CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Michael Mozina said:
Why would I "admit" something that isn't true?



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.
Click to expand...


So you don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. Got it. At least it's honest, finally, that you've backed off on both claims, the one about dark filaments causing CMEs and the one about having a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, that's not what I said. You clearly don't "get" anything except how to "twist" my words like a pretzel to suit yourself.
Click to expand...


If you do have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, why don't you describe it? Is there some particular reason you continue to refuse to do that?
 
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

Ya, well I'm waiting to hear how 11121 went from a 0 percent chance of a M class flare this morning to a 70 percent chance this afternoon, particularly since the flare McIntosh classification stayed the same. :) I guess it's easy to simply fudge those numbers after the fact eh? :) LOL!
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

Ya, well I'm waiting to hear how 11121 went from a 0 percent chance of a M class flare this morning to a 70 percent chance this afternoon, particularly since the flare McIntosh classification stayed the same. :) I guess it's easy to simply fudge those numbers after the fact eh? :) LOL!
Click to expand...

Well. I'm not sure of the significance of the above (pardon my ignorance), but I am still eagerly waiting for:
"...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...."
Click to expand...
 
Perpetual Student said:
Well. I'm not sure of the significance of the above (pardon my ignorance), but I am still eagerly waiting for:
"...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...."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Given Michael's abject refusal to describe his objective, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs, I think it's reasonable to accept that he was lying when he made that claim and fair to proceed as if he has no such method.

So there are two of his claims that can be rejected as unsupportable. The claim that dark filaments cause CMEs and the claim that he has an objective quantitative method for predicting CMEs.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Well. I'm not sure of the significance of the above (pardon my ignorance), but I am still eagerly waiting for:
Click to expand...

Well, in case you were curious about it's significance, consider the following. When I woke up in the morning that 11121 active region was classified as having only a 3 percent chance of even a C class flare and no (0) chance of an M class flare. The system of "prediction" seems to be more of a "postdiction" process. Later in the day, the numbers were raised to a "reasonable" level considering the activity of that region over the last several weeks, not to mention the fact it had already produced two M class flares by the time it was changed. :)

You'll have to hang on to your horses a bit. I'm looking at the "best" way to present the filament eruption materials and I'll have to round up links I haven't looked up in years. Chill out.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

In the mean time, you might take a gander at the 1600A images of the sun from yesterday the 5th, particularly around 04:55:88. You'll notice that the mass EJECTION started *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere and it's spewing materials UP, and THROUGH that surface. The 1700A images show a similar effect on the surface of the photosphere, but it's a lot more dramatic in 1600A. You should pause the frame at 04:55:88 and take a good look at that image.

The laws of physics insist that that materials blowing away from the surface seen in 1600A originated *UNDER* that surface and blew parts of that surface into the corona. LMSAL's belief about the flare originating in the corona is pure bunk. It *MUST* start BELOW the photosphere and ERUPT THROUGH the photosphere as we already observe in 1600A. Many flares start BELOW the photosphere and come up THROUGH the photosphere as that image I mentioned demonstrates very clearly.

The white light images we've been through in other threads showed a similar pattern by the way. It's just more dramatic in 1600A. I love that filter. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You'll have to hang on to your horses a bit. I'm looking at the "best" way to present the filament eruption materials and I'll have to round up links I haven't looked up in years. Chill out.
Click to expand...


How about you chill out? Remember, your claims have been rejected as unsupportable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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. ...
Click to expand...
This is a completely bogus argument.
Your "predictions" have nothing to do with the past activity of the active region. It is you "eyeballing" the Sun and guessing that what you (and only you since you cannot explain how anyone else can do what you do) see has some meaning.

Michael Mozina said:
As long as you continue to misrepresent what happened, what is the point of trying to discuss this issue with you?
...usual rant snipped...
Click to expand...
Ditto: As long as you continue to misrepresent what happened, what is the point of trying to discuss this issue with you?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
An easy question to answer: The Sun is a complex, chaotic system.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php

Ya, well I'm waiting to hear how 11121 went from a 0 percent chance of a M class flare this morning to a 70 percent chance this afternoon, particularly since the flare McIntosh classification stayed the same. :) I guess it's easy to simply fudge those numbers after the fact eh? :) LOL!
Click to expand...
Because you cannot read? :)
Firstly:
5 Nov: 11121 Axx 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)
6 Nov: 11121 Cro 9(99) 1(85) 0(20)
7 Nov: 11121 Eai 43(99) 19(85) 1(20)
Note the changing McIntosh classification.
​
Secondly: The probability based on the McIntosh classification is the first number. The second number is
NOTE: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. The most recent data can also be found at NOAA's 3-day Space Weather Predictions page
Click to expand...
Neither number went from 0 to 70.

:) I guess it's easy to simply misterpret those numbers during the fact eh? :) LOL!
In fact:
:dl:
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Yet 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?

Can you post your list of predictions and the results?
(1 November 2010)
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you read any of the citations to the Joselyn & McIntosh 1981 paper?
(1 November 2010)
 
Perpetual Student said:
Well. I'm not sure of the significance of the above (pardon my ignorance), but I am still eagerly waiting for:
Click to expand...

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/tang.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg

If we are going to have a meaningful discussion on this topic (and I'm not convinced this is even the right venue for such a thing), the first thing you'll have to note is that there are at least two distinct types of filament eruptions, a "classical" eruption where the whole filament erupts (either up or down), and a second type of eruption as was observed recently by SDO and is described in Tang's paper from 1986, complete with H-alpha images. Both type of eruptions can or do result in a "brightening" of the filament (which I will have to settle for at the moment) that is caused by the "current flow" inside the filament.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Because you cannot read? :)
Click to expand...

Oh no RC, I know *EXACTLY* what I read both in the morning (for several hours by the way) and what I read in the afternoon. I must say I'm much less impressed with it's "postdictive" mathematical predictive properties than I used to be. :(
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/tang.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg

If we are going to have a meaningful discussion on this topic (and I'm not convinced this is even the right venue for such a thing), the first thing you'll have to note is that there are at least two distinct types of filament eruptions, a "classical" eruption where the whole filament erupts (either up or down), and a second type of eruption as was observed recently by SDO and is described in Tang's paper from 1986, complete with H-alpha images. Both type of eruptions can or do result in a "brightening" of the filament (which I will have to settle for at the moment) that is caused by the "current flow" inside the filament.
Click to expand...


So you've abandoned your claims that you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. And you've abandoned your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Oh no RC, I know *EXACTLY* what I read both in the morning (for several hours by the way) and what I read in the afternoon. I must say I'm much less impressed with it's "postdictive" mathematical predictive properties than I used to be. :(
Click to expand...
No MM, the web site shows that you *EXACTLY* either
  • did understand what you read (for several hours by the way) or
  • have a bad memory or
  • are lying.
This is what it contains:
5 Nov: 11121 Axx 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)
6 Nov: 11121 Cro 9(99) 1(85) 0(20)
7 Nov: 11121 Eai 43(99) 19(85) 1(20)
Note the changing McIntosh classification.
So you are mistaken or lying about the McIntosh classification being the same. It is evaluated and can change whenever SolarMonitor make their daily prediction, i.e. once a day.
​
At no point does a prediction go from 0% to 70%
So you are mistaken or lying about the change in the prediction.
​
I go for mistaken: Look at 5 Nov. See the "0(70)", Micheal Mozina?

It looks like you have been looking at the prediction for 5 Nov (for several hours by the way :eye-poppi) and have just not understood that
  1. The McIntosh classification is not evaluated continuously. It is evaluated before they make the daily prediction. To see if it changes you need to go to the next day, e.g. 6 Nov.
  2. The first number is the SolarMonitor prediction. The second number is the NOAA prediction.
    • 0 = the SolarMonitor prediction.
    • 70 = the NOAA prediction
These are separate predictions using different methods.
I do not know how NOAA do their predictions. I am surprised at the difference between them though. SolarMonitor is consistently lower than NOAA for some reason, possibly because they are using a simpler method that can be automated for their web page.

You are definitely mistaken or lying if you think that it "postdicts" anything.
The web site explictly states that it predicts and sets out the quantitative method it uses to do that prediction.
Welcome to the Flare Prediction System. This page gives the active regions on the Sun today together with each regions probability for producing C-, M-, or X-class events. The flare probabilities were calculated using NOAA Space Environment Center data from nearly eight years of data starting November 1988 and ending June 1996. The percentage probabilities are based on the number of flares produced by regions classified using the McIntosh classification scheme (McIntosh, P., 1990, Solar Physics, 125, 251) during cycle 22. For example, between November 1988 and June 1996 there were 302 regions classified Eai. As this class produced 62 M-class events, the mean M-class flare rate is ~62/302 or ~0.21 flares per day. Assuming the number of flares per unit time is governed by Poisson statistics, we can estimate a flaring probability for the following 24-hours using P( one or more flares ) = 1 - exp( -mean ), i.e., P = 1 - exp( -0.21 ) ~ 0.19, or 19% for an Eai class region to produce one or more M-class flares in the next 24-hours. See Wheatland, M. S., 2001, Solar Physics, 203, 87 and Moon et al., 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 106(A12) 29951 for further details.
Click here for a description of the various active region classifications from the Royal Observatory of Belgium.
Click to expand...

As for you not being impressed - who cares about the opinion of someone who is doing such a trivial and unimpressive thing as eyeballing solar images and guessing the highly active regions are active :( ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom