• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Michael just stop, you're making a fool of yourself the more you refuse to quantify your "predictions". And the reason for the quote marks is because you use the term very differently from everyone else involved in science.
 
No you have not. If you had a methodology for predicting the behavior of the sun you would present or publish it. You have, and I'm reasonably sure will, do neither.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have already started to quantify and explain some of the categories.
Click to expand...
Acttually all you have done is give examples. You have never quantified your classificiaiton scheme.
This seems to be XX-YY-ZZ where
XX = size: ?/Small/?/Large/? Filament
YY = active region connections
ZZ = something to do with height and speed, e.g. High in the atmosphere, slow "floating" sort of filament" - real quantitative of you MM :rolleyes: !
​
How big is small?
How small is large?
What range does a medium filament fit in?
Are there extra small filaments?
Are there extra large filaments?
How do you determine whether a filament "connects" to a active region or just passes close to it?
How high is high?
Is there low filaments? How about extra high filaments? Extraordinay high?
How do you measure the height?
How fast is fast?
How slow is slow?
Is there a medium speed?
How do you measure the speed?

Why only dark filaments when there is no physical (other then visal) difference between them and other filaments and solar prominences

And the important question: Now that we have a classification scheme (that only you can apply so far) - how does it relate to predicting solar activity?
For example if you state that there is a SF-1A-HS filament
  • what is the probability that it will undergo thermal disruption (vanish without an eruption) in the next 24 hours?
  • what is the probability that it will erupt in the next 24 hours?
  • what is the probability that it ill produce a flare n the next 24 hours?
  • what is the probability that it ill produce a CME next 24 hours?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have already started to quantify and explain some of the categories. It's not my fault you aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...


Describing a method quantitatively and objectively means describing it in such a way that other people can independently apply the same quantitative data, according to a quantitatively defined method, in the same objective way, and reach the same conclusions. Simply using numbers to point out times, dates, and locations isn't what we mean by quantitative. It is dishonest to claim that it is.

So far there hasn't been any quantitative and/or objective method offered for "predicting" CMEs. The original claim that any such method was developed by the thread starter is simply not true.
 
Last edited:
nvidiot said:
No you have not. If you had a methodology for predicting the behavior of the sun you would present or publish it. You have, and I'm reasonably sure will, do neither.
Click to expand...

The "method" I'm using is pretty much the same "method" that NOAA uses to predict EM flares based on sunspot "classifications". Each "class" of filament has a specific likelihood of a full and partial eruption based on previously observed eruption percentages for that class.

The following classification system applies to all dark filaments. It is composed of three basic observations related to each filament separated by a dash or "-" character.

The first set of letters essentially describe the length of the filament, small, medium or large. The codes are "SF,MF,LF", for small, medium and large filaments respectively.

The second letters/numbers describe the number of "active region connections", typically 0A,1A, or 2A.

The third classifications relates to the height and speed of the filament. The first letter denotes the height of the filament in relationship to the ionized coronal seen in iron ion wavelengths, typically 193A, and 211A. I'm essentially classifying them as "low" or "high" depending on whether the filament is at least 50 percent of the distance to the edge of the ionized corona.

The last letter designates the overall "speed" of the mass inside the filament. It's typically "slow" or "fast" depending on local conditions.

There are couple of other considerations I use related to "partial eruption" and sometimes "full eruption" potential, specifically and most importantly are "brightening" processes seen near active region connections.

There are three possible classes in the first category, small, medium and large, and three classifications for the second part, 0 active, 1 active and 2 active connections. There are two (currently used) speed classifications, slow and fast, and 2 basic height options, low and high. That classification system creates 36 possible classes (3*3*2*2) of dark filaments.

Do you have "some" idea now of how the classes are at least "set up", and how the basic classification system works? Do you understand now that I'm using the same basic technique used by NOAA to classify the items, and I am using percentage eruption percentages from the past to determine the likelihood of a future eruption, just as NOAA is doing with sunspot formation classifications?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The "method" I'm using is pretty much the same "method" that NOAA uses to predict EM flares based on sunspot "classifications". Each "class" of filament has a specific likelihood of a full and partial eruption based on previously observed eruption percentages for that class.
Click to expand...
(empahsis added)
At last you add your quotes correctly - you have no method so putting it in quotes is right!
What you have is a personal way of classifying filaments.
You have no idea whether this classification has any relationship with the likelihood of full or partial eruptions. All you have is a guess that your impression from looking at images gives a likelihood .
 
Michael Mozina said:
The "method" I'm using is pretty much the same "method" that NOAA uses to predict EM flares based on sunspot "classifications". Each "class" of filament has a specific likelihood of a full and partial eruption based on previously observed eruption percentages for that class.
Click to expand...


The word "method", in quotes, has not been defined, but given the description of "method" provided below, it can most reasonably be described as "a way of guessing".

The following classification system applies to all dark filaments. It is composed of three basic observations related to each filament separated by a dash or "-" character.
Click to expand...


"Dark" is not a number.

The first set of letters essentially describe the length of the filament, small, medium or large. The codes are "SF,MF,LF", for small, medium and large filaments respectively.
Click to expand...


"Small", "medium", and "large" aren't numbers.

The second letters/numbers describe the number of "active region connections", typically 0A,1A, or 2A.
Click to expand...


"Active" isn't a number.

The third classifications relates to the height and speed of the filament. The first letter denotes the height of the filament in relationship to the ionized coronal seen in iron ion wavelengths, typically 193A, and 211A. I'm essentially classifying them as "low" or "high" depending on whether the filament is at least 50 percent of the distance to the edge of the ionized corona.
Click to expand...


"Low" and "high" aren't numbers. "Edge" isn't a number.

The last letter designates the overall "speed" of the mass inside the filament. It's typically "slow" or "fast" depending on local conditions.
Click to expand...


"Slow" and "fast" aren't numbers.

There are couple of other considerations I use related to "partial eruption" and sometimes "full eruption" potential, specifically and most importantly are "brightening" processes seen near active region connections.
Click to expand...


"Partial" and "full" aren't numbers. "Bright" isn't a number.

There are three possible classes in the first category, small, medium and large, and three classifications for the second part, 0 active, 1 active and 2 active connections. There are two (currently used) speed classifications, slow and fast, and 2 basic height options, low and high. That classification system creates 36 possible classes (3*3*2*2) of dark filaments.
Click to expand...


There is absolutely nothing quantitative or objective described above. The claim that the original poster had developed a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs has been definitively shown to be false.

Do you have "some" idea now of how the classes are at least "set up", and how the basic classification system works? Do you understand now that I'm using the same basic technique used by NOAA to classify the items, and I am using percentage eruption percentages from the past to determine the likelihood of a future eruption, just as NOAA is doing with sunspot formation classifications?
Click to expand...


The original claim was that a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs was developed and applied. That claim has been unequivocally shown to be untrue.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
(empahsis added)
At last you add your quotes correctly - you have no method so putting it in quotes is right!
Click to expand...

Then NOAA has no "method" either, so putting it in quotes is still correct. :)

What you have is a personal way of classifying filaments.
Click to expand...

That part is in fact true. I do in fact classify them, which seems to be more than the mainstream does.

You have no idea whether this classification has any relationship with the likelihood of full or partial eruptions.
Click to expand...

That part is not true. Even a *simplified* classification system like "oh look, a filament exists" would have *SOME* bearing on the likelihood of a flare from that filament! You guys are just intent on ignoring physics entirely. The point in creating *ANY* classification system is to "classify" them in some way to you can see how those "classifications" pan out over time in terms of the flares that are produced by the various classes. Any classification system is simply a "glorified mathematical guess" in the final analysis, because all classification systems are general categories.

All you have is a guess that your impression from looking at images gives a likelihood .
Click to expand...

In the sense that *ANY* simple "classification system" is simply a "quantified guess" in terms of the likelihood of that physical arrangement creating a flare that day, that statement is true. So what? Anything at all is better than *NOTHING AT ALL* which is exactly what the mainstream has at the moment.

I'm really going to have to take a break from this place for awhile for my own sanity. It's like talking to a brick wall around here. Instead of you reading and learning, and "discussing" this topic, there is simply a desire on your part to "argue". I have so much programming to do, and it's so busy at work, I really don't have time to simply "argue" with a brick wall.
 
GeeMack said:
The word "method", in quotes, has not been defined, but given the description of "method" provided below, it can most reasonably be described as "a way of guessing".
Click to expand...

Then all categorization techniques can be described exactly the same way.

"Dark" is not a number.
Click to expand...

36 is a number. There's no point in discussing any other numbers until you accept the categorization process.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then all categorization techniques can be described exactly the same way.
Click to expand...


That is not true.

36 is a number.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is. The only reference to the number 36 that I saw in any post on this page was to count the number of totally subjective, non-objective, non-quantitative, scientifically ambiguous and useless categories used to sort guesses.

There's no point in discussing any other numbers until you accept the categorization process.
Click to expand...


There has been no scientifically legitimate categorization process offered. The categorization process described is wholly invalid as a scientific tool. It only amounts to a way to sort out guesses, subjectively and certainly not quantitatively.

The claim that a quantitative objective method was developed and used as claimed early in this thread has been shown to be false. Any continued claims that such a method had been developed and employed may also be accepted as simply untrue. So we now know that the claim of developing a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs was not true. Now we can move on to the claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then NOAA has no "method" either, so putting it in quotes is still correct. :)
Click to expand...
You are wrong. NOAA has a method as I have described to you before.

Michael Mozina said:
That part is not true. Even a *simplified* classification system like "oh look, a filament exists" would have *SOME* bearing on the likelihood of a flare from that filament!
Click to expand...
That is not what I said.
You have a non-quantitative "classification" scheme based on your personal interpretation of solar images.
You have no evidence that this scheme has any predictive power.
 
GeeMack said:
Indeed it is. The only reference to the number 36 that I saw in any post on this page was to count the number of totally subjective, non-objective, non-quantitative, scientifically ambiguous and useless categories used to sort guesses.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't want to have a discussion on this topic, you are only interesting in arguing.

There has been no scientifically legitimate categorization process offered.
Click to expand...

Sort of like how you handwave at everything eh?

Now we can move on to the claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
Click to expand...

Why bother? "Mass? What mass? Read? Read what?"
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
In other words, you don't want to have a discussion on this topic, you are only interesting in arguing.
Click to expand...


Not in other words. In the exact words I used...

The only reference to the number 36 that I saw in any post on this page was to count the number of totally subjective, non-objective, non-quantitative, scientifically ambiguous and useless categories used to sort guesses.​

Guesses. We don't have any evidence yet to suggest a scientific quantitative objective method has been developed or employed for "predicting" CMEs. That leaves the explanation as guessing. Looking at pictures of existing activity and "predicting" by way of guessing that the existing activity would continue to be activity. Guessing.

Sort of like how you handwave at everything eh?
Click to expand...


Since I don't handwave everything, that is a lie.

Why bother? "Mass? What mass? Read? Read what?"
Click to expand...


That comment is meaningless gibberish.

The claim that a quantitative objective method was developed and used to "predict" CMEs as claimed early in this thread has been shown to be false. Any continued claims that such a method had been developed and employed will also be accepted as untrue.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Except I've "predicted" them in real time you mean?

The denial thing is getting really old at this point.
Click to expand...
Correct use of quotes yet again MM: "predicted" as in provided little or no evidence that you have correctly predicted any flares.
From Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina
No methodology other than the trivial 'more activity sometime from the most active active region' = guesses, not predictions.

The unsupported assertions are beyond really old at this point.

About time for some science:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/daypre.txt
:Product: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt
:Issued: 2010 Nov 30 2200 UTC
#
:Whole_Disk_Flare_Prob:
Class_M 1 1 1
Class_X 1 1 1
Proton 1 1 1
#
# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Dec 01
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Nov 30
1130 45 1 1 1
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_0304.jpg

FYI, a massive dark filament has formed in the southern hemisphere and it's rotating in our direction. It's currently visible at about the 7:45 position and would be classified LF-1A-HF. IMO it's likely to blow before it rotates from view.
Click to expand...
FYI: "it's likely to blow" is not a prediction. It is a guess.
From Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina
This is a prediction:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/daypre.txt
:Product: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt
:Issued: 2010 Dec 04 2200 UTC
#
:Whole_Disk_Flare_Prob:
Class_M 1 1 1
Class_X 1 1 1
Proton 1 1 1
#
# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Dec 05
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Dec 04
1130 5 0 0 0
1131 17 2 0 0
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom