Here’s a new paper which looks at the group and Wolff sunspot numbers in the mid C19th. The authors find the Wolff sunspot numbers (WSN) prior to 1848 are too high, and need reducing 20%. This brings the Wolff sunspot number more into line with Group Sunspot Number (GSN). The full paper is available (for a short time) directly from A&A here (free signup required).
Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848
Raisa Leussu1,2, Ilya G. Usoskin1,2, Rainer Arlt3 and Kalevi Mursula1
1 Department of Physics, PO Box 3000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
e-mail: Ilya.Usoskin@oulu.fi
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
Received: 26 July 2013
Accepted: 23 September 2013
Abstract
Aims. Sunspot numbers form a benchmark series in many studies, but may still contain inhomogeneities and inconsistencies. In particular, an essential discrepancy exists between the two main sunspot number series, Wolf and group sunspot numbers (WSN and GSN, respectively), before 1848. The source of this discrepancy has remained unresolved so far. However, the recently digitized series of solar observations in 1825–1867 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who was the primary observer of the WSN before 1848, makes such an assessment possible.
Methods. We construct sunspot series, similar to WSN and GSN but using only Schwabe’s data. These series, called here WSN-S and GSN-S, respectively, were compared with the original WSN and GSN series for the period 1835–1867 for possible inhomogeneities.
Results. This study supports the earlier conclusions that the GSN series is more consistent and homogeneous in the earlier part than the WSN series. We show that: the GSN series is homogeneous and consistent with the Schwabe data throughout the entire studied period; the WSN series decreases by roughly 20% around 1848, which is caused by the change of the primary observer from Schwabe to Wolf and an inappropriate individual correction factor used for Schwabe in the WSN; this implies a major inhomogeneity in the WSN, which needs to be corrected by reducing its values by 20% before 1848; the corrected WSN series is in good agreement with the GSN series.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
It also puts a dent in Svalgaards flatline Sun theory. 🙂
Funny how his c14 and 10be choice of proxy sources are so flat too, into and out of the LIA. Bet the average of all available 10be and c14 proxies aren’t as flat as those cherries.
Well, as lgl just emiled me the link, I’ll share it here.
http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber.xls
I don’t know if he used it for his own reconstruction though.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
This the same paper??
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8443
[…] Solar activity lower in early-mid 1800′s: Strengthens case for Solar … […]
I have been arguing this point with Svalgaard for years, he is indeed in trouble now with real data again backing up the GSN (Group Sunspot Number).
Svalgaard leans on Wolf’s method of using magnetic needle readings on earth as a reliable proxy to reconstruct the pre 1848 values of the WSN (Wolf Sunspot Number), but Wolf got it wrong with SC5 which was a lot higher than the now finished value as excepted by the SIDC. This came about from sunspot records found by Wolfer at a later date showing the proxy record is unreliable.
Svalgaard has been attempting to change the world with his sunspot workshops, one of his main thrusts is to discredit the GSN record as it does not fit with his theories. He even has Schatten onboard who was one of the co authors of the GSN. Svalgaard says the GSN does not allow for the reduced counting method of Wolf who used a threshold to count spots, and Schatten conveniently has no memory of how he and Hoyt utilized Wolf’s count values. But if you look at the observer notes in the GSN record it shows clearly that H&S WERE aware of Wolf’s reduced counting method. I have not heard a response from Hoyt.
I pressed Svalgaard on this several times on WUWT without a proper reply and I also suggested that the WSN has inconsistencies before 1848 and that it should also be looked at during his “workshops”. He declined saying the early WSN record was correct.
He will now be forced to look at the pre 1848 WSN values or be viewed as a zealot.
The post 1945 WSN values (SIDC) also need to be revisited. There is no doubt the record is too high because of the weighting system introduced by Waldmeier.
The SC24 record is now very closely following the GSN record for SC5.
Note. The Layman’s Sunspot Count has the Waldmeier factor removed and also allows for the higher speck ratio experienced during grand minimum type cycles.
Tallbloke increased solar activity caused a more rapid exchange of air over the Arctic Circle. The temperature in the stratosphere evened out.
You can see it in animation.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.shtml
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=15&startmonth=09&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=11&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
kuhnkat:
In this paper we have compared the official Wolf sunspot number and the group sunspot number series with the homogeneous
multidecadal record (1835–1867) of sunspot observations by
Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, which have been recently digitized
by Arlt et al. (2013). We show the following:
– The GSN is homogeneous and consistent with Schwabe’s
data throughout the entire studied period.
– The WSN series suffers a significant 20% decrease around
1848 which is caused by the switch in the primary observer
from Schwabe to Wolf.
– The decrease reflects an inappropriate individual correction
factor used for Schwabe in the WSN and implies a major
inhomogeneity in the WSN.
– The WSN needs to be corrected by decreasing its values by
20% before 1848.
– Thus, corrected WSN series agree well with the GSN series.
– Before 1835, the WSN might be underestimated because
Schwabe only considered large spots. A detailed study will
be made later.
This study supports the earlier conclusions that the group
sunspot number series (Hoyt & Schatten 1998) is more consistent and homogeneous than the Wolf sunspot number series in
earlier observations (e.g., Letfus 1999, 2000; Hathaway et al.
2002; Usoskin & Mursula 2003; Usoskin 2013).
tallbloke says:
November 1, 2013 at 8:20 pm
I don’t know if he used it for his own reconstruction though…
He certainly is trying to use it to support his non-grand maximum ideology in his slides. If you google search for 14C 10be reconstructions, seems like the majority imply a grand maximum, much higher than any he chose (including steinberger). He is selective and biased IMO.
ed: I agree Svalgaard is selective and biased. I used to engage in long and tedious argument with him on that issue. These days, I can’t be bothered.
The file’s name corresponds to an author of this paper‘s
Search the www for the name along with “solar” and you get lots of hits. Including 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings.
Dang it! Posted “too soon”. Previous mention at WUWT where the graphic appears to be the same over the subset covered by the xls.
A bit off topic here but still falls under the category of “solar influence on climate”. I have been digging into the debate on SRM – “Solar radiation management”. I can’t seem to wrap my head around how a group of AGW proponents who clearly think that solar forcing has little or nothing to do with heating the earth can now propose a plan to indirectly remediate the effects of “global warming” to cool the earth by injecting aerosols/particulates such as hydrogen sulfate into the stratosphere to reflect/block sunlight? To me this is the epitome of an oxymoron.
Again not my intention to hijack this thread maybe it has already been discussed here maybe I’m just to late if not TB this may make for an interesting discussion in a future topic.
Tallbloke;
With respect to the ‘regimes’ of planetary response to insolation, here’s a ‘big picture’ speculation about tectonics and ocean currents/heat distribution:
1. When oceans are most connected and accessible to circulation, the tendency of the planet is to warm
2. When oceans are separated, and the poles isolated, the Earth cools. The major instantiation of this is circulation between the Pacific and Atlantic such that currents must cross or closely approach the poles, like now.
Has anyone addressed this tectonic ‘control knob’ hypothesis? It would modulate and bracket modes of response to insolation very broadly, it seems to me.
[…] Solar activity lower in early-mid 1800′s – Tallbloke's Talkshop […]
[…] Solar activity lower in early-mid 1800′s: Strengthens case for Solar influence on climate A topic to follow […]
@ Brian H
‘rapid climate change may be related to how vigorously ocean currents transport heat from low to high latitudes.’
http://scienceblog.com/2656/ocean-circulation-directly-linked-to-abrupt-climate-change/
Hello everyone.
This article is the most recent one about solar activity in climate so what I’d like to say is not off-topic here.
I was inspired by the work of Dan Pangburn and decided to try to create a simple climate model using the external solar magnetic forcing and internal 60yr ocean cycle as the main factors, with a bit of CO2 thrown in just so it doesn’t feel left out.
The results were quite… interesting.
Here is a screen shot of the model output compared to measurements, plus a few background details in the caption of which I’m sure all of you are already aware but I wanted to write the caption for a potentially wider audience.
http://imgur.com/yo1840v
I figured this blog would be one of the best places on the web to have people tear the formula to shreds, or tell me how it can be improved. What do you think about it?
Anyone have comments?
Andrew M: Nice work! I’ll put a post together for discussion tomorrow.
Thanks TB, a discussion would be interesting.
I’m in the GMT+10 timezone which may make the conversation stilted sometimes.
My expectations are… people will point out some missing constraint or thermodynamic principle that makes the equation unrealistic even if the output looks correct. Because surely a reliable model cannot be this simple. Just because it can be tweaked to get a 95% correlation over a 140 year period does not mean it will extrapolate to the future reliably. I’m just thinking “if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t true.”
But the more realistic the equation the more parameters it will have that are testable against real quantities, which is what I’d like to improve.
You can clearly see the 20% adjustment period they are addressing on this graph I made a few years ago.