Normalized to: Svalgaard, L.
[1]
oai:arXiv.org:1812.09301 [pdf] - 1803025
Calibration of the Total Solar Irradiance Data Record
Submitted: 2018-12-21
Solar surface magnetic field seems to be able to explain variations in Total
Solar Irradiance on timescales from hours to decades. Using magnetograms from
spacecraft (MDI and HMI) and ground-based observatories (MWO and WSO) I build a
composite dataset of the Total Line-of-Sight Unsigned Magnetic Flux over the
solar disk stretching back to 1976, validated by excellent correlations with
the solar microwave flux (F10.7) and the Sunspot Group Number. Direct
measurements of TSI by space borne sensors have been carried out since late
1978. The early instruments were plagued by scattered light entering the
aperture, but this construction flaw can be corrected for. At the AGU 2018
meeting, a new TSI composite has been proposed based on a novel mathematical
method vetted by representatives from all current and most past TSI
instruments. Although an 'official' release of the dataset has not been offered
yet, a preliminary version is available. Anticipating that any last-minute
changes might be minor, I compare this new version with the magnetic flux
composite. It is clear that we have two TSI populations: values before 1993
that are seriously too low and values from 1993 onwards. I elect to normalize
the magnetic flux (the driver of variations of TSI) to a New TSI using the
regression equation for the recent population with the smallest uncertainty.
With this normalization, there is now total agreement between the variation of
the magnetic flux and of the New TSI as well as with the F10.7 and Group Number
proxies. We now have two choices: (1) the Sun underwent a dramatic change in
how its magnetic field drives variation of TSI or (2) the New Consensus TSI
reconstruction does not work and the new dataset is premature and not useful
neither for solar nor for climate research. Following David Hume, we should
always believe whatever would be the lesser miracle, which in our case would be
choice (2).
[2]
oai:arXiv.org:1810.11952 [pdf] - 1774888
Up to Nine Millennia of Multimessenger Solar Activity
Submitted: 2018-10-29
A nine-millennia reconstruction of decadal sunspot numbers derived from 10Be
and 14C terrestrial archives for 6755 BC to 1885 AD has been extended to the
present using several other messengers (Observed Sunspot Number, Group Number,
range of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, and the InterDiurnal
Variation of the geomagnetic Ring Current) and scaled to the modern SILSO
Version 2 sunspot number. We find that there has been no secular up tick of
activity the last three hundred years and that recent activity has not been out
of the ordinary. There is a sharp 87.6-year peak in the power spectrum, but no
significant power at the Hallstatt 2300-year period. The reconciliation of the
cosmogenic record with the modern sunspot record could be an important step to
providing a vetted solar activity record for the use in climate research.
[3]
oai:arXiv.org:1704.07061 [pdf] - 1582792
On the Sunspot Group Number Reconstruction: The Backbone Method
Revisited
Submitted: 2017-04-24, last modified: 2017-09-25
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.
[4]
oai:arXiv.org:1706.01154 [pdf] - 1584228
Assessment of the Failure of Active Days Fraction Method of Sunspot
Group Number Reconstructions
Submitted: 2017-06-04
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.
[5]
oai:arXiv.org:1705.06089 [pdf] - 1583524
Gustav Sp\"orer Was Not a Perfect Observer: Failure of the Active Day
Fraction Reconstruction of Sunspot Group Numbers
Submitted: 2017-05-17
We show that the Active-Day-Fraction calibration method (Willamo et al.
[2017]) fails for Gustav Sp\"orer's sunspot group observations. Sp\"orer was
labeled a 'perfect observer' on account of his 'observational threshold SS
area' being determined to be equal to zero, based on the assumption that the
observer can see and report all the groups with the area larger than SS, while
missing all smaller groups. So, Sp\"orer could apparently, according to the ADF
calibration method, see and report all groups, regardless of size and should
never miss any. This suggests a very direct test: compute the yearly average
group count for both Sp\"orer and the 'perfect observer' exemplar, the Royal
Greenwich Observatory (RGO), and compare them. They should be identical within
a reasonable (very small) error margin. We find that they are not and that RGO
generally reported 45% more groups than Sp\"orer, and that therefore, the
ADF-method is not generally applicable
[6]
oai:arXiv.org:1705.02024 [pdf] - 1573279
Sunspot Group Numbers Since 1900 and Implications for the Long-term
Record of Solar Activity
Submitted: 2017-05-04
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.
[7]
oai:arXiv.org:1609.04882 [pdf] - 1481675
A Revised Collection of Sunspot Group Numbers
Vaquero, J. M.;
Svalgaard, L.;
Carrasco, V. M. S.;
Clette, F.;
Lefèvre, L.;
Gallego, M. C.;
Arlt, R.;
Aparicio, A. J. P.;
Richard, J. -G.;
Howe, R.
Submitted: 2016-09-15
We describe a revised collection of the number of sunspot groups from 1610 to
the present. This new collection is based on the work of Hoyt and Schatten
(Solar Phys. 179, 189, 1998). The main changes are the elimination of a
considerable number of observations during the Maunder Minimum (hereafter, MM)
and the inclusion of several long series of observations. Numerous minor
changes are also described. Moreover, we have calculated the active-day
percentage during the MM from this new collection as a reliable index of the
solar activity. Thus, the level of solar activity obtained in this work is
greater than the level obtained using the original Hoyt and Schatten data,
although it remains compatible with a grand minimum of solar activity. The new
collection is available in digital format.
[8]
oai:arXiv.org:1511.01560 [pdf] - 1306247
A Recount of Sunspot Groups on Staudach's Drawings
Submitted: 2015-11-04
We have examined the more than 1100 drawings of the solar disk made by the
German astronomy amateur Johann Caspar Staudach during 1749-1799 and counted
the spots on each image. Using the modern perception of how to group spots into
active regions we regrouped the spots as a modern observer would. The resulting
number of groups was found to be on average 25% higher than the first count of
groups performed by Wolf in 1857, and used by Hoyt and Schatten in their
construction of the Group Sunspot Number. Compared to other observers at the
time, Staudach's drawings have a very low average number, ~2, of spots per
group, possibly indicating an inferior telescope likely suffering from
spherical and chromatic aberration as would typical of amateur telescopes of
the day. We have initiated an ongoing project aiming at observing sunspots with
antique telescopes having similar defects in order to determine the factor
necessary to bring the Staudach observations onto a modern scale.
[9]
oai:arXiv.org:1507.01119 [pdf] - 1241860
The Effect of Sunspot Weighting
Submitted: 2015-07-04
Waldmeier in 1947 introduced a weighting (on a scale from 1 to 5) of the
sunspot count made at Zurich and its auxiliary station Locarno, whereby larger
spots were counted more than once. This counting method inflates the relative
sunspot number over that which corresponds to the scale set by Wolfer and
Brunner. Svalgaard re-counted some 60,000 sunspots on drawings from the
reference station Locarno and determined that the number of sunspots reported
were 'over counted' by 44% on average, leading to an inflation (measured by a
weight factor) in excess of 1.2 for high solar activity. In a double-blind
parallel counting by the Locarno observer Cagnotti, we determined that
Svalgaard's count closely matches that of Cagnotti's, allowing us to determine
the daily weight factor since 2003 (and sporadically before). We find that a
simple empirical equation fits the observed weight factors well, and use that
fit to estimate the weight factor for each month back to the introduction of
weighting in 1947 and thus to be able to correct for the over-count and to
reduce sunspot counting without weighting to the Wolfer method in use from 1893
onwards.
[10]
oai:arXiv.org:1506.05554 [pdf] - 1212426
Does Building a Relative Sunspot Number Make Sense? A Qualified 'Yes'
Submitted: 2015-06-18
Recent research has demonstrated that the number of sunspots per group
('active region') has been decreasing over the last two or three solar cycles
and that the classical Relative Sunspot Number (SSN) no longer is a good
representation of solar magnetic activity such as revealed by e.g. the F10.7 cm
microwave flux. The SSN is derived under the assumption that the number of
spots per group is constant (in fact, nominally equal to 10). When this is no
longer the case (the ratio is approaching 5, only half of its nominal value)
the question arises how to construct a sunspot number series that takes that
into account. We propose to harmonize the SSN with the sunspot Group Count that
has been shown to follow F10.7 very well, but also to include the day-to-day
variations of the spot count in order to preserve both long-term and short-term
variability.
[11]
oai:arXiv.org:1506.04408 [pdf] - 1475227
Reconstruction of Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Flux 1740-2015
Submitted: 2015-06-14
Solar Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) radiation creates the conducting E-layer of
the ionosphere, mainly by photo ionization of molecular Oxygen. Solar heating
of the ionosphere creates thermal winds which by dynamo action induce an
electric field driving an electric current having a magnetic effect observable
on the ground, as was discovered by G. Graham in 1722. The current rises and
sets with the Sun and thus causes a readily observable diurnal variation of the
geomagnetic field, allowing us the deduce the conductivity and thus the EUV
flux as far back as reliable magnetic data reach. High-quality data go back to
the 'Magnetic Crusade' of the 1830s and less reliable, but still usable, data
are available for portions of the hundred years before that. J.R. Wolf and,
independently, J.-A. Gautier discovered the dependence of the diurnal variation
on solar activity, and today we understand and can invert that relationship to
construct a reliable record of the EUV flux from the geomagnetic record. We
compare that to the F10.7 flux and the sunspot number, and find that the
reconstructed EUV flux reproduces the F10.7 flux with great accuracy. On the
other hand, it appears that the Relative Sunspot Number as currently defined is
beginning to no longer be a faithful representation of solar magnetic activity,
at least as measured by the EUV and related indices. The reconstruction
suggests that the EUV flux reaches the same low (but non-zero) value at every
sunspot minimum (possibly including Grand Minima), representing an invariant
'solar magnetic ground state'.
[12]
oai:arXiv.org:1506.00755 [pdf] - 1378575
Reconstruction of the Sunspot Group Number: the Backbone Method
Submitted: 2015-06-02
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.
[13]
oai:arXiv.org:1503.04477 [pdf] - 957129
Solar Sector Structure
Submitted: 2015-03-15
The interplanetary magnetic field near has a characteristic "sector"
structure that reflects its polarity relative to the solar direction. Typically
we observe large-scale coherence in these directions, with two or four "away"
or "towards" sectors per solar rotation, from any platform in deep space and
near the ecliptic plane. In a simple picture, this morphology simply reflects
the idea that the sources of the interplanetary field lie mainly in or near the
Sun, and that the solar-wind flow enforces a radial component in this field.
Although defined strictly via the interplanetary field near one AU, recent
evidence confirms that this pattern also appears clearly at the level of the
photosphere, with signatures including not only the large-scale structures
(e.g., the streamers) but also highly concentrated fields such as those found
in sunspots and even solar flares. This association with small-scale fields
strengthens at the Hale sector boundary, defining the Hale boundary as the one
for which the polarity switch matches that of the leading-to-following polarity
alternation in the sunspots of a given hemisphere.
[14]
oai:arXiv.org:1407.3231 [pdf] - 1251879
Revisiting the Sunspot Number
Submitted: 2014-07-11
Our knowledge of the long-term evolution of solar activity and of its primary
modulation, the 11-year cycle, largely depends on a single direct observational
record: the visual sunspot counts that retrace the last 4 centuries, since the
invention of the astronomical telescope. Currently, this activity index is
available in two main forms: the International Sunspot Number initiated by R.
Wolf in 1849 and the Group Number constructed more recently by Hoyt and
Schatten (1998a,b). Unfortunately, those two series do not match by various
aspects, inducing confusions and contradictions when used in crucial
contemporary studies of the solar dynamo or of the solar forcing on the Earth
climate. Recently, new efforts have been undertaken to diagnose and correct
flaws and biases affecting both sunspot series, in the framework of a series of
dedicated Sunspot Number Workshops. Here, we present a global overview of our
current understanding of the sunspot number calibration. While the early part
of the sunspot record before 1800 is still characterized by large uncertainties
due to poorly observed periods, the more recent sunspot numbers are mainly
affected by three main inhomogeneities: in 1880-1915 for the Group Number and
in 1947 and 1980-2014 for the Sunspot Number. The newly corrected series
clearly indicates a progressive decline of solar activity before the onset of
the Maunder Minimum, while the slowly rising trend of the activity after the
Maunder Minimum is strongly reduced, suggesting that by the mid 18th century,
solar activity had already returned to the level of those observed in recent
solar cycles in the 20th century. We finally conclude with future prospects
opened by this epochal revision of the Sunspot Number, the first one since Wolf
himself, and its reconciliation with the Group Number, a long-awaited
modernization that will feed solar cycle research into the 21st century.
[15]
oai:arXiv.org:1403.2707 [pdf] - 1208316
Errors in Scale Values for Magnetic Elements for Helsinki
Submitted: 2014-03-11
Using several lines of evidence we show that the scale values of the
geomagnetic variometers operating in Helsinki in the 19th century were not
constant throughout the years of operation 1844-1897. Specifically, the adopted
scale value of the Horizontal Force variometer appears to be too low by ~30%
during the years 1866-1874.5 and the adopted scale value of the Declination
variometer appears to be too low by a factor of ~2 during the interval
1885.8-1887.5. Reconstructing the Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength from
geomagnetic data has reached a stage where a reliable reconstruction is
possible using even just a single geomagnetic data set of hourly or daily
values. Before such reconstructions can be accepted as reliable, the underlying
data must be calibrated correctly. It is thus mandatory that the Helsinki data
be corrected. Such correction has been satisfactorily carried out and the HMF
strength is now well constrained back to 1845.
[16]
oai:arXiv.org:1207.2077 [pdf] - 1124685
Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals
Submitted: 2012-07-09
The solar polar fields reverse because magnetic flux from decaying sunspots
moves towards the poles, with a preponderance of flux from the trailing spots.
Let us assume that there is a strong asymmetry in the sense that all activity
is in the Northern Hemisphere, then that excess flux will move to the North
Pole and reverse that pole, while nothing happens in the South. If later on,
there is a lot of activity in the South, then that flux will help reverse the
South Pole. In this way, we get two humps in solar activity and a corresponding
difference in time of reversals. Such difference was first noted by Babcock
(1959) from the very first observation of polar field reversal just after the
maximum of the strongly asymmetric solar cycle 19. At that time, the Southern
Hemisphere was most active before sunspot maximum and the South Pole duly
reversed first, followed by the Northern Hemisphere more than a year later,
when that hemisphere was most active. Solar cycles since then have had the
opposite asymmetry, with the Northern Hemisphere being most active early in the
cycle. Polar field reversals for these cycles have as expected happened first
in the North. This is especially noteworthy for the present solar cycle 24. We
suggest that the association of two peaks of solar activity when separated by
hemispheres with correspondingly different times of polar field reversals is a
general feature of the cycle.
[17]
oai:arXiv.org:1105.3241 [pdf] - 1076676
Geomagnetic Semiannual Variation Is Not Overestimated and Is Not an
Artifact of Systematic Solar Hemispheric Asymmetry
Submitted: 2011-05-16
Mursula et al. [2011] (MTL11) suggest that there is a 22-year variation in
solar wind activity that coupled with the variation in heliographic latitude of
the Earth during the year, gives rise to an apparent semiannual variation of
geomagnetic activity in averages obtained over several solar cycles. They
conclude that the observed semiannual variation is seriously overestimated and
is largely an artifact of this inferred 22-year variation. We show: (1) that
there is no systematically alternating annual variation of geomagnetic activity
or of the solar driver, changing with the polarity of the solar polar fields,
(2) that the universal time variation of geomagnetic activity at all times have
the characteristic imprint of the equinoctial hypothesis rather than that of
the axial hypothesis required by the suggestion of MTL11, and (3) that the
semiannual variation is not an artifact, is not overestimated, and does not
need revision.
[18]
oai:arXiv.org:1010.2710 [pdf] - 1041271
Flaring Solar Hale Sector Boundaries
Submitted: 2010-10-13, last modified: 2010-10-15
Magnetic fields and the occurrence of flares and microflares are strongly
concentrated near that portion (the Hale boundary) in each solar hemisphere
where the change in magnetic sector polarity is the same as that between
leading and following sunspot polarities in active regions.
[19]
oai:arXiv.org:1008.4832 [pdf] - 220279
Calibration of Sunspot Numbers
Submitted: 2010-08-28
Waldmeier [1971] found a very tight relationship between the F10.7 solar
radio flux and the sunspot number and suggested using the flux for an objective
calibration of the sunspot number. He suggested that if this relationship
changed later on, the sunspot number should be re-calibrated, assuming that the
calibration must have drifted with time. I repeat his analysis using data up to
the present and it is, indeed, clear that the relationship has changed
significantly. This could be due to a drift of the calibration or to a secular
change in the visibility of sunspots, or both.
[20]
oai:arXiv.org:1002.2934 [pdf] - 1025192
Heliospheric Magnetic Field 1835-2009
Submitted: 2010-02-15, last modified: 2010-03-27
We use recently acquired geomagnetic archival data to extend our long-term
reconstruction of the HMF strength. The 1835-2009 HMF series is based on an
updated and substantiated IDV series from 1872-onwards and on Bartels'
extension, by proxy, of his u-series from 1835-1871. The new IDV series, termed
IDV09, has excellent agreement (R^2 = 0.98; RMS = 0.3 nT) with the earlier
IDV05 series, and also with the negative component of Love's extended (to 1905)
Dst series (R^2 = 0.91). Of greatest importance to the community, in an area of
research that has been contentious, comparison of the extended HMF series with
other recent reconstructions of solar wind B for the last ~100 years yields a
strong consensus between series based on geomagnetic data. Differences exist
from ~1900-1910 but they are far smaller than the previous disagreement for
this key interval of low solar wind B values which closely resembles current
solar activity. Equally encouraging, a discrepancy with an HMF reconstruction
based on 10Be data for the first half of the 20th century has largely been
removed by a revised 10Be-based reconstruction published after we submitted
this paper, although a remaining discrepancy for the years ~1885-1905 will need
to be resolved.
[21]
oai:arXiv.org:1003.4666 [pdf] - 136593
Updating the Historical Sunspot Record
Submitted: 2010-03-24
We review the evidence for the argument that Rudolf Wolf's calibration of the
Sunspot Number is likely to be correct and that Max Waldmeier introduced an
upwards jump in the sunspot number in 1945. The combined effect of these
adjustments suggests that there has been no secular change in the sunspot
number since coming out of the Maunder Minimum ~1700.
[22]
oai:arXiv.org:1003.4281 [pdf] - 135101
The Solar Microwave Flux and the Sunspot Number
Submitted: 2010-03-22
The solar F10.7 index is has been a reliable and sensitive activity index
since 1947. As with other indices, it has been showing unusual behavior in the
Cycle 23/24 minimum. The origins of the solar microwave flux lie in a variety
of features, and in two main emission mechanisms: free-free and gyroresonance.
In past solar cycles F10.7 has correlated well with the sunspot number SSN. We
find that this correlation has broken down in Cycle~23, confirming this with
Japanese fixed-frequency radiometric microwave data.
[23]
oai:arXiv.org:0706.0961 [pdf] - 1000413
The InterHourly-Variability (IHV) Index of Geomagnetic Activity and its
Use in Deriving the Long-term Variation of Solar Wind Speed
Submitted: 2007-06-07
We describe the derivation of the InterHourly Variability (IHV) index of
geomagnetic activity. The IHV-index for a geomagnetic element is mechanically
derived from hourly values as the sum of the unsigned differences between
adjacent hours over a seven-hour interval centered on local midnight. The index
is derived separately for stations in both hemispheres within six longitude
sectors using only local night hours. It is intended as a long-term index.
Available data allows derivation of the index back well into the 19th century.
On a time scale of a 27-day Bartels rotation, IHV averages for stations with
corrected geomagnetic latitude less than 55 degrees are strongly correlated
with midlatitude range indices. Assuming a constant calibration of the aa-index
we find that observed yearly values of aa before the year 1957 are 2.9 nT too
small compared to values calculated from IHV using the regression constants
based on 1980-2004. We interpret this discrepancy as an indication that the
calibration of the aa index is in error before 1957. There is no such problem
with the ap index. Rotation averages of IHV are also strongly correlated with
solar wind parameters (BV^2). On a time scale of a year combining the IHV-index
and the recently-developed Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index (giving B)
allows determination of solar wind speed, V, from 1890-present. Over the
~120-year series, the yearly mean solar wind speed varied from a low of 303
km/s in 1902 to a high value of 545 km/s in 2003. The calculated yearly values
of the product BV using B and V separately derived from IDV and IHV agree
quantitatively with (completely independent) BV derived from the amplitude of
the diurnal variation of the H component in the polar caps since 1926 and
sporadically beyond.