CME's, active regions and high energy flares

GeeMack said:
You simply do not possess the qualifications to support your opinion on any issue relating to solar imagery.
Click to expand...

Boloney. I've already correctly "predicted" both EM and filament eruption driven flares/CME's in real time in this thread. Those 1600A images are congruent with *MY* interpretations of solar images, but they *DESTROY* LMSAL's position entirely. The mass flows begin *under* the photosphere, not in some mythical "transition region in the sky".
 
Michael Mozina said:
A) Filament eruptions come in at least two types, a "classic" (full filament) type, and a "partial' eruption, where 'some' material is ejected.
Click to expand...
Yes we can agree - see the Tang paper (Du h:)).
What relevance this has to your guesses I do not know

Michael Mozina said:
B) Filament eruptions can erupt up or down.
C) Filament eruptions are often preceded or associated with a "brightening process".
Click to expand...
No we cannot agree.
No citations + a track record of being wrong means that I will assume that you are continuing to be wrong.

What does "erupt down" mean?
An eruption is basically a heating of the filament plasma. I would expect that this would always result in the plasma going up. Some plasma will descend because there is an associated reconfiguration of the magnetic fields that provide the buoyancy of the plasma.

What is the literture on your "brightening process"? What is this really called?
​
 
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. I've already correctly "predicted" both EM and filament eruption driven flares/CME's in real time in this thread. Those 1600A images are congruent with *MY* interpretations of solar images, but they *DESTROY* LMSAL's position entirely. The mass flows begin *under* the photosphere, not in some mythical "transition region in the sky".
Click to expand...


You do not possess the qualifications necessary to understand what appears in any solar imagery, and consequently you do not possess the qualifications necessary to make any sort of valid analysis of any solar imagery.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...


So you're admitting that you do not have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, and that you are just now attempting to develop a method. You could have saved yourself literally hundreds of posts if you would have started there on like the very first page.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. I've already correctly "predicted" both EM and filament eruption driven flares/CME's in real time in this thread. Those 1600A images are congruent with *MY* interpretations of solar images, but they *DESTROY* LMSAL's position entirely. The mass flows begin *under* the photosphere, not in some mythical "transition region in the sky".
Click to expand...
Boloney.
LMSAL does not have the position. Every astronomer in the world (except for a few cranks) has the poistion that the mass flows from filament eruptions start above the photosphere because that is obviously what happens.
 
GeeMack said:
So you're admitting that you do not have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, and that you are just now attempting to develop a method.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said, nor is that what I'm doing. I'm trying to pin *you and RC* down so that you will *COMMIT* to the legitimacy of the METHOD one step at a time. Please answer A-C for us. Stop stalling.
 
Reality Check said:
Yes we can agree - see the Tang paper (Du h:)).
What relevance this has to your guesses I do not know
Click to expand...

In order to quantify anything we will need to create "categories" like we do with sunspots.

No we cannot agree.
No citations + a track record of being wrong means that I will assume that you are continuing to be wrong.

What does "erupt down" mean?​
Click to expand...


It means that no material erupts away from the surface but rather it erupts into the surface. In other words, not all eruptions move material away from the sun.

An eruption is basically a heating of the filament plasma. I would expect that this would always result in the plasma going up.
Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong.

Some plasma will descend because there is an associated reconfiguration of the magnetic fields that provide the buoyancy of the plasma.
Click to expand...

It freely moves up and down depending on local conditions. There isn't a guarantee that filament will erupt outward.

What is the literture on your "brightening process"? What is this really called?
Click to expand...

Besides Tang's paper? It's really called a "discharge" inside of a plasma. :)​
 
Michael Mozina said:
In order to quantify anything we will need to create "categories" like we do with sunspots.
Click to expand...
No we do not.
You have to create "categories".
You should have already created "categories" in order to produce predictions. Thus you are just about admitting that you have lied about producing predictions, i.e. that all you are doing is guessing :D.

Michael Mozina said:
It means that no material erupts away from the surface but rather it erupts into the surface. In other words, not all eruptions move material away from the sun.
Click to expand...
We still do not agree.
No citations + a track record of being wrong means that I will assume that you are continuing to be wrong.
​
Michael Mozina said:
Then you would be wrong.
Click to expand...
If you say that I am wroing then I must be right :D !
We still do not agree.
No citations + a track record of being wrong means that I will assume that you are continuing to be wrong.
​
Michael Mozina said:
It freely moves up and down depending on local conditions. There isn't a guarantee that filament will erupt outward.
Click to expand...
We still do not agree.
No citations + a track record of being wrong means that I will assume that you are continuing to be wrong.
​
Michael Mozina said:
Besides Tang's paper? It's really called a "discharge" inside of a plasma. :)
Click to expand...
Lie: The Tang paper does not contain the word "discharge", even inside quotes.
Ignorance: There are no discharges inside of plasmas. Plasmas conduct, discharges require the breakdown of an insulating medium.

The points that you need to understand (try reading the bits in bold above) are
  1. You give no evidence for your assertions.
  2. You have a track record of being wrong.
These 2 factors mean that you need citations to the literature before I (and probably GeeMack) will even consider agreeing with you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, that is not what I said, nor is that what I'm doing. I'm trying to pin *you and RC* down so that you will *COMMIT* to the legitimacy of the METHOD one step at a time. Please answer A-C for us. Stop stalling.
Click to expand...


I am not the person who made the unsupported claim to have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. You made that claim. It is not my responsibility to support that claim. It is your responsibility to support that claim. This is eleven year old kid stuff, Michael. Children know this stuff. Is there some particular reason you refuse to take your responsibility to support your claim?

Elementary school kid science lesson:

In the world of legitimate science, as opposed to crackpot science where lying and pretending to be all sciency seem to dominate the arguments of the crackpots, in the world of legitimate science when a person makes a claim, he takes the responsibility for supporting it, and when it becomes clear that he is unable to support the claim, he has the decency, honesty, and integrity to admit that he cannot support it. That is in the world of legitimate science. Crackpots do things quite differently. That's part of the reason we call them crackpots.​

Learn it. Study it. Repeat it again and again until you understand it.

You may now decide if you're willing to proceed as a crackpot would by lying and pretending to be all sciency, or if you're willing to engage in a legitimately scientific discussion which would require that you either describe your quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs, or have the honesty, decency, and integrity to admit that you have no such method.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Besides Tang's paper?
Click to expand...
Citing Tang does not help your unsupported assertion B:
The two types of flare-associated filament eruptions by F. Tang (1986).
Using years of high resolution solar footage obtained at Big Bear Solar Observatory flare associated filament eruptions were studied. In addition to the classical type eruption consisting of expansion and breakup, evidence was found of another type where a layer is shed from the filament and erupts while the inversion line filament below (or, what is left of it) remains in place. Both types of eruptions are presented. It is hoped that the new evidence will shed new light on the understanding of the role of filaments in flares.
Click to expand...
So filament eruptions involve expansion and layer shedding.
It is almost as if the word eruption means that something erupts away from the Sun!
 
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...

What? I claim no expertise in this area. You said that you have a method for predicting CMEs. So you have been asked to give us a scientific description of that method. Can you do so or not? If you cannot do so, I will simply put you back on "ignore" and leave it at that. So what is it: yes or no?
 
Perpetual Student said:
What? I claim no expertise in this area. You said that you have a method for predicting CMEs. So you have been asked to give us a scientific description of that method.
Click to expand...

And I have in fact started to do so by describing two types of filament eruptions and noting one of the relevant "properties" of the filaments.

The question becomes *WHY* should I bother to do that here on this website when not a single one of you is actually interested in it?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In other words *WE* don't want to have an actual scientific discussion or attempt to find "truth", *WE* just want to argue, argue, argue, forever and ever, is that it?

We are not worth MY time.
Click to expand...
*WE* want to have a actual scientific discussion with you about *YOUR* theory.
*YOU* cannot browbeat *US* into doing *YOUR* work for *YOU*. *WE* are free to not do this.
*WE* are under no obligation to help *YOU* create a theory that *YOU* say that you are already using to make predictions :jaw-dropp!
*WE* are under no obligation to help *YOU* create a new theory that *YOU* can use to make predictions.

Thank you for confirming (again) that your predictions are just guesses:
Reality Check said:
No we do not.
You have to create "categories".
You should have already created "categories" in order to produce predictions. Thus you are just about admitting that you have lied about producing predictions, i.e. that all you are doing is guessing :D.
Click to expand...

*WE* will argue, argue, argue, until *YOU* present the evidence for *YOUR* theory.
We already know (from your track record) that are not worth ANYONE's time.
There are some reasons that I particpate in one of your mega-threads though:
  • You are too lazy to post citations or maybe do the relevant literature research. The first citation to literature in this thread was from me.
    It is sometimes interesting to do the literature research myself since I come across areas of science that have advanced from my far off university days.
  • We may educate lurkers about science.
  • We definitely educate lurkers about you, Michael Mozina.
  • As a permanent record of your behavior and ideas for the world to see.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually this whole conversation is totally bogus because not a single one of you is actually the least bit interested in finding truth.
Click to expand...
Actually this whole conversation is totally bogus because you are under the delusion that you can force us to do your work for you.

If you want to discuss your method of prediction then you have to tell us what that method of prediction is in specific terms. So far all we have from you is the trivial
  • Michael Mozina says that this is a highly active region.
  • That highly active region produces activity exactly as expected from a highly active region.
The first step is your own personal interpertation of solar images. We will not just take the word of a somone who has a track record of looking at images and misinterpreting them. You have probably not noticed this but this is the science section of a skeptics forum. You need to produce some evidence that you are not misinterpretig the solar images yet again.
The second step is the trival part. It is like predicting that there will be wet days in winter.

FYI: I actually think that someone can look at solar images and deduce what the most active region is. Scientists though have ways to determine this using measured properties of the Sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
And I have in fact started to do so by describing two types of filament eruptions and noting one of the relevant "properties" of the filaments.

The question becomes *WHY* should I bother to do that here on this website when not a single one of you is actually interested in it?
Click to expand...


We would be interested in hearing you support your claim that you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs by actually describing that method. Alternatively we would be interested in you displaying the honesty, integrity, and decency to admit that you have no such method.

We would be interested in hearing your explanation of your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs, including fully quantitative descriptions of the relevant data and citations to actual qualified scientific material that supports your claim. Alternatively we would be interested in hearing your admission that you are unable to support that claim with anything other than arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, your unqualified guessing about what you see in solar imagery, and your unqualified opinion.

We clearly aren't terribly interested in hearing you talk all sciency and/or spouting nonsense, lies, and unqualified unsupported assertions like a common crackpot might do. We aren't interested in more of your failed arguments, more of your claims to having qualifications you can't demonstrate, more of your dishonest attempts to shift the burden of proof, or more of your intentional efforts to avoid addressing the direct requests for you to support your claims. We aren't interested in seeing any more of your guesses. If we want to find current legitimately scientific predictions of various solar activity, we can find that information on a handful of web sites and through other resources developed from decades of scientific research and assembled by people who actually are qualified in solar physics.

As to why you should bother, well if you don't have the quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs that you've claimed so many times to have, and if you lack the honesty, decency, and integrity to admit that you don't, then you shouldn't bother. If you don't have the legitimately scientific explanation for your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs, and aren't willing or able to do the scientifically correct thing and renounce that claim, then you shouldn't bother.
 
Michael Mozina said:
11121 Esi 49(90) 5(50) 0(5)

And for the record, your ever so beloved quantification techniques were 90 percent wrong today (again).

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/plots/xray/20101108_xray.gif

I copied and pasted the numbers this time in case they change again after the fact as I've seen them do already once this week.
Click to expand...
Once again you are wrong. They did not change after the fact. You did not know what you wre looking at.
Reality Check said:
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?
Click to expand...
But at least you can copy and paste correctly:
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)
8 Nov: 11121 Esi 49(90) 5(50) 0(5)
​
FYI: Michael Mozina, 90% means 1 chance in 10 of being wrong. It does not mean 100% chance of being right. Only a truly ignorant person attempts to do statistics with a sample size of 1.
If I was that ignorant I would look at the previous day and say:
  • Prediction: NOAA predicted 99% for a C class flare that day.
  • Outcome: A C class flare.
  • Result: The method is 99% right.
or
  • Prediction: NOAA predicted 85% for an M class flare.
  • Outcome: An M class flare.
  • Result: The method is 85% right.
or
  • Prediction: NOAA predicted 20% for aa X class flare.
  • Outcome: No X class flare.
  • Result: The method is 20% wrong.
Or go back another day to the 6th:
  • Prediction: 9(99) 1(85) 0(20)
  • Outcome: 2 C, 1 M
  • Result: The method works for C and M flares.
Or go back another day to the 5th:
  • Prediction: 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)
  • Outcome: 1 M
  • Result: The method works for M flares.
These are daily predictions. You have to collect statistics over multiple days and compare them to the predicted probabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom