Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Calling his record "rather checkered" is like calling the center of the sun "rather warm."
Last edited:
CME's, active regions and high energy flares
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
Calling his record "rather checkered" is like calling the center of the sun "rather warm."
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, no. I already explained to you that I have been playing along now for a week. When you look at how NOAA actually did last week, it's no better than flipping a coin.
There have been something like 7 or 8 C class flares in the past couple of days and yet the highest NOAA ever rated 123 was 60 percent for even *ONE* C class flare. At least I understood it was a 'growing' process that would lead to NUMEROUS C class flares at a minimum. It's still ultimately just a "mathematical guess". Because solar events can happen so rapidly, I'm not convinced that a 24 hour "prediction" is even all that useful. It's always going to be a "guess", because filament eruptions tend to happen over a few hour period of time, and flares tend to build over hours when the area is "active" and there is 'interaction' between two powerful active regions. Any real "prediction" of solar events would necessarily need to some ability to adapt over a time line of less than a 24 hour period to be entirely "accurate" IMO.
Ya, but when you add up all the percentages for several days last week, the "odds" of a C flare was over 100 percent from SOME active region. None the less, no C class flares occurred. Likewise their "odds" for even a C flare from 123 was never greater than 60 percent, even *AFTER* it erupted a number of times.
It's particularly annoying how you *IGNORE* those days where the forecast called for 100 percent plus likelihood of a flare and nothing occurred for two full days of plus 100 percent odds of a flare. What real "accuracy' did we see this week from that method? Honestly RC, it was no better than flipping a coin.
No, I think it would be useful in fact to have some PREDICTION about the number of flares as well. For instance, it was in fact very clear to me that 123 and 121 were going to "interact" to produce a series of C class flares. The two of them were almost a "classic" scenario of two active region interaction that almost always involves *MULTIPLE* C class flares. You're the one that was trying to take away my M and 4 C Class flares in my 48 hour window.
IMO a 'better" kind of 'prediction' would be like the kind I gave you for 1121 (can't recall it's previous number) on the last rotation cycle, and the kind of information I gave you on this rotation cycle. I gave you a 20 minute heads up on that M class flare last time. I had to wait around for DAYS to be sure that it was actually going to happen and to be anywhere close to precise about the timing. Frankly, I cut it closer than I meant to, but IMO that's a more "useful" prediction.
I also talked about how 123 was "building" and the importance of it's proximity to 121. That "combo" of events is "typical" prior to active region interactions that often produce C and M class flares.
The hardest thing for me to "quantify" in my own little "technique" is the distinction between X,M and C class flares. I can pretty much predict the timing of C class flares (I think better than NOAA if we were to put me to the test), but I have a hard time distinguishing when a C class flare might be the outcome of the interaction, and when an M class flare might be the result. In some cases (like last time) there is a "concentration" of energy that is more apt to produce "large" flares IMO, but that isn't typical of most active region interactions. Most of them occur like 123 and 121 did on this rotation cycles. They generate a lot of activity over a short period of time (typically days at best) and then they tend to "settle down". It's like a couple of brothers fighting over sharing a bedroom for a couple of days, and then "working it out". The EM reconfigurations take place over time and then everything settles down for a bit.
NOAA's method does actually incorporate features that could and probably do recognize the signs of multiple day eruptions, but since they are based on sunspot configurations, they tend to be about 18 hours behind the curve IMO. The active regions can become very active for many hours prior to anything appearing on the surface of the photosphere. 123 was active for almost a day before I saw any activity in 1600A.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Frankly I find that statement rather ironic since I have been accurate in this thread and you wouldn't even know it because you haven't even read through the entire thread. You'll sit there and hurl insults without a single CLUE how I actually did at predicting not just EM flares, but even filament eruption flares that NOAA and solarmonitor do not even track! Amazing.
For the record, I am *RIGHT* about the solarmonitor data. It is utterly worthless because it is an unreliable presentation of the NOAA data. It's misleading and it is erroneous information that is often missing entire predictions on entire active regions. Even if someone UNDERSTOOD that the daily predictions sit on the PREVIOUS page (which is unlikely based on the verbiage on their website), it's still *screwed up* and trying to use that information would lead to false statistical data. Maybe instead of worrying about my 'checkered past' you should be worried about solarmonitors "checkered data'. We've seen and documented *AT LEAST* two omission errors on three different active regions in just one weeks time. Someone really aught to fix that problem before the sun becomes "active". Otherwise they will miss many new active regions EACH DAY!
Hoy.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You give no analysis of the NOAA predictions and actually lie: They overpredict flares.Er, no. I already explained to you that I have been playing along now for a week. When you look at how NOAA actually did last week, it's no better than flipping a coin.
...snipped rather embarassing rant from MM ("over 100 percent" for a probability!)
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Notice that the idiocy continues?
Maybe shouting at you will help:
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.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor
The situation is quite simple.
Michael Mozina thought that he saw the NOAA data for flare predcitions on the SolarMonitor Forecast page change. He provided not evidence if thsi so I stated posting the SolarMonitor forecasts here and it turned out that he is right. What we found is awas
This problem is not a big issue though MM is continuing to obsess about it.
The real problem is his response to the discovery of the timing issue on 10 November 2010.
He then clarified that he meant SolarMonitor:
He even calls the NOAA data fake
That only compounds his original libel.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
4 days and counting
I doubt that he ever will since he has not yet understond that the libel is about his statements accursing people of faking the data to fit observations. The libel is not about the above timing issue.
P.S.
The idiocy contained in the second quote above is obvious. The timing issue replaces NOAA predictions with NOAA predictions (not observations or even "observations") for the next day.
The situation is quite simple.
Michael Mozina thought that he saw the NOAA data for flare predcitions on the SolarMonitor Forecast page change. He provided not evidence if thsi so I stated posting the SolarMonitor forecasts here and it turned out that he is right. What we found is awas
This problem is not a big issue though MM is continuing to obsess about it.
The real problem is his response to the discovery of the timing issue on 10 November 2010.
He is accusing someone of changing the data to fit the observations. Since ths data comes from NOAA the implication is that it is NOAA.
He then clarified that he meant SolarMonitor:
and
He even calls the NOAA data fake
which is really stupid - the data are real predictions from NOAA.
That only compounds his original libel.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
4 days and counting
I doubt that he ever will since he has not yet understond that the libel is about his statements accursing people of faking the data to fit observations. The libel is not about the above timing issue.
P.S.
The idiocy contained in the second quote above is obvious. The timing issue replaces NOAA predictions with NOAA predictions (not observations or even "observations") for the next day.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So why in the world would "forecast" data for a particular day "change" in the first place? Isn't that the first question one might ask themselves?
You have consistently ignored the fact that the solarmonitor presentation of the NOAA data is *INACCURATE*. I find that disturbing.
It's also very clear to me that you feel "butt hurt" as my daughters put it, over something I've said. I therefore went back this morning, and reread my posts on this topic and I can see where I went "over the top" and said some inaccurate things of my own. I'm man enough to admit my mistakes.
I used the term "fraud" too loosely and that was a mistake. I have no evidence whatsoever of any sort of "malice" or any real intent to deceive. I can see where someone working at NOAA or solarmonitor might take offense to that *inaccurate* statement. So long as the problem gets *FIXED* in a timely manner, I think it is safe to say that there was never any malice involved.
Having said that, I want to set the record straight on a number of your inaccurate statements, and I want to be clear that there is *STILL* a *SERIOUS* error in solarmonitors presentation of NOAA data, that makes their information less than credible and less than complete. It also is a very "misleading" way of presenting the data to say the least, even if that was unintentional. The fact you fell for that same flaw, and there are at least two factual errors in the NOAA data this week alone demonstrates that there is a serious problem.
I am only "obsessed" with scientific accuracy and solarmonitors presentation of NOAA data doesn't pass the muster. First of all *prediction* information should *NEVER* change.
There's no logical reason for Solarmonitor to display one set of data on that day's page until some magic hour and then *CHANGE* that same page. That "changing of the prediction information" is what makes the whole thing look suspicious in the first place. Secondly, that "change in information" is not done accurately as we can see from the three omission errors that I have shown you this week!As long as we're "coming clean" and confessing our sins, I think it might be time for you to do a little confessing of your own. I've gone out of my way a bunch of times now to point out that it is a problem with SOLARMONTOR and *ONLY* solarmonitor for some time now. You need to accept that.
You also need to cop to the fact that there is still in fact an error in solarmonitor's presentation of NOAA data that is more than simply a "timing" issue, it's a matter of FACT and a matter of ACCURACY that is at issue here. The NOAA data is not factually represented *ANYWHERE* on solarmonitor. We have seen and documented *AT LEAST* three omissions of NOAA active regions that are not contained on either the day it was made or the following day. There is more than a "timing issue" at stake here, there is a "scientific credibility" issue at stake. The solarmonitor information is factually inaccurate. What do you intend to do about it?
If the tables were turned, and I was factually misrepresenting NOAA prediction information on my website, and you asked me that same question, would you accept that same answer from me?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
They UNDERPREDICTED the probability of flares from 1121 on the 4th and overpredicted them on several days over the following week. As 123 appeared they *UNDERPREDICTED* them again. As far as I can tell they seem to be about 24 hours behind the curve. That's another reason the changing of the "prediction" page looks so "questionable" by the way.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, I am accusing (accurately I might add) solarmonitor of displaying one set of data for 22 hours hours and then POSTDICTING the numbers on that *EXACT SAME PAGE* 22 hours later. Why would they 'change' a "prediction" on a particular date? Their method of displaying information is immediately likely to confuse anyone trying to "follow along" as I have been doing. I stand by that statement RC. It's a bad way of "doing business" in the first place in terms of displaying one set of 'prediction data' for a day for most of the day and then another at some magic hour. They should not post anything to that day until the actual PREDICTION from NOAA appears and they have no reason to be "changing" the "prediction" at the end of the day.
This part is not libel RC, because it's factually true. They display one set of data until 22:00 and then they display a new set of 'prediction' data on that exact same page! There's nothing libelous in pointing out how it's set up. That particular system (solarmonitor) is "rigged".
I am sorry I used the term "fraud". I don't really believe that to be the case, and I have stated a number of times that I believe it to be an innocent programming mistake, and a software presentation design problem, but I don't believe that there is an overt intent to deceive anyone. I stand by my other statements and criticisms of solarmonitor's presentation of NOAA data. It is inaccurate, and therefore "fake". It is riddled with omission errors and it's a very confusing way to present "prediction" information" which in theory should never 'change' at some magic hour.
Those statements are in fact true statements RC. The "predictions" that are listed for 22 hours are being "overwritten" with "observations" for that same day. There are factual errors in the presentation of NOAA data, as those three omission errors we've seen this week alone clearly demonstrate!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/11/13/20101113_1024_0211.mpg
FYI, for anyone following along, that filament I mentioned a few days ago finally erupted yesterday.
It's looks like some stuff was sent roughly in our our direction too. It wasn't a huge CME, but it does look to be pretty dense, fast, and highly directional. If it hits Earth, we'll definitely see it show up in the ACE data tomorrowish.
Stereo Behind(Cor): Earth to the right:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/13/behind_20101113_cor2_512.mpg
Stereo Ahead:Earth to the right:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/13/ahead_20101113_cor2_512.mpg
FYI, for anyone following along, that filament I mentioned a few days ago finally erupted yesterday.
It's looks like some stuff was sent roughly in our our direction too. It wasn't a huge CME, but it does look to be pretty dense, fast, and highly directional. If it hits Earth, we'll definitely see it show up in the ACE data tomorrowish.
Stereo Behind(Cor): Earth to the right:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/13/behind_20101113_cor2_512.mpg
Stereo Ahead:Earth to the right:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/13/ahead_20101113_cor2_512.mpg
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Asked and answered:
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.
You have consistently ignored the fact that *I KNOW That* the solarmonitor presentation of the NOAA data is *INACCURATE*. I find that disturbing.
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.
Once again you do not understand. You did not use the term "fraud" or "malice". You accused them of intentionally changing their data to fit the observations.
This is not about the timing issue.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
This is getting totally idiotic MM
I know about the timing problem:
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.
This is not about the timing issue.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
It is just a timing issue:
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.
Nothing - you stated before that told them about it.
I would expect them to put a note on the web page that it displays the next day's NOAA prediction from 22:00.
Yes.
I would expect you to put a note on the web page that it displays the next day's NOAA prediction from 22:00.
But the question of your libelous statements is not to do with the timing issue.
You accused them of faking the predictions:
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
You need to retract that accusation.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I have to agree. Michael Mozina just cannot understand that the problem with the SolarMonitor web site is simply that they do not explain a timing issue with the NOAA predictions.Good Grief!
The fix is simple: Change the web page text from
"NOTE:The probabilities in brackets give the NOAA/SEC probability forecast for the occurrence of one or more C-, M-, or X-class flares for the current date."
to
"NOTE:The probabilities in brackets give the NOAA/SEC probability forecast for the occurrence of one or more C-, M-, or X-class flares for the current date. NOAA/SEC probability forecasts are issued at 22:00 UT, thus from 22:00 UT we show the forecasts for the next day"
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
And there you go again - repeating your "POSTDICTING" libel.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
They did not change their prediction.
They did not change the NOAA prediction.
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.
This should be noted on their web page.
Alternately they could just not update the NOAA prediction part of the web page.
I agree. I stand by that statement MM as I have been standing by that statement ever since the evidence for the timing issue was found by you and me.
Wrong. Read:
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 since you seem unable to do that here we go again.
What is happening is that the SolarMonitor forecast web page
- Is created at the start of the day including the NOAA current forecast numbers for that date.
- Is updated at 30 minutes intervals (including the NOAA current forecast numbers).
- Is updated at 22:00 UT to include including the NOAA current forecast numbers.
But NOAA issue their forecasts for the next date at 22:00. Thus the NOAA "current" date is now the next date. The forecast numbers in the SolarMonitor are now actually for the next date.
This part is not libel MM (as I have stated time and time again), because it's factually true (as I have stated time and time again).
That is idiotic: The presentation is inaccurate and so it is inaccurate.
Fake is not inaccuracy. It is an intentional act of deception. It is in fact fraud - just what you said it was not.
Wrong: The SolarMonitor page has 1 error (the timing issue). That is not riddled by any ones definition of the word.
It is confusing.
Fixed for you MM, excluding your inane quoting
:P.S. MM:
- Have you realized yet that SolarMonitor always display the NOAA forecasts in their forecast page?
They also update the lists of events but there they do show that the events can be from a prevous date, i.e. in that 2 hour interval. - Have you realized yet that every one of the SolarMonitor archived forecast pages has the timing issue?
- Have you realized that it is probably not a programming error?
It is more probably a design error. A programmer was told to update the web page with NOAA data every 30 minutes. So that is exactly what they did (been there - done that!).
The proper design would be to update the NOAA forecast and events at the start of the day and then only the events from then on.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, evidently solarmonitor.org is aware of the problem in their NOAA "prediction" feature, since they have stopped showing any predictions for a couple of days now. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point in time and allow them to fix the problem and be done with this ridiculous diversion. Holy cow did you get your feelings hurt or what?
I think I'd like to see the thread return to it's original intent. IMO it's *USEFUL* to see how NOAA is doing at EM flare prediction and I look forward to solarmonitor becoming a useful, reliable resource for that information in the future. For *WHATEVER* reason you still feel I have misrepresented *ANYONE*, I apologize. Are you happy now?
I think I'd like to see the thread return to it's original intent. IMO it's *USEFUL* to see how NOAA is doing at EM flare prediction and I look forward to solarmonitor becoming a useful, reliable resource for that information in the future. For *WHATEVER* reason you still feel I have misrepresented *ANYONE*, I apologize. Are you happy now?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
It is more likely that they have had a technical glitch in the generation of their forecasts..
My feeling are not hurt.
The fact is that you have grossly insulted SolarMonitor by stating that they faked their data to fit the observations.
I was hoping that you would have relalized that this was a mistake on your part. The change in the SolarMonitor forecast page is a result of a timing issue. You wrongly accused SolarMonitor (Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?) of faking the predcitons to fit observation.
In the scientific community this is the most serious accustion that you can make. If you were correct then the reputation of SolarMonitor is firever tarnished.
But we know that you are wrong. Thus you need to explicitly retract your statements in order to show that you are an honest person.
What intent was that?
So far it has been you
- pointing out interesting stuff on the Sun.
That is nice but redundant since interesting stuff is always going on on the Sun! - making trivial predictions of more activity from the most active active region on the Sun.
- ignoring questions about your various assertions.
It is *USEFUL* to see how NOAA is doing at EM flare prediction. It is a pity that you are not doing any actual analysis of this other than spouting your opinion.IMO it's *USEFUL* to see how NOAA is doing at EM flare prediction and I look forward to solarmonitor becoming a useful, reliable resource for that information in the future. For *WHATEVER* reason you still feel I have misrepresented *ANYONE*, I apologize. Are you happy now?
But then you have done no analysis of how well you are doing at predictions either, except an unsupported (megalomaniac?) conviction that you are always right. You cannot even give us a list of your predcitions and results! See Can you post your list of predictions and the results? 1 November 2010.
You are almost getting the point now. The point is that in order to show that you are an honest person you need to retract the statements you made. You need to state what they were (a clue: Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?) and that you were mistaken.
Do not apologize to me. I do not want it. I know your nature. I do not expect much from you and you have not disappointed in this thread.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
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.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108071925.htm
FYI, it looks like someone at NASA also realizes the importance of erupting flux ropes. I look forward to reading the full paper.
FYI, it looks like someone at NASA also realizes the importance of erupting flux ropes. I look forward to reading the full paper.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Emphasis mine. A "magnetic rope" is not JUST a twisted "magnetic field", it is a twisted *ELECTROmagnetic" field, and a "current carrying" device.
Here's how Alfven describes a magnetic flux rope in Cosmic Plasma:
As long as the mainstream continues to "dumb down" the concept of electromagnetism to "magnetism", it's never going to have the full picture. Notice Alfven's description involves a current, and a "Bennett Pinch"? Why does the mainstream consistently "dumb down" electromagnetism to "magnetism"? It's annoying to say the least and it only presents *HALF* of the story.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115065903.jpg
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115070825.jpg
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115071359.jpg
It looks like the Earth (and ACE) took a pretty impressive density "hit" today from that last filament eruption flare starting around 07:00-10:00UT. I can't wait to see them put the whole day of ACE data today into movie format.
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115065903.jpg
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115070825.jpg
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20101115071359.jpg
It looks like the Earth (and ACE) took a pretty impressive density "hit" today from that last filament eruption flare starting around 07:00-10:00UT. I can't wait to see them put the whole day of ACE data today into movie format.
Last edited: