CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/12/behind_20101012_cor2_512.mpg
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/12/ahead_20101012_cor2_512.mpg

FYI, the links above are COR2 images from STEREO from yesterday (UT). You'll notice there's no mushroom cloud and no CME. The 11th is example of a mass ejection, the 12th is an example of a day without one. Since your timeslot roles over to the next day (much like mine did), you should start to see something soon.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ignorance is not shameful if one admits that one is ignorant. You have proven conclusively that you cannot accurately interpret NASA imagery. I will learn absolutely nothing from you.

If someone with real expertise explains what is going in those images, I will know what to look for in the future, and I will be marginally less ignorant.

If I use my imagination to explain what I am seeing without expert guidance, I will be worse than ignorant.

Um, there's no particular skill required to be able to see that CME. It's like seeing that explosion on the horizon. You either see it or you don't. Yes or no can you see the mass flow coming off the sun on the 11th? Did you see any of that same sort of mushroom cloud flow on the 12th? That's all you need to answer to discern whether or not you can tell if you "won" anything. How hard can it be exactly to know that you "won" if all that is required is to see that explosive mass flow?

 

[D'rok]

Um, there's no particular skill to be able to see that CME. It's like seeing that explosion on the horizon. You either see it or you don't. Yes or no can you see the mass flow coming off the sun on the 11th? Did you see any of that same sort of mushroom cloud flow on the 12th? That's all you need to answer to discern whether or not you can tell if you "won" anything. How hard can it be exactly to know that you "won" if all that is required is to see that explosive mass flow?

This issue always comes up Michael. You insist that we accept your terminology and your interpretations. Remember the photosphere?

I have no confidence that you can accurately identify a CME. What you call a CME could be something else entirely. In fact, I would be greatly surprised if you are capable of associating the correct visual phenomena in these images with the correspondingly correct solar events.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This issue always comes up Michael. You insist that we accept your terminology and your interpretations. Remember the photosphere?

I have no confidence that you can accurately identify a CME. What you call a CME could be something else entirely. In fact, I would be greatly surprised if you are capable of associating the correct visual phenomena in these images with the correspondingly correct solar events.

Oh, for crying out loud. I clearly explained to you how to "see" whether you "won" or not, and you refuse to "see" anyway. What's that saying? There are none so blind....?

 

[D'rok]

Oh, for crying out loud. I clearly explained to you how to "see" whether you "won" or not, and you refuse to "see" anyway. What's that saying? There are none so blind....?

And I explained that I will never take your explanations for what I see seriously. I have excellent reasons for this.

I'm only in this thread because I'm hoping one of the actual heavyweights will drop by and explain these images.

 

[GeeMack]

And I explained that I will never take your explanations for what I see seriously. I have excellent reasons for this.

In case anyone has forgotten or is unaware, Michael's qualifications to understand solar imagery of any sort, obtained through any source, and processed by any means, has been challenged repeatedly for over six years now, and never once has he been able to show that he possesses any such qualifications. That might be one excellent reason why D'rok won't accept any of Michael's explanations about anything relating to any images.

 

[D'rok]

In case anyone has forgotten or is unaware, Michael's qualifications to understand solar imagery of any sort, obtained through any source, and processed by any means, has been challenged repeatedly for over six years now, and never once has he been able to show that he possesses any such qualifications. That might be one excellent reason why D'rok won't accept any of Michael's explanations about anything relating to any images.

Yup.

Every so often I find myself hoping that, just this once, he'll be right on the money about something. If it has happened, I've missed it.

 

[Reality Check]

A coiuple of interesting CME papers:
On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections by Jing, Ju; Yurchyshyn, Vasyl B.; Yang, Guo; Xu, Yan; Wang, Haimin (2004).

We present a statistical study of 106 filament eruptions, which were automatically detected by a pattern recognition program implemented at Big Bear Solar Observatory using Hα full-disk data from 1999 to 2003. We compare these events with Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite soft X-ray time profiles, solar-geophysical data (SGD) solar event reports, Michelson Doppler Imager magnetograms, and Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) data to determine the relationship between filament eruptions and other phenomena of solar activity. (1) Excluding eight events with no corresponding LASCO data, 55% or 56% of 98 events were associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs). (2) Active region filament eruptions have a considerably higher flare association rate of 95% compared to quiescent filament eruptions with 27%, but a comparable CME association rate, namely, 43% for active region filament eruptions and 54% for quiescent filament eruptions. (3) 54% or 68% of 80 disk events were associated with new flux emergence. In addition, we derived the sign of magnetic helicity and the orientation of the magnetic field associated with seven halo CMEs and demonstrated that the geoeffectiveness of a halo CME can be predicted by these two parameters.

The Calm before the Storm: The Link between Quiescent Cavities and Coronal Mass Ejections by Gibson, S. E.; Foster, D.; Burkepile, J.; de Toma, G.; Stanger, A. (2006)

Determining the state of the corona prior to CMEs is crucial to understanding and ultimately predicting solar eruptions. A common and compelling feature of CMEs is their three-part morphology, as seen in white-light observations of a bright expanding loop, followed by a relatively dark cavity, and finally a bright core associated with an erupting prominence/filament. This morphology is an important constraint on CME models. It is also quite common for a three-part structure of loop, cavity, and prominence core to exist quiescently in the corona, and this is equivalently an important constraint on models of CME-precursor magnetic structure. These quiescent structures exist in the low corona, primarily below approximately 1.6 Rsolar, and so are currently observable in white light during solar eclipses, or else by the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory Mk4 coronameter. We present the first comprehensive, quantitative analysis of white-light quiescent cavities as observed by the Mk4 coronameter. We find that such cavities are ubiquitous, as they are the coronal limb counterparts to filament channels observed on the solar disk. We consider examples that range from extremely long-lived, longitudinally extended polar-crown-filament-related cavities to smaller cavities associated with filaments near or within active regions. The former are often visible for days and even weeks at a time and can be identified as long-lived cavities that survive for months. We quantify cavity morphology and intensity contrast properties and consider correlations between these properties. We find multiple cases in which quiescent cavities directly erupt into CMEs and consider how morphological and intensity contrast properties of these cases differ from the general population of cavities. Finally, we discuss the implications that these observations may have for the state of the corona just prior to a CME, and more generally for the nature of coronal MHD equilibria.

Some actual science rather than guesswork .

 

[Michael Mozina]

Excuse me?

How did your prediction work out?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html

FYI, you can see the effect of the CME from the 11th in the ACE data today.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No idea. Like you, I'm not qualified to determine the outcome.

Oh, I can tell you the outcome if you like. Then again, the satellite images tell the whole story.

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/13/behind_20101013_cor2_512.mpg
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/13/ahead_20101013_cor2_512.mpg
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c2.mpg
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c3.mpg

What the hell makes you think I have a pet pig?

"Babe" has been squealing all sorts of nonsense about how easy CME prediction is for days now. You evidently bought into his "even a trained pig could do it" nonsense, so I sort of consider him your sidekick at this point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No you can't. You are hopelessly incompetent.

And if I keep accurately predicting CMEs?

Keep your squabbles with GeeMack contained to the the two of you, please.

Okey Dokey.

 

[D'rok]

And if I keep accurately predicting CMEs?

You have yet to demonstrate that you have done so.

If you can find some authoritative source (like NASA, or even one of the scientists that post here) that confirms your technique and your ability to accurately identify what is or isn't a CME, I will humbly apologize and congratulate you on your victory.

You still haven't told us how you distinguish a CME from a solar flare.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I hope you learned a couple of things from this process.

Because the number of CME's per day is very low at this point in the solar cycle (one CME in the last three days), the odds of 'guessing" even the correct time slot of the next CME is probably less than 5 percent. Isolating a SPECIFIC active area and/or a specific region of the sun that is likely to be responsible for the eruption decreases the odds of making a "lucky guess" significantly too.

It's also entirely possible to for you 'see" CME's just like the pros do (in the satellite images). It doesn't require any particular "skills" to do that actually.

 

[GeeMack]

It's also entirely possible to for you 'see" CME's just like the pros do (in the satellite images). It doesn't require any particular "skills" to do that actually.

And that is the point everyone else has been making all along. You can see solar activity in the available satellite images. For you to claim to "predict" activity because that activity obviously already exists is wholly unscientific, to the extent that it can only be considered a ridiculous argument.

This once again goes to demonstrate your lack of qualification to understand anything about science and your lack of qualification to understand anything about solar imagery.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that is the point everyone else has been making all along. You can see solar activity in the available satellite images.

Well duh. That's what they are designed for isn't it?

For you to claim to "predict" activity because that activity obviously already exists is wholly unscientific, to the extent that it can only be considered a ridiculous argument.

You mean except fotr the fact that I "predicted" the CME 4-5 hours before it became visible in LASCO/COR?

This once again goes to demonstrate your lack of qualification to understand anything about science and your lack of qualification to understand anything about solar imagery.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Remove personal remark.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you can find some authoritative source (like NASA, or even one of the scientists that post here) that confirms your technique

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614.1054J

FYI that link that RC posted yesterday that correlated dark ribbons and CME's used a "similar" technique. They used the H-Alpha images from BBSO to isolate the dark plasma ribbons rather than the iron ion images from SDO. The dark plasma ribbons would actually correlate in both images. The primary difference is that my technique uses a directional and size component of the dark plasma ribbon in question to determine if there will be a CME whereas their technique doesn't seem to do that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/13/behind_20101013_euvi_195_512.mpg

If you'd just been a bit more patient D'rok....

It looks like a pretty good flare and that probably will kick out some stuff. It probably won't be as big as the last CME (more like a flare this time), but we probably will see some material from it pretty soon. Timing is everything and the EM flares are REALLY hard to predict.

 

[Reality Check]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614.1054J

FYI that link that RC posted yesterday that correlated dark ribbons and CME's used a "similar" technique. They used the H-Alpha images from BBSO to isolate the dark plasma ribbons rather than the iron ion images from SDO. ... .

FYI: Michael Mozina is lying.
There is no mention of "dark plasma ribbons" in the abstract or paper (PDF).

In fact it is the other way around - they looked for flares (brightening):

Flares (optical and X-ray flares) were identified first as sudden brightenings in Halpha (flare ribbons) or EIT (flare loops) observations.

 

[GeeMack]

It looks like a pretty good flare and that probably will kick out some stuff. It probably won't be as big as the last CME (more like a flare this time), but we probably will see some material from it pretty soon. Timing is everything and the EM flares are REALLY hard to predict.

But not so tough to see a picture of some activity already underway and predict that it will be activity, eh?

​