arXiv subjects

Leif Svalgaard

Publications and source records attributed to Leif Svalgaard.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

A Possible Problem with the Sunspot Number

Sunspots are areas of strong magnetic fields driven by a convective dynamo. Rudolf Wolf devised his Sunspot Number (SN) series to describe its variation with time. Most other solar phenomena vary in concert with SN, in particular the microwave radiation. During the interval 2014-Jul to 2015-Dec, the variation of the SN with the microwave flux (e.g. F10.7) was anomalous, although microwave flux did not exhibit any anomaly with respect to the solar magnetic field measured by the HMI instrument on the SDO spacecraft. This points to a possible problem with the derivation of the SN using the 148,714 reports of sunspot observations received by the World Data Center Solar Influences (SIDC/SILSO at ROB) since 2011 (when the last public raw data was released). The unavailability of the raw data since then, contrary to avowed open data policy of ROB, prevents independent assessment and possible correction of the anomaly. We urge ROB to make the raw data available.

astro-ph.IM↗

arXiv2022

Uniting The Sun's Hale Magnetic Cycle and `Extended Solar Cycle' Paradigms

Through meticulous daily observation of the Sun's large-scale magnetic field the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) has catalogued two magnetic (Hale) cycles of solar activity. Those two (~22-year long) Hale cycles have yielded four ($\sim$11-year long) sunspot cycles (numbers 21 through 24). Recent research has highlighted the persistence of the "Extended Solar Cycle" (ESC) and its connection to the fundamental Hale Cycle - albeit through a host of proxies resulting from image analysis of the solar photosphere, chromosphere and corona. This short manuscript presents the correspondence of the ESC, the surface toroidal magnetic field evolution, and the evolution of the Hale Cycle. As Sunspot Cycle 25 begins, interest in observationally mapping the Hale and Extended cycles could not be higher given potential predictive capability that synoptic scale observations can provide.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2020

Several Populations of Sunspot Group Numbers -- Resolving a Conundrum

The long-standing disparity between the sunspot number record and the Hoyt and Schatten (1998, H&S) Group Sunspot Number series was initially resolved by the Clette et al. (2014) revision of the sunspot number and the group number series. The revisions resulted in a flurry of dissenting group number series while the revised sunspot number series was generally accepted. Thus, the disparity persisted and confusion reigned, with the choice of solar activity dataset continuing to be a free parameter. A number of workshops and follow-up collaborative efforts by the community have not yet brought clarity. We review here several lines of evidence that validate the original revisions put forward by Clette et al. (2014) and suggest that the perceived conundrum no longer need to delay acceptance and general use of the revised series. We argue that the solar observations constitute several distinct populations with different properties which explain the various discontinuities in the series. This is supported by several proxies: diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, geomagnetic signature of the strength of the heliomagnetic field, and variation of radionuclides. The Waldmeier effect shows that the sunspot number scale has not changed over the last 270 years and a mistaken scale factor between observers Wolf and Wolfer explains the disparity beginning in 1882 between the sunspot number and the H&S reconstruction of the group number. Observations with replica of 18th century telescopes (with similar optical flaws) validate the early sunspot number scale; while a reconstruction of the group number with monthly resolution (with many more degrees of freedom) validate the size of Solar Cycle 11 given by the revised series that the dissenting series fail to meet.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2020

Calibration of the Sunspot and Group Numbers Using the Waldmeier Effect

The Waldmeier Effect is the observation that the rise time of a sunspot cycle varies inversely with the cycle amplitude: strong cycles rise to their maximum faster than weak cycles. The shape of the cycle and thus the rise time does not depend on the scale factor of the sunspot number and can thus be used to verify the constancy of the scale factor with time as already noted by Wolfer (1902) and Waldmeier (1978). We extend their analysis until the present using the new SILSO sunspot number (version 2) and group number and confirm that the scale factors have not varied significantly the past 250 years. The effect is also found in sunspot areas, in an EUV (and F10.7) proxy (the daily range of a geomagnetic variation), and in Cosmic Ray Modulation. The result is that solar activity reached similar high values in every one of the (17th?) 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, supporting the finding that there has been no modern Grand Maximum.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2020

Prediction of Solar Cycle 25

Prediction of solar cycle is an important goal of Solar Physics both because it serves as a touchstone for our understanding of the sun and also because of its societal value for a space faring civilization. The task is difficult and progress is slow. Schatten et al. (1978) suggested that the magnitude of the magnetic field in the polar regions of the sun near solar minimum could serve as a precursor for the evolution and amplitude of the following solar cycle. Since then, this idea has been the foundation of somewhat successful predictions of the size of the last four cycles, especially of the unexpectedly weak solar cycle 24 ("the weakest in 100 years"). Direct measurements of the polar magnetic fields are available since the 1970s and we have just passed the solar minimum prior to solar cycle 25, so a further test of the polar field precursor method is now possible. The predicted size of the new cycle 25 is 128$\pm$10 (on the new sunspot number version 2 scale), slightly larger than the previous cycle.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2018

Calibration of the Total Solar Irradiance Data Record

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).

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2018

Up to Nine Millennia of Multimessenger Solar Activity

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2017

On the Sunspot Group Number Reconstruction: The Backbone Method Revisited

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2017

Assessment of the Failure of Active Days Fraction Method of Sunspot Group Number Reconstructions

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2017

Gustav Spörer Was Not a Perfect Observer: Failure of the Active Day Fraction Reconstruction of Sunspot Group Numbers

We show that the Active-Day-Fraction calibration method (Willamo et al. [2017]) fails for Gustav Spörer's sunspot group observations. Spörer 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, Spörer 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 Spörer 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 Spörer, and that therefore, the ADF-method is not generally applicable

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2017

Sunspot Group Numbers Since 1900 and Implications for the Long-term Record 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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

A Recount of Sunspot Groups on Staudach's Drawings

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

The Effect of Sunspot Weighting

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

Does Building a Relative Sunspot Number Make Sense? A Qualified 'Yes'

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

Reconstruction of Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Flux 1740-2015

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'.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

Reconstruction of the Sunspot Group Number: the Backbone Method

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2015

Solar Sector Structure

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.

astro-ph.SR↗

arXiv2014

Revisiting the Sunspot Number

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.

astro-ph.SR↗