CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

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.

Do you even KNOW how to tell the truth?
The irrational BS is your inability to understand what I wrote about.
You were unaware of the scientific literature on the statistical correlation between filament eruptions and flares or CME until I cited it to you.

You have provided no evidence that your "technique" works or predicts flares any better than guessing.

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

More lies: Can you post your list of predictions and the results
What's the point of talking to you?
Answer - so that lurkers can determin the nature of your "science" and "evidence".

 

[Reality Check]

Have you read any of the citations to the Joselyn & McIntosh 1981 paper

Good questions though
Michael Mozina:
Did you read any of the later papers that CITED that paper from 30 years ago? Yes. or no?
...
Stop dodging. Stop weaving around. Just answer those questions *HONESTLY* (for a change): Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

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

Micheal Mozina
First asked 1 November 2010
You seem to think that reading the citations to the Disappearing solar filaments - A useful predictor of geomagnetic activity paper is important for some reason.
Thus I will make this a formal question for you:
Have you read any of the citations to the Joselyn & McIntosh 1981 paper?

FYI: I have.

 

[GeeMack]

The "lies" begin and end with your claim that this method has not been supported.

Your persistent desire to call me a liar is noted. I'm saying you claim to have a quantitative objective method for using dark filament eruptions to "predict" CMEs. That is not a lie. I'm saying you have never described your method, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively. That is not a lie, either. Accusing me of lying without directly supporting your claim is a personal attack and is against the rules of this forum. Are you trying to get banned like you have been from so many other forums before?

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).

There is much reference material on this subject, Michael. It might improve the chances of succeeding with what is now a completely failed argument if you'd become familiar with some of it. Not only have I read the papers Reality Check linked, but I've researched enough other sources to know that your claims don't seem to be supported by contemporary research. That's why I keep asking you to support your own claims. It seems you're the only one who can. But for some reason you won't.

And this notion you keep expressing that I or anyone else is responsible for doing your homework is ludicrous. Do you have some kind of handicap that prevents you from doing it yourself? If you're not capable and you do need other people's help, don't you think calling them liars and neglecting to ask politely is a pretty crappy way of going about it?

And if you don't have some kind of reading problem or learning disability, let's go right back to your elementary scientific qualifications, shall we? What grade were you in when you learned that the person making a claim is responsible for supporting the claim? How old were you? Has the lesson been forgotten and maybe overdue for a review? Or did you ever learn it?

Now how about you describe that quantitative objective method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs? Explain your numbers, quantify all your data, show your calculations, and explain the method so it can be objectively applied independently by other people so they can get the same results you get and come to the same conclusions you've reached. Otherwise you do not have the method you claim to have and the honest thing to do is admit that you do not.

 

[Reality Check]

Just looked at another paper citing Disappearing solar filaments - A useful predictor of geomagnetic activity.
Except this is not a dark filament erupting!
It is not even a filament erupting!
It is a prominence eruption. Could it be that astronomers (who know a lot more about this than you and me, Michael Mozina), ignore the different names for the same thing and treat it as that thing?

Radio and X-Ray Studies of a Coronal Mass Ejection Associated with a Very Slow Prominence Eruption

We report on the observations of an X-ray coronal mass ejection (CME) with its three part structure: frontal loop, coronal cavity, and the eruptive prominence core. The prominence core was observed in microwaves, and the frontal loop was observed in X-rays. A coronal volume much larger than that occupied by the prominence seems to be affected by the eruption. Formation of an arcade structure was also observed beneath the erupting prominence. X-ray enhancement at the arcade persisted for several hours similar to long decay events. At the apex of the arcade there was a bright knot, which we interpret as the reconnection region from which the filament gets detached. We determined the trajectories of the frontal loop and the prominence core and found them to have very different characteristics. The CME showed an extremely small acceleration, while the prominence had a linear motion in the beginning followed by an exponential rise. However, during the several hours of simultaneous observation, the prominence did not catch up with the frontal loop. We determined the evolution of the CME mass, which increased by a factor of 4 during our observations. We discuss the implications of the observations in the general context of coronal mass ejections.

This confirms what I suspected (and what you provided no evidence for): Prominence (or filament) eruptions provide some of the mass of CME, i.e. it looks like (to me) there is a core area that is from the prominence, a cavity and then a frontal loop formed from other material. The mass of the core and loop are found to be about the same (page 357).

The surprise for me was that the CME mass increased in mass with time.

We can think of two essential explanations of mass addition to the CME loop. In the first one, the heated prominence material might have become part of the CME by some unknown means. Second, chromospheric material might have flown into the legs and heated to the coronal temperature.

It would be interesting to see if there has been any progress on that process snce 1997.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You were unaware of the scientific literature on the statistical correlation between filament eruptions and flares or CME until I cited it to you.

That is simply a blatently *UNTRUE STATEMENT* RC. I had not read *THAT ONE PARTICULAR PAPER* that you cited (the first paper) until you posted it. That is what I told you. I had read *MANY* other papers on that topic over the years (because my education didn't end in college), but I had not read that *ONE* paper. So what? That doesn't mean I was unaware of their value and the relationship to CME's! You're making this up as you go. I actually *USED THE TECHNIQUE* to successfully predict those filament eruption flares and CME's in *REAL TIME*. I could *not* have done that if I didn't understand the filament/flare connection *BEFORE* the conversation began. You statements are simply irrational nonsense.

It's going to be a busy week at work for me, and frankly I need a break from the twilight zone for awhile. You two are *IMPOSSIBLE*. You evidently don't read the links you cite, you don't care what they say, you don't care about the history behind the whole process of flare prediction via filament eruptions. You don't care to represent my statements accurately, or anything I've said in this thread accurately.

All you two seem to care about is arguing and misrepresenting everything that has gone on here, including that little gem you tossed out yesterday about how *NONE* of my predictions were right as far as you knew. This is a pointless conversation because neither or you cares to actually discuss topic openly, honestly, and with the *INTENT* on finding agreement.

You have provided no evidence that your "technique" works or predicts flares any better than guessing.

This is pure denial on your part. You "guessed" on your 48 hour x-ray flare prediction and came up with zip to show for it. I didn't guess and I came out with 1 M class and 4 C class flares. That's the difference between "guessing" and "careful observation"'. You two wouldn't know anything about "careful observation" because you don't care to even look at the pretty pictures. SDO is wasted on you and GM, but fortunately it's not wasted on everyone.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Now how about you describe that quantitative objective method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs? Explain your numbers, quantify all your data, show your calculations, and explain the method so it can be objectively applied independently by other people so they can get the same results you get and come to the same conclusions you've reached. Otherwise you do not have the method you claim to have and the honest thing to do is admit that you do not.

Until there is an honest attempt to respond to this request, this thread remains a waste of time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Until there is an honest attempt to respond to this request, this thread remains a waste of time.

What do you think those papers describe PS? Do you even bother reading *ANY* of them?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do you think my methods would be "unique" compared to any other filament eruption prediction technique?

 

[GeeMack]

Why do you think my methods would be "unique" compared to any other filament eruption prediction technique?

Franky, Michael, nobody believes for a moment that your claim to have an objective quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs is even remotely true.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What do you think those papers describe PS? Do you even bother reading *ANY* of them?

OK, I just took you off *IGNORE* to see if there has been any real attempt to comply with GeeMack's request. Perhaps, because you have been on *IGNORE* for some weeks now, I missed the acknowledgement by anyone that you did provide the specifics of your method. So please tell me what "papers" describe:

"...that quantitative objective method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs? Explain your numbers, quantify all your data, show your calculations, and explain the method so it can be objectively applied independently by other people so they can get the same results you get and come to the same conclusions you've reached...."

so that I can see for myself.

I will keep you off *IGNORE* so that I can read these "papers" and promptly apologize to you for my error. This should really be enlightening!

 

[Reality Check]

That is simply a blatently *UNTRUE STATEMENT* RC. I had not read *THAT ONE PARTICULAR PAPER* that you cited (the first paper) until you posted it. That is what I told you. I had read *MANY* other papers on that topic over the years (because my education didn't end in college), but I had not read that *ONE* paper. So what?

That is simply a blatently *UNSUPPORTED STATEMENT* MM.

If you had read papers on the topic then

1. You would have cited them beforehand.
2. You would have cited them in this post.

That doesn't mean I was unaware of their value and the relationship to CME's! You're making this up as you go. I actually *USED THE TECHNIQUE* to successfully predict those filament eruption flares and CME's in *REAL TIME*.

Another blatently *UNSUPPORTED STATEMENT* MM: You have provided no evidence that you *USED THE TECHNIQUE* in any paper. Once more if you had literature with the technique you use then:

1. You would have cited them beforehand.
2. You would have cited them in this post.

I could *not* have done that if I didn't understand the filament/flare connection *BEFORE* the conversation began. You statements are simply irrational nonsense.

Your statements are simply irrational nonsense: You have presented no evidence that you knew about any "filament/flare connection" *BEFORE* the conversation began.

Once more:

1. You would have cited the evidence beforehand.
2. You would have cited the evidence in this post.

All you have presented so far is your opinion (apparently from looking at images) that filament eruptions and flares are connected. That happens to be true - there is a statistcal correlation between them. But then you go off the rails by assuming a causal relationship between them.

Personally, I am prepared to accept that given that there is a mechanism by which a filament eruption can cause a flare, a filament eruption can cause a flare. The problem is that you give no such mechanism. Thus it is possible that there is another mechanism that causes both the filament eruption and the flare, i.e. the eruption is not the cause of the flare.

You evidently don't read the links you cite, you don't care what they say, you don't care about the history behind the whole process of flare prediction via filament eruptions. You don't care to represent my statements accurately, or anything I've said in this thread accurately.

What a bunch of *UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS*:

1. I have read as much of the literature that I have cited that I have access to.
2. I do care what they say.
3. I do care about the history behind the whole process of flare prediction.
4. I do try to represent your statements accurately.
   I do make mistakes. But that is the beauty of an internet forum - anyone can read what you write. If I make a mistake just point people to the post that I misinterpreted.

This is a pointless conversation because neither or you cares to actually discuss topic openly, honestly, and with the *INTENT* on finding agreement.

This is a not a pointless conversation because it allows us to point out to lurkers that you do not care to actually discuss the topic openly or honestly, e.g.

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

As for "with the *INTENT* on finding agreement" - I *INTEND* on evaluating the evidence.

If you do not present the evidence then I *INTEND* not to agree with you because your track record is full of things that make your opinion untrustworthy, e.g.

• The continued fantasy that the Sun has an iron surface/crust when the temperature of the Sun is greater than the boiling point of iron.
• The many mistakes you have made in interpreting solar images
• The inability to understand that negative pressure is a simple consequence of the definition of pressure, i.e. By defintion: replusive forces create positive pressure, attractive forces create negative pressure.

If the evidence that is found does not agree with you then I *INTEND* not to agree with you.
If that evidence does agree with you then I *INTEND* to agree with you.

I didn't guess and I came out with 1 M class and 4 C class flares.

You did guess:

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

As far as I recall you predicted activity from the most active region on the Sun. You got activity. That is what anyone would expect. It is a trivial consequence of the fact that the active region is active !
Claiming those 5 flares as your prediction is frankly inane unless your prediciton actually was 1 M class and 4 C class flares.

 

[Perpetual Student]

When backed into a corner, Mozina consistently vanishes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When backed into a corner, Mozina consistently vanishes.

Er, no, when it gets really busy at work, you take a back seat for awhile. It's nothing personal, I just have bills to pay and real work to do sometimes.

FYI, these "percentages" and "maths" you folks are so interested in aren't always particularly useful when "predicting" solar events. For instance:

http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

The likelihood of an M class flare from the active region 11121, based on current prediction methods was 0 percent. The likelihood of even a C class flare was 3 percent. Unfortunately for their "method", 11121 produced an M class flare today, and it fact that active region has been active for almost an entire cycle now. That's the same region that produced the last M class flare on our side of the sun.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Er, no, when it gets really busy at work, you take a back seat for awhile. It's nothing personal, I just have bills to pay and real work to do sometimes.

FYI, these "percentages" and "maths" you folks are so interested in aren't always particularly useful when "predicting" solar events. For instance:

http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

The likelihood of an M class flare from the active region 11121, based on current prediction methods was 0 percent. The likelihood of even a C class flare was 3 percent. Unfortunately for their "method", 11121 produced an M class flare today, and it fact that active region has been active for almost an entire cycle now. That's the same region that produced the last M class flare on our side of the sun.

OK, then, fair enough. I am looking forward to when you are free to direct me to those "papers" that describe and explain:

"...that quantitative objective method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs? Explain your numbers, quantify all your data, show your calculations, and explain the method so it can be objectively applied independently by other people so they can get the same results you get and come to the same conclusions you've reached...."

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, then, fair enough. I am looking forward to when you are free to direct me to those "papers" that describe and explain:

Okey Dokey. I'm hoping I have time to address at least part of it over the weekend.

In the mean time, perhaps you could explain to me why those beloved quantified "prediction" methods related to EM flare predictions were so terribly, horribly, unsuccessful at even properly classifying the danger level of the two active regions on our side of the sun?

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

11121 has already produced two M class flares today, along with 1 small C class flare, and it has the potential to continue to do that kind of thing for several days. The current "quantification methods" are 'pretty good' IMO, but they are in fact rather limited as well, mostly by the fact that they are based on sunspot arrangements rather than EUV photon output techniques.

That active region in the southern hemisphere is "dangerous" and will continue to be that way for awhile, and in fact it has been active for almost an entire rotation. There's no logical reason to think it's going to suddenly become dormant anytime soon.

FYI I read a funny article today that I found to be rather ironic. Any mathematical deficiency that you might irrationally heap upon me personally (for whatever reason) can evidently be "cured" with a little electrical current. I'm not sure what the cure might be for a lack of pure observational skills related to those pretty little pictures that is so prevalent in my detractors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11692799

IMO there is room for both a mathematical (quantified) prediction approach to solar flare prediction, but there is no substitute for careful observation, and a clear understanding of the cause/effect relationships that generate the flares and CME's.

I think you could tag 11121 with a 53 percent likelihood of C class or better flares for the rest of the week and be right every single day.

What would be more "impressive" IMO is the ability to discern the HOUR of each of those flares. I'm not quite there yet, but I am making some progress.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You did guess:

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

As far as I recall you predicted activity from the most active region on the Sun. You got activity. That is what anyone would expect. It is a trivial consequence of the fact that the active region is active !
Claiming those 5 flares as your prediction is frankly inane unless your prediciton actually was 1 M class and 4 C class flares.

This is a completely bogus argument. Prior to the 'prediction' I made, that active region had not produced even 1 C class flare for several days that it had been in view. There had not been a single C class flare for 12 days prior to the event, and there had not been a single M Class or better flare in almost 90 days prior to that event.

As long as you continue to misrepresent what happened, what is the point of trying to discuss this issue with you?

There's no way that 11121 should have a "3" percent chance to produce a C class flare today. Why in the world would anyone *LOOKING AT THE PRETTY PICTURES* ever think such a thing? That region hasn't stopped being active since it blew it's top right (20 minutes or so) before I PREDICTED IT WOULD DO SO.

The bottom line is that current x-ray flare prediction (quantified predictions) methods are based upon a sunspot *CORRELATION* to flares rather than upon careful observation of EUV photon output and upon a clear understanding of the cause/effect relationships that actually generate flares.

Anyone that even applied your basic logic of "active regions stay active" would not have predicted a 3 percent chance of a C class flare today and a zero percent chance of an M class flare today.

Any "prediction" that is based upon common sense and/or careful observation would have done a better job "predicting" those big flares today. Your emotional attachment to "quantification" is leading you down a primrose path that has nothing to do with observational reality. The "reality" is that we've seen two large flares from 11121 so far today, and it remains active. Any "prediction" based on common sense and observation would expect that it will continue to generate C or better flares for quite awhile. Only a "blind quantified approach" would predict a ZERO chance of a large flare, and only a 3 percent chance of a C flare.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The arcade of coronal loops above 11121 are massive

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0211.mpg

11121 has generated a *MASSIVE* and sustained arcade of coronal loops that rise high into the solar atmosphere. That is the same region that produced the M class flare I predicted on the last cycle, and it's continued to be active since that event. It's also the same region that generated at least one large CME on the backside of the sun. I has produced a lot of C or better class flares over the past 3 days or so. It very likely that 11121 will continue to produce C or better flares for at least several more days. With arcades of those sizes, flares tend to be common. I'd say there there is a better than 50 percent chance of more C class flares from that region over the next few days, and probably a 25-30 percent chance of more M or better flares as well. It's certainly been active for a very long time. It is highly unlikely it's going to suddenly go quiet with all that loop activity we observe above that region.

 

[GeeMack]

But still no admission that you simply invented your claim to have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. You know, since we all know you made it up, why don't you acknowledge that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But still no admission that you simply invented your claim to have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.

Why would I "admit" something that isn't true?

You know, since we all know you made it up, why don't you acknowledge that?

The only thing that I personally "made up" are a few of my own methods of classification. I'm certain that's going to be an "issue" for you personally, but its the only way to accurately classify them (and their eruption potential) IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I can "eyeball" an active region like 11121 and do a hell of a better job "quantifying" it's flare potential than the current methods. For all your love of quantification techniques, they were absolutely and totally useless today in terms of predicting solar events. Wow, I'm really impressed with your beloved quantification techniques.....NOT!