Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6555075&postcount=815
RC stuck in Denialville: 2 days and counting.
CME's, active regions and high energy flares
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6555075&postcount=815
RC stuck in Denialville: 2 days and counting.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
If you want to make this serious matter into a joke thenhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6555075&postcount=815
RC stuck in Denialville: 2 days and counting.
MM stuck in Libelville: 7 days and counting.
MM stuck in Ignoranceville: 6 days and counting.
But this is no joke MM.
You have been constantly insulting SolarMonitor since 10 November 2010: 7 days and counting
.An honest person would realize that they made a mistake, that SolarMonitor are not faking the NOAA data and retract their statements.
An intelligent person would realize the physical impossibility of SolarMinitor replacing the NOAA predictions with the observations for the next day that have not been made yet
!I am going to keep calling you on it until you retract your insulting statement that that SolarMonitor faked the NOAA predictions.
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 7 days and counting)
And there is the other bit of ignorance from you:
Do you understand yet that that SolarMonitor always displays NOAA predictions (not observations).
or as you call them: *OBSERVATIONS*
(16 November 2010)
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/17/behind_20101117_euvi_195_512.mpg
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/17/ahead_20101117_euvi_195_512.mpg
FYI, 126 just generated a very directionally oriented flare at very high speed. Fortunately it's pointed far away from Earth, but that was quite a quick little mass ejection.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/11/17/ahead_20101117_euvi_195_512.mpg
FYI, 126 just generated a very directionally oriented flare at very high speed. Fortunately it's pointed far away from Earth, but that was quite a quick little mass ejection.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
It's also noteworthy that the dark filament in the southern hemisphere physically and electromagnetically connects regions 1126 and 1123. That filament is a *MONSTER* in terms of it's size. WOW! 1126 looks like grand central station of the the dark filaments. Stay tuned.
Stay tuned. Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
An honest person would admit that I already apologized for the "over the top" comments I made, and solarmonitor has (had) a serious software bug that incorrectly reported NOAA predictions which I correctly identified. Get over it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
An intelligent person would know that an apology was offered to me for some strange reason. I never asked for one to me. I then told you that I did not want one.
An apology to SolarMonitor might be in order if we knew that they knew about you defaming them. If you want to offer them one just in case, feel free.
An honest person would admit that your comments were not just "over the top". You have explicitly defamed SolarMonitor multiple times over the past week.
What I would expect from an honest person is an explict retraction of the statements, i.e.
- List the statements with which you defamed SolarMonitor.
- State that those statements were wrong, i.e.
- SolarMonitor are not faking the NOAA data to fit observations on their web page.
- SolarMonitor are not displaying observations as predicitons.
- and maybe add that SolarMonitor have not changed any NOAA information:
The "benefit of the doubt" does not really excuse the accusation that SolarSoft have hacked into NOAA and chnaged their data. Especially since the "benefit" has nothing to do with the availability of the current forecasts - just look at the archives.
Their software does exactly what it it designed to do: Update all of the NOAA information on their forecast page. They do have either
- A trivial documentation bug - they need to note that from 22:00 UT the page displays the NOAA predictions for the next day or
- A trivial design bug where the update of the NOAA prediction was wrongly included. That can be fixed by collecting the NOAA prediction once at the start of the day.
The site is a presentation of the results of the ARM software (Active-Region Monitoring and Flare Forecasting – I. Data Processing and First Results published 2002) - now at verion 2.0. They also have a great interface for the images from various solar instruments.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Let me guess: You are going to guess that active region 1126 is highly active and will produce activityIt's also noteworthy that the dark filament in the southern hemisphere physically and electromagnetically connects regions 1126 and 1123. That filament is a *MONSTER* in terms of it's size. WOW! 1126 looks like grand central station of the the dark filaments.
! "That's all folks" "Tune in tomorrow — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!" 
roduct: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txtRegion most likely to flare: NOAA 11126 -- Probabilities: X(0%) M(6%) C(23%)
WOW A scientific prediction, not a guess.
FYI Region 1123 is no longer considered an active region - it was downgraded to a plage on the 16th
Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary
Apprently you have misinterpreted yet another solar image
(Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?)
This is evidence that SolarMonitor make their predictions before 00:30 UT each day since they would have picked up that 1123 was still an active region at that time.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Let me guess: You are going to guess that active region 1126 is highly active and will produce activity
Region most likely to flare: NOAA 11126 -- Probabilities: X(0%) M(6%) C(23%)
WOW A scientific prediction, not a guess.
Er, that's still a "guess", just a "quantified guess". By my scale, DF00001 (dark filament to left of 126 has about a 10% chance of a full eruption over the next 24 hours, and 20 percent chance of a partial eruption during that same timeline. DF00002 (monster sized filament to the right of 126), has about a 15 percent chance of a full eruption, and about a 35 percent chance of a partial eruption. There, you have my "quantified guesses". So what if they are quantified guesses?
I'd "like" to be at 100 percent certainty of course, but that requires identifying a few more distinguishing characteristics than I'm currently cataloging and tracking. IMO that really can't be done over a 24 hour window because the sun is too active, and changes too rapidly for day long predictions. IMO that's true of EM flares as well as filament eruption flares. NOAA's method of cataloging and identifying the regions is also useful in filament eruption "prediction" techniques by the way.
So what? It's still very "active" in terms of EM output and in terms of that filament connecting it back to 126. Anything could happen at either end of the filament because both ends are near active regions.
Compared to LMSAL, and their mythical "transition region in the sky", I'm certainly doing better than most. Those 1600A and 1700A images blow their magic transition region away RC. Eventually my "mistakes" will become public triumphs. You mark my words. In your case you might live and die and never change your mind, but EU theory is eventually going to replace most astronomy theories. Birkeland's solar model will also replace standard solar theory. It probably will happen in my lifetime IMO, due in large part to the enormous dedication and hard efforts of the folks that designed and designed, built, launched and operate(d) the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, Hinode, SDO, etc.
The fact it's not 'active' by their standards is of no concern to me and my "quantified guessing technique". It's still 'active' in iron ion images, and it's still got a huge dark filament attached to it.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
An honest person would admit that I "came clean" already and that I have publicly stated on numerous occasions that I believe that SOLARMONITOR's error was an innocent and unintentional programming mistake on their part, and I have already apologized publicly for suggesting that any malice might have been involved.
An honest person would admit that solarmonitor was misreporting the NOAA "predictions" and "changing" the 'predictions' that were posted to a day at 22:00 of that day, which frankly isn't even a good "software design" when talking about 'predictions' for a "day". An honest person would admit that they have a problem, their NOAA data is misreported, and they need to fix the problem. I have every indication that solarmonitor is aware of the problem is is taking appropriate corrective action to fix those issues. I really don't have much more to say about this topic RC. I think the only reason you're droning on about it is because you got your feelings hurt and/or you wish to defame me some more, in spite of my public apology to NOAA and solarmonitor (not you) several days ago. Get over it!
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
A solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which endeavors to explain its material makeup, density, thermal characteristics, and mechanical function. Kristian Birkeland never proposed a solar model. Since it didn't exist it is impossible for it to replace anything, your continued dishonest arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.
As for your public triumphs, what was NASA's most recent response to your communication correcting them of their many egregious errors and misunderstandings about physics? How did LMSAL respond when you informed them they are staffed with a boatload of idiots and that you understand solar physics so much better than anyone there? How about all those folks who invested such enormous dedication and hard work into designing, building, launching, and operating the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc.? How do those people view your qualifications? How many of those people are coming around to the crackpot EU conjectures? Where are the papers those people have written that support any of your outrageous and so far totally unsupported claims?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You know RC, if you're going to question *MY* honesty, you really shouldn't include your own strawman argument. Please quote me where I used the term "hacked" in this thread? You're tilting at windmills of your own design and then accusing me of being dishonest? Really?
Half the battle with you is getting you *OUT* of Denialville! Holy cow! I have documented *TWO* misreports of NOAA data in a single week for you and yet you still claim there's no "bug". OMG!
I seriously doubt that. I seriously don't think they *MEANT* to misreport NOAA data on the 4th and the 11th.
Again, it CANNOT be just a "documentation error" because of the data that is missing on the 4th and 11th. Denial is so hard to deal with! What exactly do you want from me besides DOCUMENTATION of their error?
It cannot be "trivial' that solarmonitor is misreporting the NOAA predictions and consistently leaving out active region information that NOAA included in it's original "predictions".
I'm sure it can and will be fixed RC, but the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. Denial is never going to solve anything or resolve the problems at solarmonitor. Effort on the part of a programmer eventually will fix the problem. In the mean time, I am absolutely dismayed that you think "scientific accuracy" is a "trivial" issue.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3
More pure denial! Birkeland and his *TEAM* *BUILT* a minature solar model and *EXPERIMENTED* with it, quantified it, and wrote all about it. His work is published and documented and available on the internet for all the world to see and read about with their own eyes. He did "real experiments" too, with "real control mechanisms", that dreadful control mechanism thing that your whole industry is petrified of. No wonder you're still wallowing around peddling pseudoscience. You've forgotten all about the importance of *REAL* (active) experimentation with *REAL* control mechanisms. As long as your stuff works on a computer, it *MUST* be good.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3
More pure denial! Birkeland and his *TEAM* *BUILT* a minature solar model and *EXPERIMENTED* with it, quantified it, and wrote all about it. His work is published and documented and available on the internet for all the world to see and read about with their own eyes. He did "real experiments" too, with "real control mechanisms", that dreadful control mechanism thing that your whole industry is petrified of. No wonder you're still wallowing around peddling pseudoscience. You've forgotten all about the importance of *REAL* (active) experimentation with *REAL* control mechanisms. As long as your stuff works on a computer, it *MUST* be good.
So the list of your claims that have not been supported include, but are certainly not limited to...
- You have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
- Dark filament eruptions 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 caused by simple electricity.
- Birkeland developed a solar model that mathematically explained the Sun's density, material makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and mechanical function.
- The folks who designed, built, launched, and operate the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc., don't understand solar physics as well as you do.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You did not. You asked whether SolarMonitor couls chnage NOAA information and I told you that they would have to hack the NOAA server.
Half the battle with you is getting you *OUT* of Ignorancelville! Holy cow! I have documented *MANY* misreports of NOAA data all of their archived forcastes for you and yet you still claim there's a software "bug". OMG!
Again, it CAN be just a "documentation error" beacuse all they need to fix it is tell people what is happening.
SolarMonitor are under no obligation to change their web site for your personal convenience, Michael Mozina.
Ignorance is so hard to deal with! What exactly do you want from me besides MORE DOCUMENTATION of their not telling pepole about the timing issue?
It is trivial because it can be fixed just by adding a note that it happens.
Totally idiotic.
I am not in denial that the web page is not correct.
This problem is not a big issue though MM is continuing to obsess about it.
There is no problem with "scientic accuracy". The site is not a scientific journal.
What is not trivial is your defaming of SolarMonitor:
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 8 days and counting)
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Give it a rest.
We're just going around in circles at this point.
We're just going around in circles at this point.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
We are going in circles about the importance of the 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.)
I think that it is trivial because:
- It can be fixed by adding a note on the forecast page.
- It can be fixed with a few lines of code, e.g. an if statement that skips the update of the NOAA forecast numbers after the first update (I wonder how many thousands of if statements I have written in my career!).
- The web site seems to be for people who know about NOAA and the timing of the forecasts, e.g. astronomers.
What you cannot seem to grasp is that the timing issue is nothing to do with your defaming of SolarMonitor:
Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 8 days and counting)
You accused SolarMonitor of faking the NOAA data to fit the observations. That is obviously false. You need to retract the statements.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Looks like a mini eruption of DF00002 occurred at 18:22.
It looks like DF00002 just experienced a very small "partial eruption" where it connects up to 1123 (now downgraded by NOAA) at about 18:22:45. It looks to be a highly directional ejection (about the 4:00 position), and more of a very small 'flare' category.
It looks like DF00002 just experienced a very small "partial eruption" where it connects up to 1123 (now downgraded by NOAA) at about 18:22:45. It looks to be a highly directional ejection (about the 4:00 position), and more of a very small 'flare' category.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Since I am not following this thread on an ongoing basis and I still have Mozina on "ignore" status, I have the this question: Has he finally revealed to the world the details of his quantitative objective method for **PREDICTING** CMEs.
Last edited: