The Long-term Variation of

Solar Activity
Leif Svalgaard
HEPL, Stanford University

STEL, Nagoya, 16 January, 2012

1
 Indicators of Solar Activity
• Sunspot Number (and Area,
Magnetic Flux)
• Solar Radiation (TSI, UV, …,
F10.7) Longest direct
observations
• Cosmic Ray Modulation
• Solar Wind
• Geomagnetic Variations
• Aurorae
• Ionospheric Parameters
• Climate?
• More… Rudolf Wolf

After Eddy, 1976

2
 Use of Sunspot Number in Climate Research
The Sunspot Number is used as basic input to reconstructions of Total Solar
Irradiance (TSI). This fact is often ‘hidden’ by saying that the solar magnetic flux
has been ‘modeled’ and that the model and reconstruction are ‘physics-based’.

‘Traditional’ View

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

Effect on Temperature
J. Harder

Krivova, 2010 Calahan, 2011

Many reconstructions exhibit a significant, gradual secular increase in solar activity.
I shall show that this picture is probably not correct. 3
The Modern Grand Maximum ?

Derived from
Group Sunspot
Number
Radial Component of Heliospheric Magnetic Field at Earth
6
Br nT
5 Ceiling

4 S&C R2 = 0.0019

Geomagnetic 3

2
Floor
1
Year
0 4 4
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
The Modern Grand Maximum ?

Derived from
Group Sunspot
Number
Radial Component of Heliospheric Magnetic Field at Earth
6
Br nT
5 Ceiling

4 S&C R2 = 0.0019

Geomagnetic 3

2
Floor
1
Year
0 5 5
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
 ‘Modern Grand Maximum’
sometimes portrayed as Extreme
Sunspot Number from 14C Highest in
8000, or
10,000 or
12,000 years

10 Be last
2000 years

10 Be and 14 C
similar last 2000
years

6
The Tale of Two Sunspot Numbers
GSN = 12 * Groups WSN = 10 * Groups + Spots

Group SSN Wolf SSN

Sunspot Number (Official SIDC View)

The ‘official’ sunspot number 200
180
[maintained by SIDC in Brussels] also SIDC SSN 160
‘Modern
shows a clear ‘Modern Maximum’ in Grand
140
120
Maximum’
the last half of the 20th century. 100
80
60
I shall first show that the official 40
20
record is artificially inflated after 0

1945 when Max Waldmeier became 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

director of the Zurich Observatory And suggest that there likely was
no Modern Grand Maximum 7
 Max Waldmeier’s Tenure as Director of
Zürich Observatory 1945-1979
[kept observing until 1996]
Merz

Wolf’s Relative Sunspot Number

Rudolf Wolf’s Telescope
R = k (10*Groups + Spots)
Built by Fraunhofer 1822 8
 Wolf’s Telescopes. Used by Wolf,
Wolfer, Brunner, Waldmeier, Friedli

Still in use today [by T. Friedli] continuing Most of Wolf’s observations (since the
the Swiss tradition [under the auspices of mid-1860s) were made with this small
the Rudolf Wolf Gesellschaft] telescope. Also still in use today

How does one count sunspots? 9

Wolfer’s Change to Wolf’s Counting Method
• Wolf only counted spots that were ‘black’ and
would have been clearly visible even with
moderate seeing
• His successor Wolfer disagreed, and pointed out
that the above criterion was much too vague and
instead advocating counting every spot that
could be seen
• This, of course, introduces a discontinuity in the
sunspot number, which was corrected by using a
much smaller k value [~0.6 instead of Wolf’s 1.0]
• All subsequent observers have adopted that
same 0.6 factor to stay on the original Wolf scale
for 1849-~1865 10
Waldmeier’s Own Description of
his [?] Counting Method
Zürich Locarno
1968

“A spot like a fine point is counted as one spot; a larger spot, but still without
penumbra, gets the statistical weight 2, a smallish spot with penumbra gets 3,
and a larger one gets 5.” Presumably there would be spots with weight 4, too.
This very important piece of metadata was strongly downplayed and is not generally known 11
What Do the Observers at Locarno Say
About the Weighting Scheme:
“For sure the main goal of the
former directors of the observatory
in Zürich was to maintain the
coherence and stability of the Wolf
number[…] Nevertheless the
decision to maintain as “secret” the
true way to count is for sure source
of problems now!”
(email 6-22-2011 from Michele
Bianda, IRSOL, Locarno)

Sergio Cortesi started in 1957, still at it,

and in a sense is the real keeper of the
WSN, as SIDC normalizes everybody’s
count to match Sergio’s
Locarno to this day continues to weight spots 12
 How Does the
Weighting Work?
223 3 1
227 4 1
228 13 6
231 4 1
232 4 2
223 3 1 233 6 4
227 4 1
228 13 1
234 9 4
231 4 1 235 3 1
232 4 1
233 6 1
234 9 1
235 3 1
8 46 20
8 46 11

10*8+46= 126 100

26% inflated

Unweighted count red

I have re-counted the last ~35,000 spots on Locarno’s drawings without weighting 13
Double-Blind Test
Email from Leif Svalgaard
Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:26 PM
Dear Everybody,
As you may know we are holding a sunspot workshop at Sunspot, New Mexico
in September. For this I would like to propose a simple test, that hopefully
should not put a great extra burden on everybody. I ask that the observer for
each day writes down somewhere what the actual number of spots counted
was without the weighting, but without telling me. Then in September you let
me know what the counts for [rest of] June, July, and August were. This allows
me to calibrate my method of guessing what your count was. It is, of course,
important that the test be blind, that I do not know until September what you all
are counting. I hope this will be possible.

My modest proposal was met with fierce resistance from everybody,

but since I persisted in being a pest, I finally got Locarno to go along
14
 Current Status of the Test
Comparison Spot Counts With and Without Weighting
140
Sweight Locarno 2nd degree fit
120 S Sw Sw/S
y = -0.00352x2 + 1.46294x + 0.45992 10 14.74 1.4737
100 R2 = 0.94742 25 34.83 1.3933
2003-2011 50 64.81 1.2961
80
75 90.38 1.2051
60 100 111.55 1.1155

40 For typical number of

spots the weighting
20 Aug. 2011
S Leif S Marco
increases the ‘count’
0 of the spots by 30-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
50%

For the limited data for August 2011 Marco Cagnotti

and Leif Svalgaard agree quite well with no significant
difference. The test should continue as activity
increases in the coming months.
15
Comparison of ‘Relative Numbers’
Comparison Locarno and Marco & Leif for August 2011 But we are
160
RLoc R = 10*G + S interested in the
140 effect on the
SSN where the
120
RLoc = 1.168(0.033) RLeif group count will
100 R2 = 0.9796 dilute the effect
by about a factor
80
of two.
60
RLoc = 1.152(0.035) RMarco
For Aug. 2011
40 the result is at
R2 = 0.9759
left. There is no
20
Rleif RMarco real difference
0 between Marco
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 and Leif.

We take this a [preliminary] justification for my determination of the

influence of weighting [15-17%] on the Locarno [and by extension on the
Zürich and International] sunspot numbers 16
 How Many Groups?
The Waldmeier Classification May lead to ‘Better’ Determination of Groups
One day
out of five
2011-09-12
has an
2011-06-03 “extra”
group or
NOAA only more
1 group

MWO only
1 group

2011-08-16
17
 Counting Groups
• This deserves a full study. I have only done
some preliminary work on this, but estimate that
the effect amounts to a few percent only, of the
order of 3-4%
• This would increase the ‘Waldmeier Jump” to
about 20%
• My suggested solution to compensate for the
‘jump’ is to increase all pre-Waldmeier SSNs by
20%, rather than decrease the modern counts
which may be used in operational programs

18
 The Two Sunspot Numbers
GSN = 12 * Groups WSN = 10 * Groups + Spots

Group SSN Wolf SSN

Sunspot Number (Official SIDC View)

200
180
SIDC SSN
Correcting for the 20% ‘Waldmeier’
160
‘Modern
140
Grand
discontinuity removes the Modern Maximum’ 120
100

Grand Maximum, at least from the 80

60
Wolf Sunspot Number… 40
20
0
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Can we see this in other solar indicators? 19

Comparing with the Group Sunspot Number
Ratio Rz/Rg for when neither is < 5
600 2 We can compute the ratio WSN
Monthly (Rz)/GSN (Rg) [staying away
from small values] for some
500 1.5
decades on either side of the
start of Waldmeier’s tenure,
400 1 assuming that GSN derived
from the RGO [Greenwich]
300 0.5
photographic data has no trend
over that interval.

200 0 There is a clear discontinuity

corresponding to a jump of a
factor of 1.18 around 1946. This
100 -0.5 compares favorably with the
estimated size of the increase
17 18
0 -1 due to the weighting
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
20
1.21

21
22
23
17
foF2
F2-layer critical frequency. This is the
18
maximum radio frequency that can be
reflected by the F2-region of the
ionosphere at vertical incidence (that
is, when the signal is transmitted
straight up into the ionosphere). And
has been found to have a profound
solar cycle dependence.
17
18 The curves for cycle 18 [1945-] and
cycle 17 [-1944] are displaced.
The shift in SSN to bring the curves to
overlap is ~20%

The evidence for the Waldmeier

Jump begins to be mind-numbing..
24
 Wolf made a very Important Discovery:
Range of Declination rD = a + b RW Wolf’s Relative SSN
North X
. rY

Morning
H

rD
Range of D Evening
Declination

East Y
Y = H sin(D)
A current system in the ionosphere [E-layer] is
dY = H cos(D) dD created and maintained by solar FUV radiation.
For small D, dD and dH Its magnetic effect is measured on the ground.
25
Discovered by Graham in 1722
10 Days of Geomagnetic Variations

rY

26
 The Diurnal Variation of the Declination for
Low, Medium, and High Solar Activity
9
Diurnal Variation of Declination at Praha (Pruhonice) 10
8
6 dD' 1957-1959
4 1964-1965
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Diurnal Variation of Declination at Praha

8
6 dD' 1840-1849
4 rD
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

27
 Another Indicator of Solar Activity:
Radio Flux at 2.8 GHz [or 10.7 cm]
Solar Flux Units F10.7 Flux Penticton
400

350

300

250

200

150

100 18 19 20 21 22 23
50

0
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Composite F10.7 Solar Flux

300
sfu Monthly Averages
250

200

150

100

50

0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

100
Very stable and well-determined from Canadian and Japanese stations 28
95
90
TSI (PMOD) not lower at recent
Solar minimum

Schmutz, 2011 29
 rY is a Very Good Proxy for F10.7 Flux
300
F10.7
250
y = 5.4187x - 129.93
Using rY from nine
200 R2 = 0.9815 ‘chains’ of stations we
find that the correlation
150
between F10.7 and rY is
100 extremely good (more
y = 0.043085x 2.060402
50 R2 = 0.975948 than 98% of variation is
rY accounted for)
0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Solar Activity From Diurnal Variation of Geomagnetic East Component

250
F10.7 sfu Nine Station Chains
F10.7 calc = 5.42 rY - 130
200

150

100
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
50
25+Residuals
0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

30
 70
Scaling to 9-station chain
Helsinki-Nurmijärvi Diurnal Variation
rY '9-station Chain'
65
Helsinki and its replacement station Numijärvi
60
y = 1.1254x + 4.5545 scales the same way towards our composite
55
R2 = 0.9669 of nine long-running observatories and can
therefore be used to check the calibration of
50
the sunspot number (or
45
more correctly the
40 reconstructed F10.7
35
1884-1908 1953-2008 radio flux)
Helsinki, Nurmijärvi
30
25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Range of Diurnal Variation of East Component

70
65 rY nT
60 9-station Chain
55
50
45
40
35 Helsinki Nurmijä rvi
30
1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

31
 70
Scaling to 9-station chain
Helsinki-Nurmijärvi Diurnal Variation
rY '9-station Chain'
65
Helsinki and its replacement station Numijärvi
60
y = 1.1254x + 4.5545 scales the same way towards our composite
55
R2 = 0.9669 of nine long-running observatories and can
therefore be used to check the calibration of
50
the sunspot number (or
45
more correctly the
40 reconstructed F10.7
35
1884-1908 1953-2008 radio flux)
Helsinki, Nurmijärvi
30
25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Range of Diurnal Variation of East Component

70
65 rY nT Superposed
60 9-station Chain
Corrected Wolf
55
50
Number
45
40
35 Helsinki Nurmijä rvi
30
1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Wolf’s use of the diurnal range to calibrate the SSN is physically sound 32
33
Wolf’s SSN is consistent with his many-station compilation of
the diurnal variation of Declination 1781-1880

First cycle of Dalton Minimum

34
The Two Sunspot Numbers
GSN = 12 * Groups WSN = 10 * Groups + Spots

Group SSN Wolf SSN

Step Change?
Wolf
Staudach

Range of Diurnal Variation of East Component

70
65 rY nT
60 9-station Chain
55
50
45
40
35 Helsinki Nurmijärvi
1781-1880 30
1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

35
 The Ratio GSN(Rg)/WSN(Rz*) shows the
Step Change around ~1880 very clearly

Monthly Averages

Adjusting GSN before ~1880 by 40-50% brings it into agreement with WSN
36
 Removing the Step Change by
Multiplying Rg before 1882 by 1.47

There is still some ‘fine structure’, but only TWO adjustments (1.2 to Rz for Waldmeier and 1.47
for Rg) remove most of the disagreement, as well as the Modern Grand Maximum.
37
 24-hour running means of the Horizontal Component of the low- & mid-
latitude geomagnetic field remove most of local time effects and leaves a
Global imprint of the Ring Current [Van Allen Belts]:

A quantitative measure of the effect can be formed as a series of the unsigned

differences between consecutive days: The InterDiurnal Variability, IDV-index
38
 IDV is strongly correlated with HMF B,
but is blind to solar wind speed V
nT IDV Independent of Solar Wind Speed
600
nT
10 10 V
20 500
9 B obs 9
400
8 8 15
B calc from IDV
7 7 10
IDV ? 300

6 6 200

5 5 5
B
100

4 B obs median 4 0 0

3 3 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

B std.dev
2 100% => 2 IDV vs. Solar Wind Speed V (1963-2010)
1 Coverage 1 18
0 0 IDV
16
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
14
HMF B as a Function of IDV09
10 12
B nT 1963-2010
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
y = 1.4771x0.6444 y = 0.4077x + 2.3957 R = 0.0918
2 2
R2 = 0.8898 R2 = 0.8637 V km/s
IDV
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 350 400 450 500 550

39
 IDV and Heliospheric Magnetic Field Strength B for years 1835-2009
IDV Index and Number of Contributing Stations
25 70
IDV nT N

Individual stations 60
20
50

15
40

30
10

20
5
10

0 0
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

B nT Heliospheric Magnetic Field Strength B (at Earth) Inferred from IDV and Observed

10
B (IDV)

6
13 23
4
B (u) B (obs)
2

0
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
40
The previous Figures showed yearly average values. But we can also
do this on the shorter time scale of one solar rotation:

Heliospheric Magnetic Field Magnitude B from Geomagnetic Activity IDV (27-Day Bartels Rotations)
16

14 0.7 13-rotation running means

B = 1.333 IDV B obs.
12

10

4
Floor
2

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

The Figure shows how well the HMF magnitude B can be constructed from
IDV. Some disagreements are due to the HMF being only sparsely sampled
by spacecraft: in some rotations more than two thirds of the data is missing

41
 B nT
11
10
HMF B as a Function of Sunspot Number
1835-1871
HMF B and
1872-2011
9
8
1963-2011 Obs
Sunspot Number
7
The main sources of low-latitude large-
6
scale solar magnetic field are large
5
4
active regions. If these emerge at
3 B = 0.3549 SQRT(Rz ) + 3.83 nT
random longitudes, their net equatorial
2 R2 = 0.755 dipole moment will scale as the square
1 SQRT(Rz corr) root of their number. Their contribution to
0 the HMF strength should then vary as
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rz½ (Wang and Sheeley, 2003)
HMF B [at Earth] compared to Sunspot-based Values
Again, there
10 B nT does not seem
8 to be evidence
6 that the last 50
4 B(Obs)
years were any
B(u) B(IDV)
2 more active
0
than 150 years
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 ago
42
 On the other hand…
Reconstruction of HMF B from cosmic ray modulation [measured (ionization
chambers and neutron monitors) and inferred from 10Be in polar ice cores]
give results [McCracken 2007] discordant from the geomagnetic record:
Heliospheric Magnetic Field Comparisons
10
B nT Be data spliced to Ionization Chamber data spliced to Neutron Monitor data
10

8 B S&C

4
0.2885

2 B LR&F B OBS
B McC
Krakatoa?
0
1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

The splicing of the ionization chamber data to the neutron monitor data around
1950 seems to indicate an upward jump in B of 1.7 nT which is not seen in the
geomagnetic data. The very low values in ~1892 are caused by excessive
10Be deposition [of unknown origin]
43
The Discrepancy
between Now and
100 years ago, if
real, is severe

Shapiro et al., 2011

44
 A reconstruction by Steinhilber et al [2010] on basis of 10Be agrees
much better with ours based on IDV. The excessive deposition of 10Be
~1890 is still a problem for cosmogenically-based reconstructions [25-yr means]:

Webber & Higbie [2010] point out “those are most likely not solely related to
changes in solar heliospheric modulation, but other effects such as local and
regional climate near the measuring sites may play a significant role.

45
 Back to the Future

2008-2009 HMF B = 4.14 1901-1902 HMF B = 4.10 nT

Sunspot Number, Ri = 3 Sunspot Number, Rz = 4

Showing very similar conditions now and 108 years ago

46
The Red Flash at Total Eclipse

It is well known that the spicule jets move upward along magnetic field lines
rooted in the photosphere outside of sunspots. Thus the observation of the
red flash produced by the spicules requires the presence of widespread solar
magnetic fields. Historical records of solar eclipse observations provide the
first known report of the red flash, observed by Stannyan at Bern,
Switzerland, during the eclipse of 1706 (Young, 1883). The second
observation, at the 1715 eclipse in England, was made by, among others,
Edmund Halley – the Astronomer Royal. These first observations of the red
flash imply that a significant level of solar magnetism must have existed
even when very few spots were observed, during the latter part of the
Maunder Minimum (Foukal & Eddy, 2007)
47
 Conclusions (?)
• Solar Activity is now back to what it was a
century ago (Shouldn’t TSI also not be?)
• No Modern Grand Maximum
• Cosmic Ray Modulation discordant
• Experts (?) cannot agree on the Long-term
variation of solar activity
• Solar influence on Climate on shaky
ground if we don’t even know solar input
48
 What to Do about This?
The implications of what I have reported today are so wide-ranging that two
Workshops are being convened to investigate the matter:

Workshop 1: Long-term reconstruction of Solar and Solar Wind Parameters 2012

Sponsored by ‘International Teams in Space Science’ (Bern, Switzerland)
Co-Organizers: Leif Svalgaard, Mike Lockwood, Jürg Beer
Team: Andre Balogh, Paul Charbonneau, Ed Cliver, Nancy Crooker, Marc DeRosa, Ken
McCracken, Matt Owens, Pete Riley, George Siscoe, Sami Solanki, Friedhelm Steinhilber,
Ilya Usoskin, Yi-Ming Wang

Workshop 2: 2nd Sunspot Number Calibration 2012

Sponsored by the National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium
(ROB), and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
Co-Organizers: Ed Cliver, Frédéric Clette, Leif Svalgaard,
Team: Rainer Arlt, K.S. Balasubramaniam, Luca Bertello, Doug Biesecker, Ingrid Cnossen,
Thierry Dudok de Wit, Peter Foukal, Thomas Friedli, David Hathaway, Carl Henney, Phil
Judge, Ali Kilcik, Laure Lefevre, Bill Livingston, Jeffrey Love, Jeff Morrill, Yury Nagovitsyn,
Alexei Pevtsov, Alexis Rouillard, Ken Schatten, Ken Tapping, Andrey Tlatov, José Vaquero,
Stephen White, Erdal Yigit,

49
 Abstract
In his famous paper on the Maunder Minimum, Eddy (1976) conclusively
demonstrated that the Sun is a variable star on long time scales. The
Lockwood et al. (1999) study reinvigorated the field of long-term solar
variability and brought space data into play on the topic. After a decade of
vigorous research based on cosmic ray and sunspot data as well as on
geomagnetic activity, an emerging consensus reconstruction of solar wind
magnetic field strength has been forged for the last century. This is a
significant development because, individually, each method has
uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of
observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. The
consensus reconstruction shows reasonable agreement among the various
reconstructions of solar wind magnetic field the past ~170 years. New
magnetic indices open further possibilities for the exploitation of historic
data. Reassessment of the sunspot series (no Modern Grand Maximum)
and new reconstructions of solar Total Irradiance also contribute to our
improved knowledge (or at least best guess) of the environment of the
Earth System, with obvious implications for climate debate and
management of space-based technological assets.

50