We discuss recent papers very critical of our Group Sunspot Number Series (Svalgaard & Schatten [2016]). Unfortunately, we cannot support any of the concerns they raise. We first show that almost always there is simple proportionality between the group counts by different observers and that taking the small, occasional, non-linearities into account makes very little difference. Among other examples: we verify that the RGO group count was drifting the first twenty years of observations. We then show that our group count matches the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field with high fidelity, and that the heliospheric magnetic field derived from geomagnetic data is consistent with our group number series. We evaluate the 'correction matrix' approach [Usoskin et al. 2016] and show that it fails to reproduce the observational data. We clarify the notion of daisy-chaining and point out that our group number series has no daisy-chaining for the period 1794-1996 and therefore no accumulation of errors over that span. We compare with the cosmic ray record for the last 400+ years and find good agreement. We note that the Active Day Fraction method (of Usoskin et al.) has the fundamental problem that at sunspot maximum, every day is an 'active day' so ADF is nearly always unity and thus does not carry information about the statistics of high solar activity. This 'information shadow' occurs for even moderate group numbers and thus need to be extrapolated to higher activity. The ADF method also fails for 'equivalent observers' who should register the same group counts, but do not. We conclude that the criticism of Svalgaard & Schatten [2016] is invalid and detrimental to progress in the important field of long-term variation of solar activity.

We identify several pairs of 'equivalent' observers defined as observers with equal or nearly equal 'observational threshold' areas of sunspots on the solar disk as determined by the 'Active Days Fraction' method [e.g. Willamo et al., 2017]. For such pairs of observers, the ADF-method would be expected to map the actually observed sunspot group numbers for the individual observers to two reconstructed series that are very nearly equal and (it is claimed) represent 'real' solar activity without arbitrary choices and deleterious, error-accumulating 'daisy-chaining'. We show that this goal has not been achieved (for the critical period at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th), rendering the ADF-methodology suspect and not reliable nor useful for studying the long-term variation of solar activity.

Recent work on improving and revising estimates of solar activity [Clette et al., 2014] has resulted in renewed interest in what has been called the longest running 'Science Experiment'. We compare four reconstructions of solar activity as reflected in the number of sunspot groups ('active regions') constructed by different authors using very different methods. We concentrate on the period since AD 1900 where the underlying solar and geomagnetic data are plentiful and of sufficient quality and find that all four methods yield essentially the same Sunspot Group Number series. We take that as indicating that protracted and pernicious criticisms of the individual methods are neither fruitful nor helpful and we suggest that future efforts be directed towards understanding the specific reasons why the methods give discordant results for centuries prior to the 20th. The main area of disagreement occurs during the last 25 years of the 19th century and feeds back into the time prior to that. The solar Extreme Ultraviolet flux can be reconstructed since the 1740s [Svalgaard, 2016] and with suitable scaling fits the Svalgaard & Schatten [2016] Sunspot Group Number series since 1865 very well, so we argue that the discordant group series have problems once we move out of the 20th century, and that the community should concentrate on finding out what those are, so a true and useful consensus can emerge.

We have reconstructed the sunspot group count, not by comparisons with other reconstructions and correcting those where they were deemed to be deficient, but by a re-assessment of original sources. The resulting series is a pure solar index and does not rely on input from other proxies, e.g. radionuclides, auroral sightings, or geomagnetic records. 'Backboning' the data sets, our chosen method, provides substance and rigidity by using long-time observers as a stiffness character. Solar activity, as defined by the Group Number, appears to reach and sustain for extended intervals of time the same level in each of the last three centuries since 1700 and the past several decades do not seem to have been exceptionally active, contrary to what is often claimed.