CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

You're still missing the point RC. The prediction made by Noaa is never listed on solarmonitor.org. It "vanished" entirely from solarmonitor.org and only exists in the NOAA data! Why?

You're still missing the point MM.

• The current NOAA prediction is always linked to on solarmonitor.org.
• They do not bother to link to the the older NOAA predicitons because they are archived at NOAA.

 

[Reality Check]

Noaa's prediction for the 5th:
...
Notice any discrepancy?

Yes. But I am not so dumb that I do not know the reason for it.

Are you smart enough to work it out, Michael Mozina?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What did the folks at NOAA say when you wrote them and told them they were wrong?

Who said *THEY* were wrong in the first place? I have no idea who runs solarmonitor.org, or who wrote the software routine in question. Do you?

Or do they have your email blocked like LMSAL and NASA?

How in the world would you know who has me 'blocked' and who does not? Is "personal attack' the only thing you are any good at? FYI *I PERSONALLY* have absolutely no idea who may or may not have "blocked" any emails from me. I've never personally had any returned that I recall. I haven't even emailed anyone at LMSAL in years, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA
Whoops - just noticed that solarmonitor.org retain the link to the current NOAA prediction.
So the real answer is - there is nowhere on the solarmonitor.org where they archive links to old NOAA predictions.

In other words their data is all screwed up and you'd never know it by looking at their website. It's only if someone actually went digging into the original NOAA *PREDICTION* information (not the postdictions posted on solarmonitor.org) that you'd even notice a problem.

You know, it's conversations like this, where you just "overlook" them shifting the goal posts (predictions) by nearly 200 percent that I find utterly disturbing. You calculated all those pretty number based on PURE THIN AIR that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual NOAA "predictions". Even when that is pointed out to you, you ignore it, ignore the implications of that little problem and act like it's "no big deal". What NOAA actually "predicted" was a 3 percent chance of a C flare *NO* chance in hell of an M flare on the 5th. What's is reported on solarmonitor.org is a 99% prediction of a C class flare and a 70 percent chance of an M flare that was not actually a PREDICTION at all!

It went from being recorded as a 97 percent failure to being listed as a 99 percent "correct" prediction! Holy cow! That doesn't bother you in the least?

I can just *IMAGINE* the BS I would hear were I to "change" my answers at 2200 based on what I learned in the first 22 hours of that day. You two would be screaming to high heaven about fraud. When the tables are turned, you simply ignore the problem entirely. Talk about the twilight zone.

 

[Reality Check]

In other words their data is all screwed up and you'd never know it by looking at their website. It's only if someone actually went digging into the original NOAA *PREDICTION* information (not the postdictions posted on solarmonitor.org) that you'd even notice a problem.

Wrong.
In actual words their presentation of the NOAA data is screwed up and it is not easy to see this from thier web site. Of couse anyiony who knew anything about falre prediction and MOAA would not need reminding.

..snipped Michael Mozina rant showing his ignorance that this is just a data presentation proble on SolarMonitor...

And again you go off on an ignorant rant.
One more time

The NOAA predictions do not change.
They cover from 22:00 on the previous day to 22:00 on the current day.

The SolarMonitor predictions do not change.
They look as if they cover from 00:30 on the current day to 00:30 on the next day.

The different coverage of the predictions means that the SolarMonitor daily forecast web page that includes the NOAA predictions does change .
​

Holy cow! Can't you undersand this simple fact?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes. But I am not so dumb that I do not know the reason for it.

Are you smart enough to work it out, Michael Mozina?

Nobody should have to 'work it out' in the first place! The original NOAA predictions for a day should be listed ONCE and shown to be "right" or "wrong", not listed as wrong all day long UNTIL 2200 and the have the numbers "fudged" and all links to the real "prediction" data disappear!

Get real. Nothing should be that difficult to understand. The only thing that is difficult to understand is why you're defending it! Doesn't it bother you that you wasted you time and breath calculating numbers that had nothing to do with the original "predictions"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The SolarMonitor predictions do not change.

Bull!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6534998&postcount=718
We both *WATCHED* them change again TODAY! I can't believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

 

[Reality Check]

Nobody should have to 'work it out' in the first place! The original NOAA predictions for a day should be listed ONCE and shown to be "right" or "wrong", not listed as wrong all day long UNTIL 2200 and the have the numbers "fudged" and all links to the real "prediction" data disappear!

I agree that SolarMonitor have selected a bad way of showing the NOAA predictions. But they are not in the business of showing whether the predictions are right or wrong.

You are still ignorant of the fact that the predictions are not wrong. The are the correct NOAA predictions. They are the "wrong" predictions for part of the day that SolarMonitor is displaying.

The stupidity of you accusing NOAA of "fudging" or faking their data without evidence is continuing.

Get real. Nothing should be that difficult to understand. The only thing that is difficult to understand is why you're defending it! Doesn't it bother you that you wasted you time and breath calculating numbers that had nothing to do with the original "predictions"?

Get real.

I find it simple enough to understand:

• The NOAA predictions do not change.
  They cover from 22:00 on the previous day to 22:00 on the current day.
• The SolarMonitor predictions do not change.
  They look as if they cover from 00:30 on the current day to 00:30 on the next day.
• The different coverage of the predictions means that the SolarMonitor daily forecast web page that includes the NOAA predictions does change .

I am not defending it. SolarMonitor should mention this on their web page.

I did not waste much time. That calculation took about a couple of minutes to do.

 

[Reality Check]

Bull!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6534998&postcount=718
We both *WATCHED* them change again TODAY! I can't believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

Bull!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6534998&postcount=718
We both *WATCHED THE PRESENTATION OF THE FORECASTS* change again TODAY! I can't believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

• The NOAA prediction did not change.
  They cover from 22:00 on the previous day to 22:00 on the current day.
• The SolarMonitor prediction did not change.
  They look as if they cover from 00:30 on the current day to 00:30 on the next day.
• The different coverage of the predictions means that the SolarMonitor daily forecast web page that includes the NOAA predictions does change.

Can you understand that the web page content changed - not the actual predictions?
I would be quite surprised if you answer yes. But maybe (for once) you will actually think about what is happening on the web page.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Numbers, Michael, let's see some numbers. Let's see your method described mathematically and objectively so that other people can apply it, achieve the same results you achieve, and come to the same conclusion you reach. You haven't done that yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The stupidity of you accusing NOAA of "fudging" or faking their data without evidence is continuing.

For the record I am accusing *SOLARMONITOR.ORG* of fudging/screwing up NOAA's numbers and *I HAVE* provided you with ample 'evidence':

Noaa's prediction for the 5th:

1121 3 0 0 0

Solarmonitor's numbers for the 5th:

11121 Axx 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)

Nowhere on the solarmonitor website is the *CORRECT NOAA PREDICTION* even listed! The error is nearly 200 percent in this case and in *ALL CASES* it's skewed in a way that consistently makes NOAA predictions look better than they actually were as the data on the 9th *ALSO DEMONSTRATES*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The NOAA prediction did not change.
They cover from 22:00 on the previous day to 22:00 on the current day.

FYI, even *IF* solarmonitor.org info was simply off by a day, it would still be confusing as hell. It's actually far worse than simply being off by a day because the actual NOAA "prediction" from 22:00 the previous day is being *OVERWRITTEN* by later OBSERVATIONS of the sunspot groups for that same day. Those later observations were only intended to be used for "prediction" purposes for the following day, not to be used to OVERWRITE the data for that day! By solarmonitor *OVERWRITING* the daily PREDICTIONS with later OBSERVATIONS for the same day, they are consistently misrepresenting the NOAA PREDICTIONS. There is no longer any correlation between the actual PREDICTIONS that were actually made by NOAA, and what is listed as NOAA "predictions" on solarmonitor.org. The proof of that statement is found in fact that *NOWHERE* on the solarmonitor.org website can we even find the original NOAA PREDICTIONS for the 5th that were released at 22:00 on the 4th. Only the OBSERVATIONS from the 5th remain on the solarmonitor website, and no mention of those numbers appear on the 4th. The original 'predictions' are no longer listed on solarmonitor.org and the numbers listed as "predictions" are not actual "predictions" at all!

For goodness sake RC, the more I look through the data, the more I'm convinced it's probably a simple and innocent programming error on the part of solarmonitor.org when reading the daily files, but it's skews the NOAA prediction data and misrepresent the actual NOAA predictions. The very least you could do is acknowledge that it's a real problem and spend as much time with solarmonitor fixing their problem as you're spending here defending it!

 

[Reality Check]

For the record I am accusing *SOLARMONITOR.ORG* of fudging/screwing up NOAA's numbers and *I HAVE* provided you with ample 'evidence':

For the record: You are wrong.
*SOLARMONITOR.ORG* are fudging/screwing up the presentation of NOAA's numbers and *YOU AND I HAVE* provided you with ample 'evidence'

*SOLARMONITOR.ORG* are not changing NOAA's numbers.
NOAA are not changing their numbers to fit the observations as you asserted before.

And for the record, you stated:

Now how much credibility is there in that system anyway if everything gets *POSTDICTED* to fit *AFTER* the fact?

The numbers that are changing in the solarmonitor web page are NOAA's. So "that system" is NOAA.
You are accusing NOAA of faking their predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped...
For goodness sake RC, the more I look through the data, the more I'm convinced it's probably a simple and innocent programming error on the part of solarmonitor.org when reading the daily files, but it's skews the NOAA prediction data and misrepresent the actual NOAA predictions. The very least you could do is acknowledge that it's a real problem and spend as much time with solarmonitor fixing their problem as you're spending here defending it!

For goodness sake MM, it is obviously a simple and innocent programming error on the part of solarmonitor.org when reading the daily files.

It does not

• skew the NOAA prediction data or
• misrepresent the actual NOAA predictions.

It certainly does not mean that NOAA (or solarmonitor.org) are faking their predictions to fit the observations as you asserted before.
But maybe (for the record) you can quote your accusation and retract it.

It is not a problem for me. If it bothers you so much you tell solarmonitor.

And learn to read MM:
I have acknowledge that it's a real problem. It is not a fantasy in your head. It is not a fantasy in my head.
I am not defending the confusing presentation of the NOAA predictions on the solarmonitor.org web page.
How many times do I have to tell you: They have to expand their note on the web page so that peple know that there is a mismatch between the timing of their predictions and the NOAA predictions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For goodness sake MM, it is obviously a simple and innocent programming error on the part of solarmonitor.org when reading the daily files.

I would tend to agree.

It does not
[*]skew the NOAA prediction data or
[*]misrepresent the actual NOAA predictions.

Yes, it does does skew and mispresent the NOAA data if you attempt to use solarmonitor as an actual resource of NOAA information.

It certainly does not mean that NOAA (or solarmonitor.org) are faking their predictions to fit the observations as you asserted before.
But maybe (for the record) you can quote your accusation and retract it.

I do actually think it's an honest mistake.

It is not a problem for me. If it bothers you so much you tell solarmonitor.

I already did that today.

Maybe next time you might consider LISTENING to me when I tell you that there is a problem instead of *INSISTING* it was my mistake *FIRST* and then having to eat crow later on?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The numbers that are changing in the solarmonitor web page are NOAA's. So "that system" is NOAA.
You are accusing NOAA of faking their predictions.

It really irks me when you go out of your way to *INTENTIONALLY* misrepresent what I just said. The NOAA data is clearly not the problem. It hasn't been faked, or changed or modified in any way, shape or form. Only the solarmonitor website is screwed up and yes it certainly is screwed up. There is not even a record of the "prediction" from 2200 on the 4th for the active region 1121 listed *ANYWHERE* on solarmonitor.

Like I said, I'm convinced at this point in time that it's a solarmonitor software bug and nothing particularly sinister. I have already emailed solarmonitor today about it, so there's really nothing much more I can do about it at the moment.

What it also very interesting is how you *ASSUMED* I was wrong, and even now you seem to think it's 'no big deal' that you did your previous calculations about NOAA's predictive accuracy based on *FALSE INFORMATION*. I find that horribly sad. Let's hope they care about accuracy more than you do.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, it does does skew and mispresent the NOAA data if you attempt to use solarmonitor as an actual resource of NOAA information.

That is the problem that you and I had. We should have used NOAA as a source of NOAA's data not solarmonitor.

Maybe next time you might consider LISTENING to me when I tell you that there is a problem instead of *INSISTING* it was my mistake *FIRST* and then having to eat crow later on?

I did not eat crow. My breakfeast was toast.

So long as you continue to increase the record of your scientific incompetence (as in this thread and others), I will not LISTEN to you when you assert something without any evidence.

I will "INSIST* that you made a mistake *FIRST* because that is often the case. It also seems the only way that you are motivated to produce supporting evidence. Not that that happens much, see Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina in this thread and the many questions for supporting evidence in other threads that you are ignoring.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record: You are wrong.
*SOLARMONITOR.ORG* are fudging/screwing up the presentation of NOAA's numbers and *YOU AND I HAVE* provided you with ample 'evidence'

No RC. The "predictions' made at 22:00 on the 4th for the next 24 hours appear *NOWHERE* on solarmonitor.org. I have explained that very clearly to you now, links and everything. What more can I do? Denial is such an ugly thing. There's just no way to work around it. You're in total denial of the fact that the "predictions' made for 1121 on at 2200 on the 4th are *GONE* from the solarmonitor.org website. It therefore is *NOT* an accurate representation of the NOAA 'predictions' and your numbers were absolutely and positively USELESS and MISLEADING. Gee, where else have I seen you do that before......?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is the problem that you and I had. We should have used NOAA as a source of NOAA's data not solarmonitor.

RC, you *DID YOUR CALCULATION* based on SOLARMONITOR data! Is there a time limit on denial?

We *SHOULD* have done that *ONLY* because solarmonitor misrepresented NOAA data! That's my whole point! We should not have NEEDED to go somewhere else for accurate information since solarmonitor.org claims to be accurately doing so. Why should we need to figure out their mistake the hard way?

 

[Reality Check]

It really irks me when you go out of your way to *INTENTIONALLY* misrepresent what I just said.

It really irks me when you cannot understand what you wrote.
For the record, you *INTENTIONALLY* stated:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Now how much credibility is there in that system anyway if everything gets *POSTDICTED* to fit *AFTER* the fact?

(emphasis added)
The numbers that are changing in the solarmonitor web page are NOAA's. So "that system" is NOAA.

You are stating that *AFTER* the fact, NOAA's numbers were changed (*POSTDICTED*) to fit. That is faking the prediction.

There is not even a record of the "prediction" from 2200 on the 4th for the active region 1121 listed *ANYWHERE* on solarmonitor.

You really have a short memory. I already told you that there is no link listed *ANYWHERE* on any of the achived solarmonitor forecasts to any of the archived NOAA data.

What it also very interesting is how you *ASSUMED* I was wrong,

I *ASSUMED* that you were wrong becuase you have been wrong so many times in the past. In fact this may be the first time that I recall you being right !

and even now you seem to think it's 'no big deal' that you did your previous calculations about NOAA's predictive accuracy based on *FALSE INFORMATION*. I find that horribly sad. Let's hope they care about accuracy more than you do.

So I wasted 2 minutes. Wow !
I am incredible happy that I have learned something about the solarmonitor site that will prevent this happening again.