CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[GeeMack]

I guess there is just no pleasing some people. FYI, I'm not apologizing to you RC, and in fact I'm done apologizing for finding bugs in solarmonitor software.

What was their response when you notified them of the bugs in their software?

Oh, and are you ever going to do the honest thing, the legitimately scientific thing, and admit that you don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What was their response when you notified them of the bugs in their software?

What business is it of yours anyway? You do NASA and LMSAL a huge disservice IMO by making bogus claims on their behalf. The last emails I exchanged with both NASA and LMSAL have been extremely professional.

Oh, and are you ever going to do the honest thing, the legitimately scientific thing, and admit that you don't have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs?

I am not about to do that for your personal amusement in this thread. I've already explained how it's done and it's clear you aren't even actually interested in it. When I get around to writing a paper with references, I'll post a link. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you since your personal desires are not high on my priority list at the moment.

 

[Reality Check]

I guess there is just no pleasing some people. FYI, I'm not apologizing to you RC, and in fact I'm done apologizing for finding bugs in solarmonitor software.

That is totally idiotic, MM:

1. I am not asking for an apology to me (or for that matter SolarMonitor) .
2. You did not insult SolarMonitor by pointing out a timing issue in their web page updates.
3. You did insult SolarMonitor by accusing them of faking their data.

Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(6 days and counting)

 

[Reality Check]

As long as the mainstream continues to "dumb down" the concept of electromagnetism to "magnetism", it's never going to have the full picture.

So long as you continue to be deluded that the mainstream dumbs down the fact of electromagnetism, you are never going to get any of the picture.

So long as you cannot understand what Alfven stated, you are never going to get any of the picture.
Your Alfven quote is not about solar magnetic flux tubes as in the news article. It is about the transient magnetic flux tubes caused by Bennett pinches. Alfven even "dumbs down" the concept of electromagnetism to "magnetism" by using the term magnetic ropes.

As for Scientists Unlock the Secrets of Exploding Plasma Clouds on the Sun and your post

FYI, it looks like someone at NASA also realizes the importance of erupting flux ropes. I look forward to reading the full paper.

FYI: The role of erupting flux tubes in CME was proposed 20 years ago by James Chen whho happens to be the lead author of the paper:

The theory, controversial when it was first proposed in 1989 by Dr. James Chen of NRL, is based on the concept that an erupting plasma cloud is a giant "magnetic flux rope," a rope of "twisted" magnetic field lines shaped like a partial donut.

What is new is that Chen and Kunkel have a model of the eruption of magnetic flux ropes that fits the STEREO obervations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So long as you continue to be deluded that the mainstream dumbs down the fact of electromagnetism, you are never going to get any of the picture.

Ya, and when you and the mainstream embrace a cathode sun, you let me know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

]You did insult SolarMonitor by accusing them of faking their data.

Actually I accused them of having a software bug that resulted in them posting "fake" (as in erroneous) NOAA predictions and changing the posted predictions for a date twice rather than just once, the second time with *OBSERVATIONS* for that day, not *PREDICTIONS* for that day as had been the case for the first 22 hours. I am (was) correct on both counts. I'll have to wait and see if it works any better when version 2.0 comes out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_0211.jpg

FYI, there is a relatively new active region (last 24 hours) that has formed in the southern hemisphere around the 7:00 position that has been building rapidly and has a dark filament neighbor! That's a very dangerous region, and while it won't have a NOAA designation for at least another 8 minutes or so, it could erupt pretty much any time. My opinion is that we will see flares within 24-48 hours and it could result in a filament eruption type CME as well. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Make that active region number 11126.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina cannot understand that SolarMonitor always displays NOAA predictions

Actually I accused them of having a software bug that resulted in them posting "fake" (as in erroneous) NOAA predictions and changing the posted predictions for a date twice rather than just once, the second time with *OBSERVATIONS* for that day, not *PREDICTIONS* for that day as had been the case for the first 22 hours. I am (was) correct on both counts. I'll have to wait and see if it works any better when version 2.0 comes out.

ETA:
Lets add the idiocy of redefining fake as erroneous. Fake means fabricated to look like the real thing.

Actually you accused them of creating predictions after the fact.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(6 days and counting)

You are right about:
What is happening is a timing issue where the NOAA prediction for the next day is displayed on SolarMonitor web page for the 2 hours from 22:00.

But then you lie: You were and are still wrong - the NOAA *PREDICTIONS* are replaced the second time with the NOAA *PREDICTIONS* for the next day, not *PREDICTIONS* for that day as had been the case for the first 22 hours.


One more time for the simple of mind:
The SolarMonitor Forecast page (and its archives) contains a table of the SolarMonitor forecasts with the NOAA forecast probabilities in brackets after theirs. For example:
SolarMonitor for Nov 10

11121 Eao 31(1) 9(1) 0(0)
11122 Bxo 5(1) 1(1) 0(0)
​

The NOAA number are on bold.
This table always contains the NOAA *PREDICTION*.
This table contains the NOAA *PREDICTION* for the current day up to 22:00.
At 22:00 NOAA update their current *PREDICTION* file to contain the *PREDICTION* for the next day.
Thus on or after 22:00 the SolarMonitor table is updated to contain the NOAA *PREDICTION* for the next day.

Michael Mozina:
Do you really think that when an archived SolarMonitor Forecast page lists a NOAA *PREDICTION* of 99 that this is actually an observation of 99 flares?

 

[GeeMack]

What business is it of yours anyway? You do NASA and LMSAL a huge disservice IMO by making bogus claims on their behalf. The last emails I exchanged with both NASA and LMSAL have been extremely professional.

In my last exchanges of email with NASA and LMSAL I was told that my assessment of some solar imagery was exactly correct. What do you think of that?

I am not about to do that for your personal amusement in this thread. I've already explained how it's done and it's clear you aren't even actually interested in it. When I get around to writing a paper with references, I'll post a link. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you since your personal desires are not high on my priority list at the moment.

You do not have an objective quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs. You are playing a guessing game. Period. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In my last exchanges of email with NASA and LMSAL I was told that my assessment of some solar imagery was exactly correct. What do you think of that?

You mean those same folks that write about a non existent 'transition region' in the sky that isn't there, and write about something Alfven called "pseudoscience" his entire physics career? You mean those folks that write about reconnecting magnetic lines in spite of the fact the magnetic fields form a complete and full continuum without the ability to 'disconeect' or "reconnect' to any other magnetic line? You mean those same folks that still cannot explain solar wind, something Birkeland "predicted" over a hundred years ago with simple electricity? Yawn.

You do not have an objective quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs. You are playing a guessing game. Period. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Why must I "prove" anything to you personally when you A) have no interest in 'discussion', just 'arguments', and B) don't have a clue what you're talking about?

I can't even get you and RC to commit to a few simple filament categorization mechanisms that have been discussed now for over 30+ years!

RC: "Dark" filament? What "dark" filament?
GM: Mass flow? What mass flow?

Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA:
Lets add the idiocy of redefining fake as erroneous. Fake means fabricated to look like the real thing.

I could go back and point out the 4th and 11th to you AGAIN (for the 10th time?), but what would be the point?

I don't have a clue how feasible it might be to change past NOAA information, but now that solarmonitor predictions are online again, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's you and I assume that anything from here forward, from 11/16/2010 forward is "good" information and we'll see how they do? How does that sound? I'm not sure if version 2.0 is going to be any more accurate than 1.0, but we can check it and find out this week.

I believe that NOAA's predictions for the past 5 days or so have been much better than last week and pretty much on target. I'm curious to see how they do for the next week anyway, so let's check it out. I'm frankly tired of going back and forth to the jpreday prediction directory to look up NOAA information, so lets hope that solramonitor has corrected the problem from here forward and we'll check it out this week.

 

[GeeMack]

You mean those same folks that write about a non existent 'transition region' in the sky that isn't there, and write about something Alfven called "pseudoscience" his entire physics career? You mean those folks that write about reconnecting magnetic lines in spite of the fact the magnetic fields form a complete and full continuum without the ability to 'disconeect' or "reconnect' to any other magnetic line? You mean those same folks that still cannot explain solar wind, something Birkeland "predicted" over a hundred years ago with simple electricity? Yawn.

So you claim...

• ... to have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
• ... dark filaments cause CMEs.
• ... there is no transition region in the Sun's atmosphere.
• ... magnetic reconnection doesn't happen.
• ... Birkeland "predicted" solar wind and proposed it was cause by simple electricity.

But you aren't willing or able to demonstrate that any of those claims are even remotely true.

Why must I "prove" anything to you personally when you A) have no interest in 'discussion', just 'arguments', and B) don't have a clue what you're talking about?

I do have an interest in this discussion, so your claim that I don't is another in a very, very long list of your lies. I also do know what I'm talking about, so you are lying again.

I can't even get you and RC to commit to a few simple filament categorization mechanisms that have been discussed now for over 30+ years!

RC: "Dark" filament? What "dark" filament?
GM: Mass flow? What mass flow?

Your continued incivility and persistent dishonest representation of my position is noted. Was Kristian Birkeland a liar? Was Hannes Alfvén a liar? Was Charles Bruce a liar? Do you think lying is a reasonable way to go about pursuing any scientific endeavor?

 

[Reality Check]

I could go back and point out the 4th and 11th to you AGAIN (for the 10th time?), but what would be the point?

AGAIN (for the 10th time?), I know about 4th and 11th.
I also know about the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10,th and all of the other archived forecasts:
What is happening is a timing issue where the NOAA prediction for the next day is displayed on SolarMonitor web page for the 2 hours from 22:00.

I don't have a clue how feasible it might be to change past NOAA information,

It would mean that you think that solarmonitor have hacked into the NOAA server, are changing text files and that no one has noticed it.

but now that solarmonitor predictions are online again, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's you and I assume that anything from here forward, from 11/16/2010 forward is "good" information and we'll see how they do? How does that sound? I'm not sure if version 2.0 is going to be any more accurate than 1.0, but we can check it and find out this week.

It would be nice if they fix the timing issue. That has nothing to do with:
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(7 days and counting)

I believe that NOAA's predictions for the past 5 days or so have been much better than last week and pretty much on target. I'm curious to see how they do for the next week anyway, so let's check it out. I'm frankly tired of going back and forth to the jpreday prediction directory to look up NOAA information, so lets hope that solramonitor has corrected the problem from here forward and we'll check it out this week.

Oh I see now - the real issue is that you are too lazy to use the NOAA archived forecasts and so want to force SolarMonitor to do the work for you .

I am not interested in your "belief", i.e. unsupported by actual analysis opinion. Thus there is no "we" here.
But it does fit your m.o. to waste your time looking at NOAA predictions and guessing whether the predictions match the observations. You are looking at solar images, guessing that there will be more activity from the most active active regions and trivially getting more activity.

 

[Reality Check]

RC: "Dark" filament? Hoy.

MM: "Total" ignorance?
Hoy

You are really deluded if you think that I do not know that dark filaments exist.
I know what they are: filaments that appear dark in specific wavelengths against the brighter background of the Sun. This of course makes them easy for naive people to see in images and obsess about.

I know that you have provided no evidence that they are any different other then visually from other filaments.

 

[Perpetual Student]

GeeMack:
This is a much better avatar. Stick with it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

As the sun turns....

FYI, there is a solar flare in progress at about the 1:30 position. It's a fairly directional flare because the filament eruption was highly directional. 1126 looks to be "quieting down", both in terms of it's recent EM output, and in terms of the dark filament eruption potential of that dark filament near 1126 since the minor flare/filament eruption yesterday. The remain part of the dark filament seems to be settling back down into a lower position in the atmosphere. Of course since 126 is still "active", things could change again pretty quickly.

On the other hand 1127 has come over the horizon, and it's already produced a pretty decent sized mass ejection in the past couple of days.

It looks like solarmonitor is actually working from software version 1.5 rather than 2.0. For some reason they removed the info for the 16th and I didn't get to see what happened at 22:00. Oh well. I'll pay closer attention tomorrow, and maybe they will have finished the upgrades by then.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_0304.jpg

1126 is sitting in the middle of not just one, but two dark filaments, that combined span almost the whole southern hemisphere at this point. The one on the right is *HUGE* and at least one section of it is relatively unstable. That whole dark filament across the southern hemisphere is worth keeping an eye on. You can by the way see the last remaining piece of the filament that erupted around the 1:30 position. It was a small flare type of event that will likely be quite small, but the remaining piece of the filament will give you a good idea about the direction of the mass flow.

 

[Reality Check]

It I'll pay closer attention tomorrow, and maybe they will have finished the upgrades by then.

What upgrades?
Have you been told that they are upgrading their software?
Have you been told that this upgrade included fixing the display issue?
Or are are you using your usual practise of guessing?

As far as I can see (and it is a guess): SolarMonitor had a problem with their forecasting code over the weekend. That meant no table of active regions with forecasts. That meant no corresponding NOAA forecasts for those regions were displayed. In addition the lack of SolarMonitor forecasts meant that there was no table of forecasted active regions and their events.
They seem to have fixed the probem and are back in business.

 

[Reality Check]

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)

Have you read any of the citations to the Joselyn & McIntosh 1981 paper?
(1 November 2010)

Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 7 days and counting)

Do you understand yet that that SolarMonitor always displays NOAA predictions (not observations).
or as you call them: *OBSERVATIONS*
(16 November 2010)

Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 7 days and counting)