How to determine if data interpretatiion is a processing glitch(misinterpretation) or true

[Genie]

Trust but verify.

Identifying the "glitch" on other instruments(but just because you don't see it on other similar instruments, doesn't mean it isn't there)

wait and see

use NGO's or data from other countries with different goals

gather expert opinions

gather amateur opinions

seek historical similarities

look for retocausality

wait and see

[Marcel de Bont]

Okay...? Is this about glitchy real-time solar wind data from DSCOVR or ACE? Your post is missing a bit of context for it to make sense.

[Genie]

this includes real-time solar wind data from DSCOVR or ACE. It includes solar flare measurements. it includes DST. It includes everything having to do with solar activity and its impact on the planet earth, either directly or tangentially. It includes all factors contributing to the CME's affect on planet earth. 

wind speed

wind density

angle/direction of wind

duration of flare

moon phase/tidal interactions

schumann resonance

prededing/historical flare acrivity

ENSO

it includes the conditiuons on the earth target

lightning patterns and intensities and tracks

power generation on the planet(coal/nuclear/solar/geothermal/hydroelectric and so on)

undersea cable status.telluric currents.

water loads(dam/reservoirs.aquifers.watershed status. groundwater.ocean currents.droughts.snowloads etc)

but if you can't trust the data or verify it thru other means/instrumentation

then context really doesn't matter

but you think i am missing something. what?

[Jesterface23]

It seems close of trying to write a poem with some things that can error. Just nothing showing examples of errors and what errors can branch down to.

It can take time to learn the different types of errors or issues per satellite, and I'm not sure exactly what all parameters branch down into different models.

[Philalethes]

7 hours ago, Genie said:

but you think i am missing something. what?

A point, perhaps? At least I don't see what your point is. If your point is "instruments can fail", then it will hopefully be of comfort to you to know that people have been aware of that fact for centuries, possibly millennia.

What's important when it comes to instruments used for measurements is that they all yield roughly the same values as each other for what they're measuring. If out of a 100 instruments you see that 1 of them is yielding a completely different result from the other 99, even as you make sure that they're really measuring the same thing, then you can conclude that it's faulty and not to be used. Instruments can of course always break during operation, so if that happens at any point you can certainly be registering false values without even knowing it, until you at some point start suspecting that something is off.

When it comes to the majority of measurements you mention above and the instruments used to measure them, the way this is solved is by having many different stations making the measurements, and preferably also using multiple instruments. That way it's typically quite easy to distinguish between when an instrument is not working as it should and when there's actually something anomalous going on. That instruments regularly fail is of course something any scientist and engineer worth their salt takes precautions against, and expected time until failure is something that's actively accounted for. In fact, there's even a dedicated term for it: mean time between failures (MTBF).

The only measurements you list above which are still prone to error in this regard would be the satellite data, as we have more instruments here on Earth, and ones that are much easier to replace too. Satellite data is more vulnerable due to the combination of there being so few of them overall (satellites that measure the data in question, that is) and the fact that it's hard to determine any expected time to failure for non-standardized instruments that are typically built specifically for a given satellite, and which were primarily tested before launch. That being said, even for satellites there are various things to look at to ensure data integrity, because even if they are few there are several of them, so if there's something odd about the data of a single one of them every single day at a fixed time when that's not the case for any of the others, as seems to be the case with ACE, then you can be fairly certain that there's a malfunction of some sort.

Also, it almost sounds like you're implying that everything you just listed has anything to do with CMEs, but most of those are extremely speculative when it comes to their purported effect on or causation by Solar or geomagnetic activity. There's the Unproven theories thread for things like that now, although I'd strongly suggest you at least provide scientific evidence for any such claim if you post there, so that there's actually something to discuss.

[Genie]

On 5/22/2023 at 1:32 AM, Philalethes said:

What's important when it comes to instruments used for measurements is that they all yield roughly the same values as each other for what they're measuring. If out of a 100 instruments you see that 1 of them is yielding a completely different result from the other 99....

(and here I would think you might only need 2 instruments. The anomalous one plus one from the group of 99.)

so if there's something odd about the data of a single one of them every single day at a fixed time when that's not the case for any of the others, as seems to be the case with ACE, then you can be fairly certain that there's a malfunction of some sort.

(what's odd about the ACE data and what specific time does the oddity occur?)

I am a Variant Specialist. Perhaps that sheds light on my different point of view here. But I see that Archmonoth, MinYoongi and Sam Warfel have all hearted your comment. So, I respectfully thank you for your insight and we can close this thread now.

 

[Philalethes]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

(and here I would think you might only need 2 instruments. The anomalous one plus one from the group of 99.)

The problem with that is that it can be difficult in many situations to know which instrument is right and wrong in that case, but there are typically other ways to check whether they're working as they should too, like referring to tests of standardized conditions; since you're essentially playing a probability game when it comes to certain faults it's typically best to check against multiple controls.

Quote

(what's odd about the ACE data and what specific time does the oddity occur?)

I haven't looked into the exact details of the ACE outages myself, hence why I mentioned that I believed that to be the case, but it could be that the problem with ACE is something else; I just seem to recall @Jesterface23 talking about daily outages, they might have some more insight into the precise nature of the problem. I believe there's also a problem with outages for ACE during times of high proton flux, although that's not daily.

[Jesterface23]

8 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

I just seem to recall @Jesterface23 talking about daily outages, they might have some more insight into the precise nature of the problem. I believe there's also a problem with outages for ACE during times of high proton flux, although that's not daily.

I'm not exactly sure why ACE has its issues. It just goes on about once a day with no set time, some days better than others. There is either no data, or you may be able to tell something isn't right with the solar wind or EPAM data with smaller gaps or random spikes.

 

Pretty much every satellite taking solar wind measurements at L1 either has issues or is fairly old. We are pretty much just waiting on the next satellite to head out there.