CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...


A quantitative method, something which Michael does not have despite his continued dishonest claims to the contrary.

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 :( ?
Click to expand...


Yes, after over 650 posts in the thread not a trace of an objective quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs has been offered by Michael, therefore his guessing can be dismissed as, well, guessing.
 
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...

Still waiting.
 
Reality Check said:
I do not know how NOAA do their predictions.
Click to expand...
And to begin to answer my own implied question:What are solar flares and how does NOAA predict them?
NOAA scientists currently use NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory’s Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope to forecast solar flares. This telescope locates active solar flare regions by taking images of the sun. Larger and more complex active regions are more likely to produce a flare, so forecasters look closely at each active region in order to make their predictions.

Recently, NOAA scientist Alysha Reinard and her colleagues have found a more reliable way to predict solar flares. The new method uses a system of instruments called the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG). By using GONG, scientists can look below the surface of the sun to detect the changes in twisting magnetic fields — the more twisting that occurs, the more likely it is that the active region will produce a solar flare.

The new system is already twice as accurate as current methods; according to the scientists, the accuracy of solar flare forecasts is only expected to improve over the next few years. Their goal is to use the new GONG technique to forecast watches and warnings for the next solar maximum predicted to occur in 2013. During solar maximum, which occurs about every 11 years, all solar activity increases dramatically, including solar flares.
Click to expand...

Talking about quantitative:
QUANTITATIVE FORECASTING OF MAJOR SOLAR FLARES (2007)
We define the effective connected magnetic field, Beff, a single metric of the flaring potential in solar active regions. We calculated Beff for 298 active regions (93 X- and M-flaring, 205 nonflaring) as recorded by SOHO/MDI during a 10 yr period covering much of solar cycle 23. We find that Beff is a robust criterion for distinguishing flaring from nonflaring regions. A well-defined 12 hr conditional probability for major flares depends solely on Beff. This probability exceeds 0.95 for M-class and X-class flares if Beff>1600 G and Beff>2100 G, respectively, while the maximum calculated Beff-values are near 4000 G. Active regions do not give M-class and X-class flares if Beff<200 G and Beff<750 G, respectively. We conclude that Beff is an efficient flare-forecasting criterion that can be computed on a timely basis from readily available data.
Click to expand...

Another paper that looks interesting: Evaluating the Performance of Solar Flare Forecasting Methods
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Good paper.
The Tang paper does not mention any "current flow" inside the filament. Without supporting citations this "current flow" is a figment of your imagination.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a figment of my imagination. Birkeland and Alfven wrote all about it, and I can see it in those SDO images. For purpose of "prediction" however it looks like I will have to limit my categorization to "brightening" for the time being.

I have a new module out for my software in a "beta" mode and there are still parts of it I'm finishing this month. It's been time consuming to say the least. You guys will be the last two human beings that STILL reject an electric sun theory even after it's long been demonstrated to be true. :) You're destined to be the ultimate "flat Earthers" in terms of your scientific credibility. :) You can wait while I finish up what I'm working on.

I'm going to take this conversation *VERY SLOWLY* so that you have no "wiggle room", no place for "denial' to kick in, nothing left to chance. As you all accept each and every "category" of filament eruption and filament types, *THEN* I'll be happy to discuss numbers. Until then there is no point in just throwing out the entire methodology in one fell swoop. It would be pointless because you'd have too many ways to "complain", too many distractions to fixate on, and too much wiggle room.

Yes or no do all three of you agree upon the fact that there are at least two distinct categories of "filament eruptions"? Do you agree or disagree that filaments can erupt up or down?

All I need from the three of you to continue this discussion is for you to all agree on the following:

A) Filament eruptions come in at least two types, a "classic" (full filament) type, and a "partial' eruption, where 'some' material is ejected.
B) Filament eruptions can erupt up or down.
C) Filament eruptions are often preceded or associated with a "brightening process".

When we have agreement on those items, we will continue the quantification/categorization process.
 
Last edited:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/11/06/20101106_1024_1600.mpg

Remember that white light image we discussed awhile back?

Exactly how long do you figure that LMSAL can keep up the pretense of claiming that the eruption originates above the photosphere with 'stuff' flying off that surface by the tanker load? Sooner or later those 1600A images will force you folks to come around on that issue. The 'eruption' of mass often comes UP AND THROUGH the photosphere, carrying parts of the photosphere with it as it goes. Stop the frame at 04:50:18 and tell me where that mass flow starts, above or below the photosphere?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, it's not a figment of my imagination. Birkeland and Alfven wrote all about it, and I can see it in those SDO images. For purpose of "prediction" however it looks like I will have to limit my categorization to "brightening" for the time being.
Click to expand...
Yes it is a figment of your imagination.
As for seeing a current flow - that is definitely a delusion. No one can see an electrical current flow. The best that they can see is the effects of the current. It looks like you are ignorantly treating a plasma filament as a lightbulb filament :eye-poppi.
But that should not be surprising to us since previously you stated that the Sun emitted white light from neon in the same way as your office florescent lights (neon bulbs). In actual fact that these generate their light from mercury vapor which is converted to white light by fluorescence.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/11/06/20101106_1024_1600.mpg

Exactly how long do you figure that LMSAL can keep up the pretense of claiming that the eruption originates above the photosphere with 'stuff' flying off that surface by the tanker load?
Click to expand...
By not taking the word of a somone who has a track record of looking at images and misinterpreting them?

LMSAL are not pretending.
The simple physical facts are that filaments are seen to be above the photospehere. For example: look at the filaments on the limb of the Sun and see that they are above the photosphere. When they erupt the eruptions are above the photosphere.

Michael Mozina - it is ignorant or delusional statements like that which mean that your assertions will never be taken seriously.
 
For the record:

Tang's paper also includes *EXCELLENT* images of some of the mass flows coming up and through the photosphere.
 
Reality Check said:
Yes it is a figment of your imagination.
Click to expand...

No RC, it's been well "qualified", meaning it's been "lab tested", something you guys fear like the plague. :)

I'm not going to get distracted, let you turn this into another generic solar thread, or let you off the hook. For purposes of this discussion, related to dark filament eruptions, the term "brightening" will be fine and will work perfectly for my purposes. Answer yes or no to parts A-C so that we can proceed to categorize filament eruptions and filament types. There is no sense in talking about numbers until we all agree on basic eruption types and the basic (sometimes variable) "properties" of these filaments so that we can "categorize' them and we all agree on those "categories".
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
By not taking the word of a somone who has a track record of looking at images and misinterpreting them?

LMSAL are not pretending.
Click to expand...

Yes they certainly are, as those daily 1600A images demonstrate. That is only *ONE* of MANY such instances of 'stuff' you can see coming up and through the surface of the photosphere.

The simple physical facts are that filaments are seen to be above the photospehere. For example: look at the filaments on the limb of the Sun and see that they are above the photosphere. When they erupt the eruptions are above the photosphere.
Click to expand...

They eventually rise up into the corona too. So what? We're talking about where the mass flows "originate", not where they travel to "eventually".

Michael Mozina - it is ignorant or delusional statements like that which mean that your assertions will never be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Dude, the only one of us that is "delusional" here is you. By that I mean you see yourself as some sort of crusader against all things 'electrical' in space. Unfortunately for you, space is full of 'current flow' including those million mile per hour "current flows" you keep referring to as 'neutral' plasma. The aurora demonstrate it's not "neutral' plasma, it's "current flow" relative to any stationary object, any mass body inside the system that is capable of generating a magnetic field that separates the charges (like the Earth does every single minute of every single day).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Exactly how long do you figure that LMSAL can keep up the pretense of claiming that the eruption originates above the photosphere with 'stuff' flying off that surface by the tanker load? Sooner or later those 1600A images will force you folks to come around on that issue. The 'eruption' of mass often comes UP AND THROUGH the photosphere, carrying parts of the photosphere with it as it goes. Stop the frame at 04:50:18 and tell me where that mass flow starts, above or below the photosphere?
Click to expand...


Well you must remember that the folks at LMSAL are actually qualified to analyze solar imagery where you have never demonstrated any qualifications at that whatsoever. You have shown hundreds of times over the past six or more years that you are virtually never correct in your assessment of what you see in solar imagery. Your unqualified opinion can be dismissed as nonsense.
 
GeeMack said:
Well you must remember that the folks at LMSAL are actually qualified to analyze solar imagery where you have never demonstrated any qualifications at that whatsoever. You have shown hundreds of times over the past six or more years that you are virtually never correct in your assessment of what you see in solar imagery. Your unqualified opinion can be dismissed as nonsense.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, those 1600A images *DESTROY* LMSAL's position and ultimately their credibility too. Those mass flows come UP AND THROUGH the photosphere, not just on the 6th, but it's visible in virtually every single active region coming or going over the horizon.

I hate to break it to you but that is something they just can't hide forever.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I'm going to take this conversation *VERY SLOWLY* so that you have no "wiggle room", no place for "denial' to kick in, nothing left to chance.
Click to expand...


I'm going to take this very slowly so that you have no wiggle room, no place for denial to kick in, nothing left to chance, and no oppportunity to plead ignorance. Describe your quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. And if you do not have such a method, have the honesty for once to admit that you don't.

Also very slowly, it is not the responsibility of other people to demonstrate that your claims are true. Can you explain why it is that you appear to have never learned that?

And again very slowly, if you don't understand the words "quantitative" or "objective", just ask. Someone will try to explain them to you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Unfortunately for you, those 1600A images *DESTROY* LMSAL's position and ultimately their credibility too. Those mass flows come UP AND THROUGH the photosphere, not just on the 6th, but it's visible in virtually active region coming or going over the horizon.

I hate to break it to you but that is something they just can't hide forever.
Click to expand...


You simply do not possess the qualifications to support your opinion on any issue relating to solar imagery. Your comment can be dismissed as nonsense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I am now waiting for you, GM and RC to agree or disagree on A-C so that we can proceed to "categorize" filaments, filament eruption types and filament 'properties' of interest in flare prediction.
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand that you're responsible for supporting your own claims. Can we agree on that? And if you don't agree, demonstrate that you do have the qualifications to understand that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes they certainly are, as those daily 1600A images demonstrate. That is only *ONE* of MANY such instances of 'stuff' you can see coming up and through the surface of the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Still using your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic, Michael Mozina.

Michael Mozina said:
They eventually rise up into the coronal too. So what? We're talking about where the mass flows "originate", not where they travel to "eventually".
Click to expand...
No we are not. Read what you stated:
Exactly how long do you figure that LMSAL can keep up the pretense of claiming that the eruption originates above the photosphere with 'stuff' flying off that surface by the tanker load
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
Stuff does come out of the photosphere all of the time, e.g. light, coronal loops, etc.
Filaments though are stuff that are seen above the photosphere. They are then seen to erupt above the photosphere.
As far as I have read, the plasma in filaments seems to orginate in (or at least has a similar composition) the chromosphere. The chromosphere is above the photosphere.
But you can always cite the literature that shows that I am wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
Dude, the only one of us that is "delusional" here is you. By that I mean you see yourself as some sort of crusader against all things 'electrical' in space. Unfortunately for you, space is full of 'current flow' including those million mile per hour "current flows" you keep referring to as 'neutral' plasma. The aurora demonstrate it's not "neutral' plasma, it's "current flow" relative to any stationary object, any mass body inside the system that is capable of generating a magnetic field that separates the charges (like the Earth does every single minute of every single day).
Click to expand...
Dude, the only one of us that is "delusional" here is you. By that I mean that you have a proven track record of delustions, e.g.
  • that the Sun has a physically impossible iron surface/crust.
  • that the solar wind which has equal numbers of ions and electrons is a "current flow".
    Dude that is as ignorant (delusional since you have been persistent in this ignorance) as thinking that a block of metal floating in space is an electrical current.
The strawman of thinking that I am a "some sort of crusader against all things 'electrical' in space", is obvious. I am a "crusader" of all things electromagnetic in space.
 
GeeMack said:
I'm going to take this very slowly so that you have no wiggle room, no place for denial to kick in, nothing left to chance, and no oppportunity to plead ignorance. Describe your quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
Click to expand...


I am starting to do just that. I am starting with defining the "categories" that we will need to agree to in order to have a meaningful discussion on this topic. Answer yes or no to A-C so we can continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom