Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr - Part 3: improved representation of solar cycle 11

Svalgaard (2014) has recently pointed out that the calibration of the Helsinki magnetic observatory’s H component variometer was probably in error in published data for the years 1866–1874.5 and that this makes the interdiurnal variation index based on daily means, IDV(1d), (Lockwood et al., 2013a), and the interplanetary magnetic field strength derived from it (Lockwood et al., 2013b), too low around the peak of solar cycle 11. We use data from the modern Nurmijarvi station, relatively close to the site of the original Helsinki Observatory, to confirm a 30% underestimation in this interval and hence our results are fully consistent with the correction derived by Svalgaard. We show that the best method for recalibration uses the Helsinki Ak(H) and aa indices and is accurate to ±10 %. This makes it preferable to recalibration using either the sunspot number or the diurnal range of geomagnetic activity which we find to be accurate to ±20 %. In the case of Helsinki data during cycle 11, the two recalibration methods produce very similar corrections which are here confirmed using newly digitised data from the nearby St Petersburg observatory and also using declination data from Helsinki. However, we show that the IDV index is, compared to later years, too similar to sunspot number before 1872, revealing independence of the two data series has been lost; either because the geomagnetic data used to compile IDV has been corrected using sunspot numbers, or vice versa, or both. We present corrected data sequences for both the IDV(1d) index and the reconstructed IMF (interplanetary magnetic field).We also analyse the relationship between the derived near-Earth IMF and the sunspot number and point out the relevance of the prior history of solar activity, in addition to the contemporaneous value, to estimating any “floor” value of the near-Earth interplanetary field.

The error of representation: basic understanding

Representation error arises from the inability of the forecast model to accurately simulate the climatology of the truth. We present a rigorous framework for understanding this kind of error of representation. This framework shows that the lack of an inverse in the relationship between the true climatology (true attractor) and the forecast climatology (forecast attractor) leads to the error of representation. A new gain matrix for the data assimilation problem is derived that illustrates the proper approaches one may take to perform Bayesian data assimilation when the observations are of states on one attractor but the forecast model resides on another. This new data assimilation algorithm is the optimal scheme for the situation where the distributions on the true attractor and the forecast attractors are separately Gaussian and there exists a linear map between them. The results of this theory are illustrated in a simple Gaussian multivariate model.

Low rank representation on Riemannian manifold of symmetric positive definite matrices

Sparse coding aims to find a more compact representation based on a set of dictionary atoms. A well-known technique looking at 2D sparsity is the low rank representation (LRR). However, in many computer vision applications, data often originate from a manifold, which is equipped with some Riemannian geometry. In this case, the existing LRR becomes inappropriate for modeling and incorporating the intrinsic geometry of the manifold that is potentially important and critical to applications. In this paper, we generalize the LRR over the Euclidean space to the LRR model over a specific Rimannian manifold—the manifold of symmetric positive matrices (SPD). Experiments on several computer vision datasets showcase its noise robustness and superior performance on classification and segmentation compared with state-of-the-art approaches.

Toward a theory of semantic representation

We present an account of semantic representation that focuses on distinct types of information from which word meanings can be learned. In particular, we argue that there are at least two major types of information from which we learn word meanings. The first is what we call experiential information. This is data derived both from our sensory-motor interactions with the outside world, as well as from our experience of own inner states, particularly our emotions. The second type of information is language-based. In particular, it is derived from the general linguistic context in which words appear. The paper spells out this proposal, summarizes research supporting this view and presents new predictions emerging from this framework.