CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

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......?

Maybe if I put this into MM-speak and add crazy, random colors you will understand .
No MM.
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?
The inability to understand what you read is such an ugly thing.

There's just no way to work around it.

You're in total ignorance of the fact that I know that and told you that the NOAA predictions made for 1121 on at 2200 on the 4th and every other past prediction are *GONE* from the solarmonitor.org website.
It therefore is *NOT* an accurate representation of the NOAA predictions and my numbers were absolutely and positively ALMOST USELESS and AN APPROXIMATION.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

No way RC. If *I* were claiming to accurately represent NOAA's prediction methods and NOAA predictions on thesurfaceofthesun.com and *I* continually screwed it up, would *I* be at fault, or would it be NOAA's fault? I have no clue who even runs solarmonitor.org. "The system" that is "screwed up' and is "untrustworthy" is *SOLARMONITOR* related. The NOAA data is fine.

 

[Reality Check]

No way RC. If *I* were claiming to accurately represent NOAA's prediction methods and NOAA predictions on thesurfaceofthesun.com and *I* continually screwed it up, would *I* be at fault, or would it be NOAA's fault? I have no clue who even runs solarmonitor.org. "The system" that is "screwed up' and is "untrustworthy" is *SOLARMONITOR* related. The NOAA data is fine.

No way MM.

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 fact is that you are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.

So who is it

• SolarMonitor or
• NOAA?

The fact that it is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page implies that you mean NOAA.

In either case you owe someone an apology.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No way MM.

For the record, you *INTENTIONALLY* stated:


(emphasis added)
The fact is that you are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.

So who is it

• SolarMonitor or
• NOAA?

The fact that it is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page implies that you mean NOAA.

In either case you owe someone an apology.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel.

If the solarmonitor information was instead listed on thesurfaceofthesun.com, what "system" is "fake" and or "postdicted", the NOAA system or the system of data display on my personal website? Why in the hell are you blaming NOAA for solarmonitor.org's. mistake? I'm not, so why are you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record, I don't owe *ANYONE* an apology, solarmonitor.org owes NOAA an apology for misrepresenting and misreporting NOAA predictions. Both of them should thank me for pointing out the problem in the first place.

 

[Reality Check]

If the solarmonitor information was instead listed on thesurfaceofthesun.com, what "system" is "fake" and or "postdicted", the NOAA system or the system of data display on my personal website? Why in the hell are you blaming NOAA for solarmonitor.org's. mistake? I'm not, so why are you?

That is a lie - I am not blaming NOAA for solarmonitor.org's. mistake.
You may be blaming NOAA for solarmonitor.org's. mistake.
You are certainly libeling either NOAA of SolarMonitor.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Things are heating up now in the southern hemisphere.

It looks like the active region next to 11121 has started interacting with the main active region off 11121. We're definitely seeing more B class flares today, but no C or M class flares thus far.

IMO that region is building again toward some larger flares. IMO we should see something substantial (C or larger) from that area over the next 24-36 hours. We don't quite seem to be there yet, but what was once a small active region is now of substantial size, and both 11121 and it's new neighbor have begun to electromagnetically interact.

 

[Reality Check]

For the record, I don't owe *ANYONE* an apology, solarmonitor.org owes NOAA an apology for misrepresenting and misreporting NOAA predictions. Both of them should thank me for pointing out the problem in the first place.

That is stupid MM.
There is no apology needed from you (or I) for discovering that solarmonitor.org is displaying the wrong NOAA data on their forecast page some of the time.

That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the following statement by you is a libelous attack on either NOAA or SolarMonitor:

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 fact is that you are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.
It is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page which implies that you meant NOAA. You now seem to be saying that you meant SolarMonitor.

In either case you owe someone an apology. You do not need to make one since it is unlikely that SolarMonitor or NOAA are reading this forum.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel, especially for the sake of your reputation in this forum.

FYI: Accusing a scientist or scientific organization of faking data is one of the most serious accusations that someone can make within the scientific community. If you get it right then that person or organization is discredited permanently. If you get it wrong then you can be discredited permanently. That is why admitting that you made a mistake via an apology and/or an explicit retraction is important.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is stupid MM.
There is no apology needed from you (or I) for discovering that solarmonitor.org is displaying the wrong NOAA data on their forecast page some of the time.

That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the following statement by you is a libelous attack on either NOAA or SolarMonitor:

Huh? How could it possibly be "libelous" to point out solarmonitor's mistake?

 

[Reality Check]

It looks like the active region next to 11121 has started interacting with the main active region off 11121. We're definitely seeing more B class flares today, but no C or M class flares thus far.

IMO that region is building again toward some larger flares. IMO we should see something substantial (C or larger) from that area over the next 24-36 hours. We don't quite seem to be there yet, but what was once a small active region is now of substantial size, and both 11121 and it's new neighbor have begun to electromagnetically interact.

IMO that is in fact what most active regions do.
IMO they get more active.
IMO that means that they will produce more flares.
IMO there is no active region "next to" active region 11121. NOAA lists 3 well separated active regions. Active regions 11120 and 11122 are the closer pair.
IMO there is an area of the sun that is active off to the left of AR 11121. There are other similar areas elsewhere. These are not decribed as active regions by NOAA.
IMO it is just possible that the "active region" that you mention is actually part of active region 11121. But I can find no evidence of this.

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? How could it possibly be "libelous" to point out solarmonitor's mistake?

Huh? It is not libelous to point out solarmonitor's mistake.

It is libelous to wrongly accuse anyone of changing predictions to fit the data as you did in this post

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)
You are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.
It is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page which implies that you meant NOAA. You now seem to be saying that you meant SolarMonitor.

In either case you owe someone an apology. You do not need to make one since it is unlikely that SolarMonitor or NOAA are reading this forum.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel, especially for the sake of your reputation in this forum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh? It is not libelous to point out solarmonitor's mistake.

It is libelous to wrongly accuse anyone of changing predictions to fit the data as you did in this post

That is *EXACTLY* what solarmonitor is *DOING* RC! They are replacing the actual "predictions' from NOAA with "observations" of those same areas over the following day!

 

[Michael Mozina]

IMO that is in fact what most active regions do.

So pick ANY OTHER active region and make your own predictions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

FYI, the correct answer is "none" which is why solarmonitor.org has no credibility at this point in terms of it's data. There is no correlation between the actual "predictions" from NOAA and the later "observations" that are listed on solarmonitor.org for each day.

 

[Reality Check]

That is *EXACTLY* what solarmonitor is *DOING* RC! They are replacing the actual "predictions' from NOAA with "observations" of those same areas over the following day!

That is *NOT EXACTLY* what solarmonitor is *DOING* MM!
They are *EXACTLY* updating their web page from 22:00 on a day with the NOAA predictions issued at 22:00 on the day that happen to be for the next day.

That is not what you libeled them with. It is libelous to wrongly accuse anyone of changing predictions to fit the data as you did in this post

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

You are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.

It is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page which implies that you meant NOAA. You now seem to be saying that you meant SolarMonitor.

In either case you owe someone an apology. You do not need to make one since it is unlikely that SolarMonitor or NOAA are reading this forum.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel, especially for the sake of your reputation in this forum.

 

[Reality Check]

So pick ANY OTHER active region and make your own predictions.

No.
This is your thread containing your guesses .
In any case there are no predictions in that post. Just your opinions about probably non-existent active regions.

In any case I can use your trivial little method of picking the most active region on the Sun and predicting that there will be more activity from it. Guess what - I pick EXACTLY THE SAME REGION because it looks like the most active region on the Sun .

 

[Reality Check]

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

FYI, Repeating a libel does not enhance your reputation.
SolarMonior do not pick NOAA data to fit the observations after the fact.
They just have an accidental overlap with the next day's prediction from NOAA.
Nothing is "*POSTDICTED* to fit *AFTER* the fact".

"
FYI, the correct answer is "none" which is why solarmonitor.org has no credibility at this point in terms of it's data. There is no correlation between the actual "predictions" from NOAA and the later "observations" that are listed on solarmonitor.org for each day.

FYI, the correct answer with respect to is solarmonitor.org data is total credibility.
They give the technique that they create their forecasts on the forecast page. It is an outdated and simplistic method that they probably selected as easy to generate.
I suspect that NOAA have a supercomputer or 2 generating their predictions.

There is correlation between the solarmonitor.org predictions and the NOAA predictions for most of the day. This correlation breaks between 22:00 on a day and the next solarmonitor.org prediction.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No.
This is your thread containing your guesses .
In any case there are no predictions in that post. Just your opinions about probably non-existent active regions.

I suppose that's just a probably non-existent C class flare from that probably non-existent active region, right on schedule, just as I "predicted"?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/plots/xray/20101111_xray.gif

In any case I can use your trivial little method of picking the most active region on the Sun and predicting that there will be more activity from it. Guess what - I pick EXACTLY THE SAME REGION because it looks like the most active region on the Sun .

Actually, at the time I started keeping my eye on it, it was just a "teeny-tiny-teensy-weensy" little active thing. Of course it's grown since then, and it's become a "big boy" now, but it's still much smaller than 1121. Sorry RC, but you can't ignore reality. Sooner or later, you'll have to realize that my "guesses" are at least as accurate as NASA's "guesses", and yes, NASA's "guesses" are in fact just "guesses".

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is *NOT EXACTLY* what solarmonitor is *DOING* MM!
They are *EXACTLY* updating their web page from 22:00 on a day with the NOAA predictions issued at 22:00 on the day that happen to be for the next day.

No RC, it's not that simple. If so, then the "predictions" for the 5th that were posted at 22:00 on the 4th would still be on solarmonitor.org either on the 4th or the 5th, but it's nowhere to be seen. What's happening is that the file being read at 22:00 is overwriting the "prediction" for that day with the "observations" of that day that followed. There's no correlation between the actual "prediction" made on the 4th for region 1121 any anything listed on solarmonitor.org.

That is not what you libeled them with. It is libelous to wrongly accuse anyone of changing predictions to fit the data as you did in this post

But that is *EXACTLY* what solarmonitor is *DOING* RC! They are changing the actual daily prediction to the OBSERVATION for that day that is posted at 22:00 on that day! They literally overwrite the "prediction" with the "observation" 24 hours later.

You are accusing someone (the people running "that system") of *AFTER* the fact, changing numbers (*POSTDICTED*) to fit the facts. That is faking the prediction.

The so called "predictions" listed on solarmonitor *ARE FAKE*! In no way do they resemble the actual "predictions" made by NOAA as that 4th/5th fiasco demonstrates! There's no way to be nice about it. You can't just sweep that little problem under the rug. It may be a very innocent error, and I've publicly stated now on several occasions that I believe that is the case here, but the fact of the matter is that all the "predictions" listed on solarmonitor *ARE FAKE*!

It is the NOAA numbers that are changing on the SolarMonitor web page which implies that you meant NOAA. You now seem to be saying that you meant SolarMonitor.

I've had a chance to look over the data coming out of NOAA now and the data being posted on solarmonitor and it's quite clear to me *NOW* that the problem has *NOTHING* to do with NOAA and EVERYTHING to do with solarmonitors method of updating their website at 22:00. That software routine is screwed up. There's no polite way to put it. It's creating a series of "fake" predictions that never happened on the dates they claim. Some "predictions" never even show up on solarmonitor, including the NOAA PREDICTIONS for the 5th.

In either case you owe someone an apology.

No! I explained to you that I am simply the messenger. Solarmonitor owes NOAA a sincere apology for misrepresenting NOAA's *PREDICTIONS*. I don't expect my customers to apologize to me for pointing out a bug in my software. I have no intention of apologizing to solarmonitor for pointing out their bug.

You do not need to make one since it is unlikely that SolarMonitor or NOAA are reading this forum.
In either case you need to make it clear that you retract this libel, especially for the sake of your reputation in this forum.

Why in this universe would you expect me to retract what I have stated when everything I have stated is true? The solarmonitor data is screwed up. It *DOES* misreport the PREDICTIONS made by NOAA, and it's purely a POSTDICTED TO FIT OBSERVATION set of data now. In no way does it correctly reflect the actual *PREDICTIONS* made by NOAA. Instead it represents the OBSERVATIONS that were actually made during that same day! That is the net result of the error in solarmonitors software. It creates *FAKE* predictions and removes the real ones every day at 22:00.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh look....

Another C class flare from that non existent active region.