's and flares, you're *STILL* twisting truth like a pretzel. I have *NOT* failed in this thread. The worst you could accuse me of is missing it by an hour or so in a *FRIENDLY* heads up post. When we tried to pin thing down to a reasonable "betting" timeframe, you wouldn't do it. Had you done so, you'd owe me a beer.

Instead of now admitting that your own ignorance got you in trouble, you're going to now "spin" the whole thing to make "all my fault" somehow.

In *REALITY*, I already understood the relationship between flare prediction and filament eruptions. That *KNOWLEDGE* is what enabled me to do what I have done in this thread. There's no "guess" involved because I specifically waited until it was physically impossible for the thread in question to "not erupt". They were already well on their way toward full eruption by the time I "predicted" the ensuing flares/CME's.

Instead of just coming clean here and admitting that I knew something that the two of you did not, you're going to whine and somehow pretend it's all my fault.

I and GM have been stating it was is actually a LUCKY GUESS because Michael Mozina has not presented his method to to determine which filament on the sun will erupt except the trivial highly active regions are ... highly active !

That's not true. I already told you that I rank them by size, proximity to active regions, whether they lift up into the atmosphere, whether they are expanding outward, etc. It's not my fault that the two of you *REFUSE* to listen and learn.

Michael Mozina has been obsessing on dark filaments.
Dark filament are just filaments that are dark in a specific wavelength.

I'm obsessing with them because those are the most dangerous kind of filaments and they are *dark* in all the SDO wavelengths (at least compared to the background of the sun). If you want to be able to "predict" filament eruptions, you'll have to pay attention to them too.

There is little physical difference between dark and bright filaments.

That is actually nothing more than an "assumption' on your part. Their must be a PHYSICAL REASON that they are uniquely dark against an otherwise brighter background.

I'm done doing this line by line. You two are a trip! You've both been ignorantly dragging your feet on the importance of filament eruptions and flares. You've both been blaming me personally for not doing YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, and accusing me of things that are simply not true (like I didn't do *MY* homework). I did my homework RC, *DECADES* ago. I've known about the connection between filament eruptions and CME's for a long time now. I've lost count on how many papers and articles I've read on the topic. It's *YOU* and GM that didn't do their homework. That is why you've both been ignorantly prattling on about it being a "guess". It's not a "guess" anymore than flare prediction based on sunspot formations is a "guess".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Elaborating: I am regurgitating your gibberish back at you

My statements were not gibberish but your statements have been gibberish. What absolutely blows me away is that you personally have *FINALLY* started doing some actual research, you now *KNOW* that it's legitimate science, and the only reason you're even still complaining is because I was right and you were wrong and you don't want to admit it. This has become a seriously weird conversation at this point. Not only have I *DEMONSTRATED IN REAL TIME* that this technique works, you personally have provided a historical link to the various papers that describe the technique. Instead of reading about it for yourself, you expect *ME* to explain it to you step by step, observation by observation, while the two of you hurl insults my way. Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, be confused no longer. What grade of school do you think you might need to be in to understand the following question and answer it?...

What is your personal fascination with with grade school? Do you think "learning" ends when school ends?

Yes or no, do you have a quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

Ya. Why don't you and RC go do some homework on your own, read few of those papers and the *TECHNIQUES* that they used, and then we'll talk. Right now I feel like I'm sitting in the twilight zone. What should have been a nice friendly conversation has been like a dentist doing a root canal. I'm getting bored of the personal insults. If you won't learn, and refuse to learn anything new, go away and allow others to do so.

 

[GeeMack]

What is your personal fascination with with grade school? Do you think "learning" ends when school ends?

I mention grade school because virtually all of the many gross errors in your arguments are so simple, so obvious, and so elementary that most grade school children with decent grades in science would not make them. A high school kid would be lucky to even pass a science class for making those kinds of ridiculous arguments. A college student consistently making those mistakes would simply fail.

Ya.

See, that wasn't so hard. Now go ahead and describe your quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.

Why don't you and RC go do some homework on your own, read few of those papers and the *TECHNIQUES* that they used, and then we'll talk.

Reality Check and I don't have any responsibility to do your homework for you. You're the one making a claim here. The burden of proof is on you. Would you like some help understanding that burden of proof thing?

Right now I feel like I'm sitting in the twilight zone. What should have been a nice friendly conversation has been like a dentist doing a root canal.

When you make claims in the world of real science, and when you're asked to support those claims, people will actually expect you to do that. You haven't been doing that. I could be wrong, but it seems you're trying to present your claims as if they're supposed to be legitimate science. If you acknowledge that you're not trying to make legitimately scientific claims, people won't expect you to support them scientifically. People won't be so quick to point out your unqualified arguments and the dishonesty in presenting your logical fallacies, and the whole conversation might be a little friendlier even given your refusal to support your claims.

I'm getting bored of the personal insults. If you won't learn, and refuse to learn anything new, go away and allow others to do so.

Asking if you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs isn't an insult. Having to ask that again and again and again because the question is repeatedly ignored is pretty insulting to those who continue to ask. Pointing out your ridiculous arguments, explaining how your arguments are built on logical fallacies, and being persistent in asking you to support your claims in spite of your persistent refusal to do just that aren't insults. Allowing anyone a pass on crappy arguments and wholly unqualified attempts to present a guessing game as scientifically unique, special, or interesting would be an insult to genuine science and all the legitimate scientists who are actually qualified to understand solar physics.

And to go back up a little so this doesn't get lost...

Yes or no, do you have a quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

Ya.

See, that wasn't so hard. You claim to have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. Describe it, quantitatively and objectively.

 

[Reality Check]

RC, if one *UNDERSTANDS* that filament eruptions lead to flares and CME's, it not a "guess". Your statements are irrational.

MM, RC, if one *ASSUMES* that filament eruptions lead to flares and CME's, it is a "guess". Your statements are irrational.

I have *NOT* failed in this thread.

Yes you have:
Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 "prediction" fails byover 2 hours
Prediction: 10 Oct 2010 21:49UT
CME at: 11 Oct 2010 00:05UT
Thus thus I stated He *FAILED AT LEAST ONCE*.

In *REALITY*, I already understood the relationship between flare prediction and filament eruptions.

In *REALITY*, you have never shown any knowledge that you undertsand the relationship flare prediction and filament eruptions.
You never cited any literature.
You were ignorant of the literature I cited to you.

That's not true. I already told you that I rank them by size, proximity to active regions, whether they lift up into the atmosphere, whether they are expanding outward, etc. It's not my fault that the two of you *REFUSE* to listen and learn.

That is rather idiotic - that is what filaments around highly active regions do !
All you are doing is confirming that this is is your interpretation of the images:

Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?
​

I'm obsessing with them because those are the most dangerous kind of filaments and they are *dark* in all the SDO wavelengths (at least compared to the background of the sun).

Still with your persistent unsupported assertions (otherwise known as delusions):

• Please give your citations to the darkness of filaments being "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction"
  (22 October 2010)
• What is your evidence for a difference in dark/bright filament eruption distribution?
  (22 October 2010)

That is actually nothing more than an "assumption' on your part. Their must be a PHYSICAL REASON that they are uniquely dark against an otherwise brighter background.

Wring: dark filaments are no "uniquely" dark. Different fillaments are dark in different wavelengths.
Read what I stated MM:

There is little physical difference between dark and bright filaments

.
That little physical difference causes filaments to be dark in specific wavelengths compared to other filaments.
My guess: a different distribution of plasma temperatures.

I did my homework RC, *DECADES* ago

Where did you learn astrophysics *DECADES* ago.
Or are you talking about primary school or high school?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You two are a head trip and a half. Instead of keeping this a nice friendly conversation, you both go out of your way to debase the conversation, to ignore the *ISSUES* related to science, and to make this conversation "personal" in every conceivable way. Why?

By this point in time you must both KNOW with absolute certainty that filament eruptions are an excellent predictor of CME's and flares. There are three decades or more of observational support of that statement. The methods I used were pretty nearly identical to all the observational methods ever used, save for one small difference. I used the SDO images as well as STEREO and LASCO images to demonstrate the connection.

The two of you were evidently completely and totally ignorant of the connection (even in terms of the mass itself), and therefore this whole conversation has been "unnecessarily difficult". At this point I don't believe that either of you is actually interested in a "scientific" discussion. Instead you seem to be intent on "winning" some ego battle *IN SPITE OF* the fact you're completely and totally factually wrong on this issue.

Dark filament eruptions (yes they are dark in SDO images) are in fact a good predictor of solar CME's and solar flares. They typically provide the MASS we observe in MASS ejections.

Whatever game you are playing, you cannot ignore the scientific facts. You're on the wrong side of science. My successful predictions were all related to my ability to observe a filament eruption in progress and knowing that we would see a directional mass flow "soon" in lasco/cor. You're getting miffed over an hour, and ignoring the science entirely. Get real.

There is no way to sweep away this conversation. I've clearly explained to you in this thread how I "predicted" the CMEs and flares. It has nothing to do with 'luck' and everything to do with "science", evidently "science" you two are only now just learning about, several decades after it was first explained.

What exactly can I do for you two at this point? I've demonstrated in real time that the technique works using nothing more than SDO and STEREO images. You've personally provided links to papers on this topic with citations to the last paper for over 3 decades! Do a little reading, do a little "homework" and chill out.

This conversation doesn't have to be 'difficult'. You're just making it so by arguing rather than looking for possible areas of agreement. We should *ALL* be able to agree the filament eruptions are a "good" predictor of CMEs and flares. Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mention grade school because virtually all of the many gross errors in your arguments are so simple, so obvious, and so elementary that most grade school children with decent grades in science would not make them.

I have made no errors whatsoever in this thread, save perhaps the fact I've wasted my breath responding to your endless string of personal attacks and lies. You have been *WRONG* every single step of the way, every post, every claim you have made in this thread. I have *PHYSICALLY SHOWN YOU* filament eruptions that resulted in flares/cme's real time, using SDO and LASCO/COR images, images that I cited in the original posts.

You have made all the errors here GM, not me. I've gotten my predictions right. I've put my neck out on several occasions to demonstrate the validity of the "science" you two keep trying to ignore and demean.

A high school kid would be lucky to even pass a science class for making those kinds of ridiculous arguments. A college student consistently making those mistakes would simply fail.

Do you ever make a post without including a personal put down? Do you really believe that education ends in college? I guess for you that might be true, but for the rest of us, life goes on.

See, that wasn't so hard. Now go ahead and describe your quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.

Why? What would be the point? Will that change your "attack mode" in any way? Have you personally bothered to read *ANY* of those papers on this topic? If so, which one(s)? What did you learn that might *HELP* move this conversation forward?

 

[GeeMack]

You two are a head trip and a half. Instead of keeping this a nice friendly conversation, you both go out of your way to debase the conversation, to ignore the *ISSUES* related to science, and to make this conversation "personal" in every conceivable way. Why?

Actually I asked you to describe your method for "predicting" CMEs in a quantitative, objective way. Pretty damned scientific if you ask me, but you continue to refuse to do that. And it wasn't personal, so your claim that we are trying to "make this conversation 'personal' in every conceivable way" is another lie. I also note that rather than answer to the scientific concern again and actually fulfill your responsibility to support your claim again, your argument looks a lot like another tantrum.

This conversation doesn't have to be 'difficult'.

No, it doesn't. So describe your scientific, objective, and quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs or be honest and admit that you don't have one.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you post your list of predictions and the results

You two are a head trip and a half. Instead of keeping this a nice friendly conversation, you both go out of your way to debase the conversation, to ignore the *ISSUES* related to science, and to make this conversation "personal" in every conceivable way. Why?

You are the one ignoring the *ISSUES* related to science.
We are making it personal because all your posts depend on your personal interpretation of solar images. You have presented no quantitative ways of confirming your interpretations.
What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(12 October 2010)

You have a track record of being wrong in your interpretations: Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?

By this point in time you must both KNOW with absolute certainty that filament eruptions are an excellent predictor of CME's and flares.

By this point in time all readers of this thread KNOW with absolute certainty that you have presened no evidence that filament eruptions are an "excellent" predictor of CME's and flares.
All the readers of this thread can see that you have made some vague predictions and have got your CME predictions wring at least one
Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 CME "prediction" fails by over 2 hours

There are three decades or more of observational support of that statement.

That is a lie.
There is a couple of months of posts of your posts in this thread.

There is the evidence that I gave you of a statistcial correlation between filament eruptions, flares and CME. That statistcal correlation is

• 95% of flares are preceded by a filament eruption.
• 55% of CME are preceded by a filament eruption.

55% is not "excellent".

The methods I used were pretty nearly identical to all the observational methods ever used, save for one small difference. I used the SDO images as well as STEREO and LASCO images to demonstrate the connection.

Another unsupported assertion.
You have displayed no knowledge of the methods used in science to predict flares and CME other what I have cited to you.

The two of you were evidently completely and totally ignorant of the connection (even in terms of the mass itself), and therefore this whole conversation has been "unnecessarily difficult".

We were unaware - like you.
We are now aware that there is a statistical correlation.

At this point I don't believe that either of you is actually interested in a "scientific" discussion.

The fact that you put scientific in quotes shows how untinterested you are in a scientific discussion.


When you actually present your science we will discuss it:

• What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
  (12 October 2010)
• If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was?
  IOW: What are the physical propeties of a CME associated with a dark filament that make the CME different from the CME associated with any other kind of filament.
  (22 October 2010)
• Please give your citations to the darkness of filaments being "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction"
  (22 October 2010)
• What is your evidence for a difference in dark/bright filament eruption distribution?
  (22 October 2010)
• Micheal Mozina: Cite your prediction of "1 M class and 4 class flares"
  (26 October 2010)
• Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
  (29 October 2010)
• What is your method of classifying active regions
  (29 October 2010)
  This may have been answered - you look at them and make your own personal interpretation.

In actual fact I do not expect a scientific discussion between us.

Dark filament eruptions (yes they are dark in SDO images) are in fact a good predictor of solar CME's and solar flares. They typically provide the MASS we observe in MASS ejections.

Yes there are dark filaments in SDO images.
Yes there are dark filaments in decades of solar images in various wavelengths.

See above about the fact that you have presented no evidence for your assertion that any filament eruptions are a good predictor of solar CME and flares.

Whatever game you are playing, you cannot ignore the scientific facts.

We know what your game is ignoring the sceintifc evidence because you stated from a position of ignorance about the sceintific evidence.

You're on the wrong side of science. My successful predictions were all related to my ability to observe a filament eruption in progress and knowing that we would see a directional mass flow "soon" in lasco/cor.

You're not doing any science. You have presented few predictions and as far as I recall none have been successful. This is of course one of the idiotic things about trying to do science in an internet forum. You have no actual list of your predictions and whether they were successful. That is one of the basics that a scientist would be collecting.
But I may be wrong so:

Michael Mozina
First asked 1 November 2010
I actually think that your "method" will predict flares and CME for the trivial reason that flares and CME are produced from active regions and you are just predicting that a highyly actve active region will produce flares and CME.
But what we do not have is the raw data on which you base your assertion that your trival method is an "excellent" prediction. N.B. Excellent to me means 99% accurate. You may want to put a number to you meaning of excellent.
So an easy question for you to answer since you will be collecting the data as you go like any competent person will:

Can you post your list of predictions and the results?
​

The data that you are obviously collecting, should include:

• The UT time of the prediction.
• The position and UT time of the filament flare and a citation to an independent verification to its existence.
• The prediction (link to its URL) where the prediction should look like like
  • There will be a CME going in this direction. That CME will be visible in X- Z hours in LASCO from that direction.
  • There will be a flare will be visible in X- Z hours in LASCO from that direction.
• The results both from your observations and from an independent source.

Remember to include: Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 CME "prediction" fails by over 2 hours

I do hope that you have been doing this basic data collection.

You're getting miffed over an hour, and ignoring the science entirely. Get real.

Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 CME "prediction" fails by over 2 hours
A prediction that fails, fails. Get real.

There is no way to sweep away this conversation.

We know this - you are an expert in creating threads that are 1000's of posts about your ideas, e.g. see the threads involving your delusion that the sun has an iron surface/crust/thickish plasma layer/whatever you are calling it today.

What exactly can I do for you two at this point?

Answer the question by presenting your science and citations.
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

This conversation doesn't have to be 'difficult'. You're just making it so by arguing rather than looking for possible areas of agreement. We should *ALL* be able to agree the filament eruptions are a "good" predictor of CMEs and flares. Yes? No? Maybe?

Maybe.
When you define what 'good' means.
When you present the evidence then we will evaluate it.

 

[GeeMack]

I have made no errors whatsoever in this thread, save perhaps the fact I've wasted my breath responding to your endless string of personal attacks and lies. You have been *WRONG* every single step of the way, every post, every claim you have made in this thread. I have *PHYSICALLY SHOWN YOU* filament eruptions that resulted in flares/cme's real time, using SDO and LASCO/COR images, images that I cited in the original posts.

Well, you have made at least one "prediction" that turned out to be wrong. And you haven't physically shown that filament eruptions resulted in flares and/or CMEs. You have shown us pictures and simply declared that they support your claims. Legitimate science isn't done by looking at pictures and drawing conclusions.

Things can look like something and be something else entirely. Overlooking that was the stupid mistake some people made when they believed the Earth was flat, when they believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, and when they believed maggots spontaneously appeared in rotten meat. It was a crappy way to do science way back then, and even crappier now that we have developed the scientific method to include critical components like quantitative data recording and analysis and applying objective methods to making scientific determinations.

You have made all the errors here GM, not me. I've gotten my predictions right. I've put my neck out on several occasions to demonstrate the validity of the "science" you two keep trying to ignore and demean.

I'm not trying to ignore or demean, so your suggestion that I am is dishonest. (Note the recurring theme in your arguments?) I keep trying to get you to (a) support your claims and/or (b) admit that you can't and subsequently abandon them.

Do you ever make a post without including a personal put down? Do you really believe that education ends in college? I guess for you that might be true, but for the rest of us, life goes on.

I have asked you several times if you'd like some help understanding where you errors are. I've asked if you'd like help understanding terminology and simple scientific concepts. You can hardly blame me if you continue to misunderstand what I'm saying because you refuse to take me up on my offers.

Why? What would be the point? Will that change your "attack mode" in any way? Have you personally bothered to read *ANY* of those papers on this topic? If so, which one(s)? What did you learn that might *HELP* move this conversation forward?

The point would be: You've made claims, and it's your responsibility to support them. The point would be: As long as you keep making claims but refusing to support them, someone is bound to keep asking you to support them. The point would be: Once you have described your method for "predicting" CMEs, quantitatively and objectively, a method you continue to claim to have, then we can move this conversation forward. I learned, or rather I have known for decades, that if you make a claim and refuse to support it, any lack of forward movement in the discussion is your own fault. I also learned decades ago that if you make a claim and are unable to support it, the honest thing to do is admit that and withdraw the claim.

Now again, for the what, 100th time?, in simple language... You claim to have a scientific, objective, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs. You may now describe that method or be honest and admit that you have no such method.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Now again, for the what, 100th time?, in simple language... You claim to have a scientific, objective, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs. You may now describe that method or be honest and admit that you have no such method.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not trying to ignore or demean, so your suggestion that I am is dishonest. (Note the recurring theme in your arguments?) I keep trying to get you to (a) support your claims and/or (b) admit that you can't and subsequently abandon them.

The "lies" begin and end with your claim that this method has not been supported. Yes or no did you read either of the two papers RC posted? Yes, or no? Did you read any of the later papers that CITED that paper from 30 years ago? Yes. or no? Are filament eruptions a valid predictor of flares and CME's, yes or no? Stop dodging. Stop weaving around. Just answer those questions *HONESTLY* (for a change).

 

[Michael Mozina]

We were unaware - like you.

Do you two even KNOW how to tell the truth? How could I be "unaware" that the technique works, but use it to predict flares? You're statements are simply irrational BS.

You're not doing any science. You have presented few predictions and as far as I recall none have been successful.

More lies. What's the point of talking to you two?

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more questions for Michael Mozina

The "lies" begin and end with your claim that this method has not been supported. Yes or no did you read either of the two papers RC posted? Yes, or no? Did you read any of the later papers that CITED that paper from 30 years ago? Yes. or no? Are filament eruptions a valid predictor of flares and CME's, yes or no? Stop dodging. Stop weaving around. Just answer those questions *HONESTLY* (for a change).

The lie is in you stating that the papers I found support your assertion that filament eruptions cause flares or CME. The papers are about the statistical association of specific sets of flares and CME with filament eruptions.

Good questions though
Michael Mozina:
Did you read any of the later papers that CITED that paper from 30 years ago? Yes. or no?
Are filament eruptions a valid predictor of flares and CME's according to your data? Show your working: Can you post your list of predictions and the results

Stop dodging. Stop weaving around. Just answer those questions *HONESTLY* (for a change): Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

ETA:
There were a lot of papers published "30 years ago". It would be polite to give a link to the paper. It would be polite to give links to the papers the CITED that paper.

ETA2: Maybe Physical aspects of the prediction of solar flares (Nov 1984)?

ETA3: Or Disappearing solar filaments - A useful predictor of geomagnetic activity (published in 1981 !)