Abstract
Historical sunspot records and the construction of a comprehensive database are among the most sought after research activities in solar physics. Here, we revisit the issues and remaining questions on the reconstruction of the so-called group sunspot numbers (GSN) that was pioneered by D. Hoyt and colleagues. We use the modern tools of artificial intelligence (AI) by applying various algorithms based on machine learning (ML) to GSN records. The goal is to offer a new vision in the reconstruction of sunspot activity variations, i.e. a Bayesian reconstruction, in order to obtain a complete probabilistic GSN record from 1610 to 2020. This new GSN reconstruction is consistent with the historical GSN records. In addition, we perform a comparison between our new probabilistic GSN record and the most recent GSN reconstructions produced by several solar researchers under various assumptions and constraints. Our AI algorithms are able to reveal various new underlying patterns and channels of variations that can fully account for the complete GSN time variability, including intervals with extremely low or weak sunspot activity like the Maunder Minimum from 1645 – 1715. Our results show that the GSN records are not strictly represented by the 11-year cycles alone, but that other important timescales for a fuller reconstruction of GSN activity history are the 5.5-year, 22-year, 30-year, 60-year, and 120-year oscillations. The comprehensive GSN reconstruction by AI/ML is able to shed new insights on the nature and characteristics of not only the underlying 11-year-like sunspot cycles but also on the 22-year Hale’s polarity cycles during the Maunder Minimum, among other results previously hidden so far. In the early 1850s, Wolf multiplied his original sunspot number reconstruction by a factor of 1.25 to arrive at the canonical Wolf sunspot numbers (WSN). Removing this multiplicative factor, we find that the GSN and WSN differ by only a few percent for the period 1700 to 1879. In a comparison to the international sunspot number (ISN) recently recommended by Clette et al. (Space Sci. Rev. 186, 35, 2014), several differences are found and discussed. More sunspot observations are still required. Our article points to observers that are not yet included in the GSN database.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The Bayesian Model of Machine Learning Reconstructed Group Sunspot Numbers is available in DOI
Notes
References
Alterman, B.L., Kasper, J.C., Leamon, R.J., McIntosh, S.W.: 2021, Solar wind helium abundance heralds solar cycle onset. Solar Phys. 296, 67.
Arlt, R.: 2008, Digitization of sunspot drawings by Staudacher in 1749 – 1796. Solar Phys. 247, 399.
Arlt, R.: 2009a, The butterfly diagram in the eighteenth century. Solar Phys. 255, 143.
Arlt, R.: 2009b, The solar observations at Amargh Observatory in 1795 – 1797. Astron. Nachr. 330, 311.
Arlt, R.: 2011, The sunspot observations by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe. Astron. Nachr. 332, 805.
Arlt, R., Pavai, V.S., Schmiel, C., Spada, F.: 2016, Sunspot positions, areas, and group tilt angles for 1611 – 1631 from observations by Christoph Scheiner. Astron. Astrophys. 595, A104.
Arlt, R.: 2018, Sunspot observations by Pehr Wargentin in Uppsala in 1747. Astron. Nachr. 339, 647.
Arlt, R., Vaquero, J.M.: 2020, Historical sunspot records. Living Rev. Solar Phys. 17, 1.
Baranyi, T., Győri, L., Ludmány, A.: 2016, On-line tools for solar data compiled at the Debrecen Observatory and their extensions with the Greenwich sunspot data. Solar Phys. 291, 3081.
Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F., Jouzel, J.: 2000, Solar irradiance during the last 1200 years based on cosmogenic nuclides. Tellus B 52, 985.
Bayes, T.: 1763, An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London 53, 370.
Beer, J., Tobias, S., Weiss, N.: 1998, An active sun throughout the Maunder Minimum. Solar Phys. 181, 237.
Beer, J., Tobias, S.M., Weiss, N.O.: 2018, On long-term modulation of the Sun’s magnetic cycle. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473, 1596.
Berggren, A.-M., Beer, J., Possnert, G., Aldahan, A., Kubik, P., Christl, M., Johnsen, S.J., Abreu, J., Vinther, B.M.: 2009, A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L11801.
Brehm, N., Bayliss, A., Christl, M., Synal, H., Adolphi, F., Beer, J., Kromer, B., Muscheler, R., Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I., Bleicher, N., Bollhalder, S., Tyers, C., Wacker, L.: 2021, Eleven-year solar cycles over the last millennium revealed by radiocarbon in tree rings. Nat. Geosci. 4, 10.
Camporeale, E.: 2019, The challenge of machine learning in space weather: nowcasting and forecasting. Space Weather 17, 1166.
Camporeale, E., Johnson, J., Wing, S.: 2018, Machine Learning Techniques for Space Weather, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Vaquero, J.M., Arlt, R., Gallego, M.C.: 2018a, Sunspot observations made by Hallaschka during the Dalton minimum. Solar Phys. 293, 102.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Vaquero, J.M., Trigo, R.M., Gallego, M.C.: 2018b, A curious history of sunspot penumbrae: an update. Solar Phys. 293, 104.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Gallego, M.C., Vaquero, J.M.: 2020a, Number of sunspot groups from the Galileo-Scheiner controversy revisited. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, 2482.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Gallego, M.C., Arlt, R., Vaquero, J.M.: 2020b, Revisiting the amplitude of solar cycle 9: the case of sunspot observations by W.C. Bond. Solar Phys. 295, 127.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Gallego, M.C., Villalba Álvarez, J., Vaquero, J.M.: 2021a, A reanalysis of the number of sunspot groups recorded by Pierre Gassendi in the cycle before the Maunder Minimum. Solar Phys. 296, 59.
Carrasco, V.M.S., Hayakawa, H., Kuroyanagi, C., Gallego, M.C., Vaquero, J.M.: 2021b, Strong evidence of low levels of solar activity during the Maunder Minimum. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5199.
Chatzistergos, T., Usoskin, I.G., Kovaltsov, G.A., Krivova, N.A., Solanki, S.K.: 2017, New reconstruction of the sunspot group numbers since 1739 using direct calibration and “backbone” methods. Astron. Astrophys. 602, A69.
Cionco, R.G., Pavlov, D.A.: 2018, Solar barycentric dynamics from a new solar-planetary ephemeris. Astron. Astrophys. 615, A153.
Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J., Cliver, E.: 2014, Revisiting the sunspot number. A 400-year perspective on the solar cycle. Space Sci. Rev. 186, 35.
Clette, F., Cliver, E.W., Lefèvre, L., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Leibacher, J.W.: 2016, Preface to topical issue: recalibration of the sunspot number. Solar Phys. 291, 2479.
Cliver, E.W., Ling, A.G.: 2016, The discontinuity circa 1885 in the group sunspot number. Solar Phys. 291, 2763.
Connolly, R., Soon, W., Connolly, M., Baliunas, S., Berglund, J., Butler, C.J., Cionco, R.G., Elias, A.G., Federov, V.M., Harde, H., Henry, G.W., Hoyt, D.V., Humlum, O., Legates, D.R., Lüning, S., Scafetta, N., Solheim, J.-E., Szarka, L., van Loon, H., Velasco Herrera, V.M., Willson, R.C., Yan, H., Zhang, W.: 2021, How much has the Sun influenced northern hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21, 131.
Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J.L.: 2021, On the prediction of solar cycles. Solar Phys. 296, 21.
Denig, W.F., McVaugh, M.R.: 2017, Early American sunspot drawings from the “Year without a summer”. Space Weather 15, 857.
Dominguez-Castro, F., Vaquero, J.M.: 2017, The sunspot observations by Toaldo and Comparetti in 1779, November. Observatory 137, 240.
Falkovich, S.E.V.: 1978, Estimation of Signal Parameters, Sovetskoye Radio, Moscow [in Russian]
Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., Sands, M.: 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat, I.
Frick, P., Baliunas, S.L., Galyagin, D., Sokoloff, D., Soon, W.: 1997, Wavelet analysis of stellar chromospheric activity variations. Astrophys. J. 483, 426.
Frick, P., Grossman, A., Tchamitchian, P.: 1998, Wavelet analysis of signals with gaps. J. Math. Phys. 39, 4091.
Friedli, T.K.: 2016, Sunspot observations of Rudolf Wolf from 1849 – 1893. Solar Phys. 291, 2505.
Galaviz, P., Vaquero, J.M., Gallego, M.C., Sanchez-Bajo, F.: 2016, A small collection of sunspot drawings made in the Royal Astronomical Observatory of the Spanish Navy in 1884. Adv. Space Res. 58, 2247.
Gilman, D.L., Fuglister, F.J., Mitchell, J.: 1963, On the power spectrum of “Red Noise”. J. Atmos. Sci. 20, 182.
Gleissberg, W.: 1939, A long-periodic fluctuation of the Sun-spot numbers. Observatory 62, 158.
Gleissberg, W.: 1942, Probability laws of sunspot variations. Astrophys. J. 96, 234.
Gleissberg, W.: 1945, A forecast of solar activity. Nature 156, 539.
Győri, L., Ludmány, A., Baranyi, T.: 2017, Comparative analysis of Debrecen sunspot catalogues. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1259.
Hathaway, D.H.: 2013, A curious history of sunspot penumbrae. Solar Phys. 286, 347.
Hathaway, D.H.: 2015, The solar cycle. Living Rev. Solar Phys. 12, 4.
Hayakawa, H., Tamazawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Miyahara, H., Kawamura, A.D., Aoyama, T., Isobe, H.: 2017a, Records of sunspots and aurora candidates in the Chinese official histories of the Yuan and Ming dynasties during 1261 – 1644. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 69, 65.
Hayakawa, H., Iwahashi, K., Tamazawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Kawamura, A.D., Isobe, H., Namiki, K., Shibata, K.: 2017b, Records of auroral candidates and sunspots in Rikkokushi, chronicles of ancient Japan from early 7th century to 887. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 69, 86.
Hayakawa, H., Iwahashi, K., Tamazawa, H., Toriumi, S., Shibata, K.: 2018, Iwahashi Zenbei’s sunspot drawings in 1793 in Japan. Solar Phys. 293, 8.
Hayakawa, H., Iju, T., Uneme, S., Besser, B.P., Kosaka, S., Imada, S.: 2021a, Reanalyses of the sunspot observations of Fogelius and Siverus: two “long-term” observers during the Maunder Minimum. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 650 DOI.
Hayakawa, H., Iju, T., Murata, K., Besser, B.P.: 2021b, Daniel Mögling’s sunspot observations in 1626 – 1629: a manuscript reference for the solar activity before the Maunder Minimum. Astrophys. J. 909, 194.
Hayakawa, H., Kuroyanagi, C., Carrasco, V.M., Uneme, S., Besser, B.P., Soma, M., Imada, S.: 2021c, Sunspot observations at the Eimmart Observatory and in its neighborhood during the late Maunder Minimum (1681 – 1718). Astrophys. J. 909, 166.
Hoyt, D., Schatten, K., Nesme-Ribes, E.: 1994, The one hundredth year of Rudolf Wolf’s death: do we have the correct reconstruction of solar activity? Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 2067.
Hoyt, D., Schatten, K.H.: 1997, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, Oxford University Press, London.
Hoyt, D., Schatten, K.H.: 1998, Group sunspot numbers: a new solar activity reconstruction. Solar Phys. 181, 491.
Hudgins, L., Friehe, C.A., Mayer, M.E.: 1993, Wavelet transforms and atmospheric turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3279.
Kollath, Z., Olah, K.: 2009, Multiple and changing cycles of active stars: I. Methods of analysis and application to the solar cycles. Astron. Astrophys. 501, 695.
Krivova, N.A., Balmaceda, L., Solanki, S.K.: 2007, Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux. Astron. Astrophys. 467, 335.
Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M.: 1988, The Classical Theory of Fields 2, Nauka, Moskow [in Russian]
Laurenz, L., Lüdecke, H.J., Lüning, S.: 2019, Influence of solar activity changes on European rainfall. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 185, 29.
Lean, J.: 2000, Evolution of the Sun’s spectral irradiance since the Maunder Minimum. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2425.
Le Mouël, J.L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V.: 2019, A solar signature in many climate indices. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 2600.
Le Mouël, J.L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V.: 2020, Characteristic time scales of decadal to centennial changes in global surface temperatures over the past 150 years. Earth Space Sci. 7, e2019EA000671.
Leussu, R., Usoskin, I.G., Arlt, R., Mursula, K.: 2013, Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848. Astron. Astrophys. 559, A28.
Lin, G.H., Wang, X.F., Liu, S., Yang, X., Zhu, G.F., Deng, Y.Y., Ji, H.S., Zhou, T.H., Sun, L.N., Feng, Y.L., Liu, Z.Z., Tao, J.P., Ben, M.X., Lin, J., Ding, M.D., Li, Z., Zheng, S., Zeng, S.G., He, H.L., Zeng, X.Y., Shu, Y., Sun, X.B.: 2019, Chinese sunspot drawings and their digitization (I) Parameter Archives. Solar Phys. 294, 79.
Livingston, W., Penn, M.J., Svalgaard, L.: 2012, Decreasing sunspot magnetic fields explain unique 10.7 cm radio flux. Astrophys. J. 757, L8.
Lockwood, M., Owens, M.J., Barnard, L.: 2014, Centennial variations in sunspot number, open solar flux, and streamer belt width: 2. Comparison with the geomagnetic data. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 5183.
Lockwood, M., Owens, M.J., Barnard, L.: 2016, Tests of sunspot number sequences: 4. Discontinuities around 1946 in various sunspot number and sunspot-group-number reconstructions. Solar Phys. 291, 2843.
Ma, L., Vaquero, J.M.: 2019, New evidence of the Suess/de Vries cycle existing in historical naked-eye observations of sunspots. Open Astron. J. 28, 28.
Maunder, E.W.: 1894, A prolonged sunspot minimum. Knowledge 17, 173.
Maunder, E.W.: 1922, The prolonged sunspot minimum, 1645 – 1715. J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 32, 140.
Mendoza, B., Velasco, V.M., Valdés-Galicia, J.F.: 2006, Mid-term periodicities in the solar magnetic flux. Solar Phys. 233, 319.
Miyahara, H., Masuda, K., Muraki, Y., Furuzawa, H., Menjo, H., Nakamura, T.: 2004, Cyclicity of solar activity during the Maunder Minimum deduced from radiocarbon content. Solar Phys. 224, 317.
Miyahara, H., Sokoloff, D., Usoskin, I.G.: 2006, The solar cycle at the Maunder Minimum epoch. In: Ip, W.-H., Duldig, M. (eds.) Advances in Geosciences, 2, World Scientific, Singapore 1.
Miyahara, H., Tokanai, F., Moriya, T., Takeyama, M., Sakurai, H., Horiuchi, K., Hotta, H.: 2021, Gradual onset of the Maunder Minimum revealed by high-precision carbon-14 analyses. Sci. Rep. 11, 5482.
Muñoz-Jaramillo, A., Vaquero, J.M.: 2019, Visualization of the challenges and limitations of the long-term sunspot number record. Nat. Astron. 3, 205.
Muscheler, R., Adolphi, F., Herbst, K., Nilsson, A.: 2016, The revised sunspot record in comparison to cosmogenic radionuclide-based solar activity reconstruction. Solar Phys. 291, 3025.
Nagovitsyn, Y.A., Pevtsov, A., Livingston, W.: 2012, On a possible explanation of the long-term decrease in sunspot field strength. Astrophys. J. 758, L20.
Nagovitsyn, Y.A., Osipova, A.A., Nagovitsyna, E.Y.: 2021, “Generative” indices of sunspot solar activity: 145-year composite series. Solar Phys. 296, 32.
Neuhäuser, R., Arlt, R., Richter, S.: 2018, Reconstructed sunspot positions in the Maunder Minimum based on the correspondence of Gottfried Kirch. Astron. Nachr. 339, 219.
Ogurtsov, M.G.: 2013, Instrumental data on the sunspot formation in the 17th – 18th centuries: correct information or approximations. Geomagn. Aeron. 53, 663.
Perez-Peraza, J., Velasco, V., Libin, I.Ya., Yudakhin, K.: 2012, Thirty-year periodicity of cosmic rays. Adv. Astron. 691408, 11.
Poluianov, S.V., Usoskin, I.G., Kovaltsov, G.A.: 2014, Cosmogenic isotope variability during the Maunder Minimu: normal 11-year cycles are expected. Solar Phys. 289, 4701.
Polygiannakis, J., Preka-Papadema, P., Moussas, X.: 2003, On signal-noise decomposition of time-series using the continuous wavelet transform: application to sunspot index. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 343, 725.
Salcedo, G.E., Porto, R.F., Morettin, P.A.: 2012, Comparing non-stationary and irregularly spaced time series. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 56, 3921.
Schove, D.J.: 1983, Sunspot Cycles, Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg.
Schwabe, H.: 1844, Sonnen-Beobachtungen im Jahre 1843. Astron. Nachr. 21, 233.
Sentamizh Pavai, V., Arlt, R., Dasi-Espuig, M., Krivova, N.A., Solanki, S.K.: 2015, Sunspot areas and tilt angles for solar cycles 7 – 10. Astron. Astrophys. 584, A73.
Shapiro, A.I., Schmutz, W., Rozanov, E., Schoell, M., Haberreiter, M., Shapiro, A.V., Nyeki, S.: 2011, A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing. Astron. Astrophys. 529, A67.
Silverman, S.M.: 1992, Secular variation of the aurora for the past 500 years. Rev. Geophys. 30, 333.
Silverman, S.M., Hayakawa, H.: 2021, The Dalton Minimum and John Dalton’s Auroral Observations. J. Space Weather Space Clim. 11, 17.
Simpson, J.: 2020, Naked-eye sunspot observations: a critical review of pre-telescopic western reports. J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 130, 5.
Sokoloff, D., Nesme-Ribes, E.: 1994, The Maunder Minimum: a mixed parity dynamo mode? Astron. Astrophys. 288, 293.
Soon, W., Yaskell, S.H.: 2003, The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, World Scientific, Singapore.
Soon, W., Dutta, K., Legates, D.R., Velasco, V., Zhang, W.: 2011, Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 73, 2331.
Soon, W., Velasco Herrera, V., Selvaraj, K., Traversi, R., Usoskin, I., Chen, C.-T.A., Lou, J.-Y., Kao, S.-J., Carter, R.M., Pipin, V., Severi, M., Becagli, S.: 2014, A review of Holocene solar-linked climatic variation on centennial to millennial timescales: physical processes, interpretative frameworks and a new multiple cross-wavelet transform algorithm. Earth-Sci. Rev. 134, 1.
Soon, W., Velasco Herrera, V.M., Cionco, R.G., Qiu, S., Baliunas, S., Egeland, R.: 2019, Covariations of chromospheric and photometric variability of the young Sun analogue HD 30495: evidence for and interpretation of mid-term periodicities. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 483, 2748.
Spörer, G.: 1887, Ueber die Periodicität der Sonnenflecken seit dem Jahre 1618, vornehmlich in Bezug auf die heliographische Breite derselben, und Hinweis auf eine erhebliche Störung dieser Periodicität während eines langen Zeitraumes. Vierteljahrsschr. Astron. Ges. 22, 323.
Stefani, F., Beer, J., Giesecke, A., Gloaguen, T., Seilmayer, M., Stepanov, R.: 2020, Phase coherence and phase jumps in the Schwabe cycle. Astron. Nachr. 341, 600.
Steinhilber, F., Beer, J.: 2013, Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 1861.
Svalgaard, L., Schatten, K.H.: 2016, Reconstruction of the sunspot group number: the backbone method. Solar Phys. 291, 2653.
Svalgaard, L.: 2017, A recount of sunspot groups on Staudach’s drawings. Solar Phys. 292, 4.
Suykens, J., Gestel, T., De Brabanter, J., De Moor, B., Vandewalle, J.: 2005, Least Squares Support Vector Machines, World Scientific, Singapore.
Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T.F.: 1993, Modeling atmospheric 14C influences and 14C ages of marine samples to 10,000 BC. Radiocarbon 35, 137.
Tamazawa, H., Kawamura, A.D., Hayakawa, H., Tsukamoto, A., Isobe, H., Ebihara, Y.: 2017, Records of sunspot and aurora activity during 581 – 959 CE in Chinese official histories concerning the periods of Sui, Tang, and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 69, 22.
Torrence, C., Compo, G.: 1998, A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 61.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Kovaltsov, G.A.: 2003, Reconstruction of monthly and yearly group sunspot numbers from sparse daily observations. Solar Phys. 218, 295.
Usoskin, I., Solanki, S., Kovaltsov, G., Beer, J., Kromer, B.: 2006, Solar proton events in cosmogenic isotope data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L08107.
Usoskin, I.G., Arlt, R., Asvestari, E., Hawkins, E., Kapyla, M., Kovaltsov, G.A., Krivova, N., Lockwood, M., Mursula, K., O’Reily, J.O., Owens, M., Scott, C.J., Sokoloff, D.D., Solanki, S., Soon, W., Vaquero, J.M.: 2015, The Maunder Minimum (1645 – 1715) was indeed a grand minimum: a reassessment of multiple datasets. Astron. Astrophys. 581, A95.
Usoskin, I.G., Gallet, Y., Kovaltsov, G.A., Hulot, G.: 2016a, Solar activity during the Holocene: the Hallstatt cycle and its consequence for grand minima and maxima. Astron. Astrophys. 587, A150.
Usoskin, I.G., Kovaltsov, G.A., Lockwood, M., Mursula, K., Owens, M., Solanki, S.K.: 2016b, A new calibrated sunspot group series since 1749: statistics of active day fractions. Solar Phys. 291, 2685.
Usoskin, I.G.: 2017, A history of solar activity over millennia. Living Rev. Solar Phys. 14, 3.
Usoskin, I., Kovaltsov, G.A., Kiviaho, W.: 2021a, Robustness of solar-cycle empirical rules across different series including an updated Active-Day Fraction (ADF) sunspot group series. Solar Phys. 296, 13.
Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S.K., Krivova, N., Hofer, B., Kovaltsov, G.A., Wacker, L., Brehm, N., Kromer, B.: 2021b, Solar cyclic activity over the last millennium reconstructed from annual 14C data. Astron. Astrophys. 649, A141.
Vaquero, J.M., Gallego, M.C., Trigo, R.M.: 2007, Sunspot numbers during 1736 – 1739 revisited. Adv. Space Res. 40, 1895.
Vaquero, J.M., Gallego, M.C., Usoskin, I.G., Kovaltsov, G.A.: 2011, Revisited sunspot data: a new scenario for the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Astrophys. J. 731, L24.
Vaquero, J.M.: 2012, The lost sunspot drawings of Humphry Marshall (1722 – 1801). Observatory 132, 267.
Vaquero, J.M., Trigo, R.M.: 2014, Revised group sunspot number values for 1640, 1652, and 1741. Solar Phys. 289, 803.
Vaquero, J.M., Kovaltsov, G.A., Usoskin, I.G., Carrasco, V.M.S., Gallego, M.C.: 2015, Level and length of cyclic solar activity during the Maunder Minimum as deduced from the active-day statistics. Astron. Astrophys. 577, A71.
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.: 2016, A revised collection of sunspot group numbers. Solar Phys. 291, 3061.
Velasco, V., Mendoza, B., Valdés-Galicia, J.: 2008, The 120-yrs solar cycle of the cosmogenic isotopes. In: Proc. 30th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. 1, 553.
Velasco Herrera, V., Mendoza, B., Velasco Herrera, G.: 2011, Estimating total solar irradiance during the 21st century. arXiv [astro-ph.SR].
Velasco Herrera, V., Mendoza, B., Velasco Herrera, G.: 2015, Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: from the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century. New Astron. 34, 221.
Velasco Herrera, V.M., Soon, W., Velasco Herrera, G., Traversi, R., Horiuchi, K.: 2017, Generalization of the cross-wavelet function. New Astron. 56, 86.
Velasco Herrera, V.M., Perez-Peraza, J., Soon, W., Marquez-Adame, J.C.: 2018, The quasi-biennial oscillation of 1.7 years in ground level enhancement events. New Astron. 60, 7.
Velasco Herrera, V.M., Soon, W., Legates, D.R.: 2021, Does machine learning reconstruct missing sunspots and forecast a new solar minimum? Adv. Space Res. 68, 1485.
Vieira, L.E.A., Solanki, S.K., Krivova, N.A., Usoskin, I.: 2011, Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene. Astron. Astrophys. 531, A6.
Vokhmyanin, M., Zolotova, N.: 2018, Sunspot positions and areas from observations by Pierre Gassendi. Solar Phys. 293, 150.
Vokhmyanin, M., Arlt, R., Zolotova, N.: 2021, Sunspot positions and areas from observations by Cigoli, Galilei, Cologna, Scheiner, and Colonna in 1612 – 1614. Solar Phys. 296, 4.
Waldmeier, M.: 1961, The Sunspot Activity in the Years 1610 – 1960, Schulthess & Company AG, Zürich.
Wang, Y.M., Lean, J.L., Sheeley, N.R. Jr.: 2005, Modeling the Sun’s magnetic field and irradiance since 1713. Astrophys. J. 625, 522.
Wolf, R.: 1859, Mittheilungen über die Sonnenflecken. Vierteljahrsschr. Nat.forsch. Ges. Zür. 9, 207.
Wolf, R.: 1861a, Mittheilungen über die Sonnenflecken. Vierteljahrsschr. Nat.forsch. Ges. Zür. 12, 41.
Wolf, R.: 1861b, Abstract of his latest results. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 21, 77.
Wolf, R.: 1861c, Mitteilungen über die Sonnenflecken. Astron. Mitteil. Eidgn. Sternw. Zürich 2, 41.
Wolf, R.: 1862, Mittheilungen über die Sonnenflecken. Vierteljahrsschr. Nat.forsch. Ges. Zür. 14, 119.
Wolf, R.: 1878 Beobachtungen der Sonnenflecken. Von der Zeit ihrer Entdeckung bis auf die Gegenwart. Gesammelt von Rudolf Wolf, Unpublished Ms, Wissenschaftshistorische Sammlungen der ETH Bibliothek Handschrift Hs 386, 46, Zürich.
Zito, R.R.: 2016, Possible Mesoamerican naked-eye observation of sunspots – V: evidence from Río azul Tomb I Murals and related artifacts. Sociol. Anthropol. 4, 953.
Acknowledgement
We thank the anonymous reviwer for his/her comments and notes to improve our text. We thank all colleagues, especially Rainer Arlt, Ilya Usoskin, and Jose Vaquero, that share their data and knowledge with us. We also thank Frank Stefani for the idea to add Schove’s (Schove, 1983) entry in Table 1 despite the fact that we are not sure if this entry is truly independent of Waldmeier (1961) or not. We especially like to thank Maria McEachern, the librarian at CfA, for the dedicated help in searching for materials, including the Flamsteed letters, the 1665 book by E. Weigel, the possible sunspot observations by Alischer, among others.
We also wish to acknowledge the communication with Adrian Martinez of Chester County, Pennsylvania (https://www.adrianmartinez.com/) for the ongoing attempt to locate the apparently “lost” sketches/drawings of sunspots by Humphry Marshall (1722 – 1801) described in Table 7
W. Soon would like to thank Scott Armstrong, Eugene Avrett, Sallie Baliunas, Diane and Joe Bast, the late Robert Carter, Michael and Ronan Connolly, Christopher Essex, Dave and Steve Fettig, Carolyn and Terry Gannon, William Happer, Joseph Kunc, Dennis Mitchell, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Jane Orient, Eugene Parker, Kathy and Bob Phalen, the late Eric Posmentier, Art Robinson, Geoff Smith, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka, Gordon Todd, and many friends and family members for their many years of unwavering encouragements and support for carrying out his studies of the Sun, Sun-like stars, and Sun-climate connections at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to the fullest extent possible without fear or prejudice.
V.M. Velasco Herrera dedicates this article to Anna Petrova Babynets and Marte Nahum Velasco Arroyo. He also acknowledges the support from CONACyT-180148 and the support from PAPIIT-IT102420 grants. W. Soon’s work was partially supported by the SAO grants with proposals ID: 000000000003010-V101 and 000000000004254-V101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Douglas V. Hoyt is retired, independent scientist.
Appendices
Appendix A: Notes on Historical Sunspot Observations
In this appendix, we compile all the available historical observations of sunspots and sunspot activity variations.
In 1995, a table of known observers whose original observations could not be found was compiled (see Table 4 below). The missing observations by Fink are probably the most important. Subsequently, some of these observations have been located. For example, Staudacher’s observations have been found and have been reported by Arlt (2008). Neuhäuser, Arlt, and Richter (2018) recently reported the sunspot positions based on the correspondence of Gottfried Kirch from 1680 – 1709. Hayakawa et al. (2021c) recently compiled all the sunspot observations around 1681 – 1718 from the Eimmart Observatory, St. Petersburg, Russia. Scheiner’s observations (1611 – 1633) have recently been found and reported by Arlt et al. (2016), Carrasco, Gallego, and Vaquero (2020a), Vokhmyanin, Arlt, and Zolotova (2021). Carrasco et al. (2020b) recently re-examined the sunspot observations by William C. Bond between 1847 and 1849 concluding that the counts listed in the GSN database should be reduced by 20%. It is worth pointing out that Bond’s sunspot counts, as published in the GSN database, are already reduced by 25% and in good agreement with Carrasco’s et al. conclusion. We have also added ten new entries in Table 4 of which nine are based on reports in archive newspaper publications, while the one by Alischer is a clarification of Hoyt and Schatten (1998).
Table 5 (from 1994) lists observers missed completely or partially by R. Wolf and associates that were used as the basis for the GSN reconstruction. Not all listed observers were used because those with scale factors in the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) above 1.4 in the modern era were discarded. The reconstruction tried to attain at least 10 observers each year, preferably the ones not used in the original Wolf sunspot number (WSN) reconstruction, so as to have as much independence as could reasonably be achieved.
Table 6 (from 1994) lists additional modern observers that were not included in the Zurich publications following R. Wolf. Table 7 lists significant new sunspot observers and added observations from known observers since 1995.
It appears that sunspot Cycles -4 and -3 (i.e., see Figure 5) are controversial; in those, the new estimates by Svalgaard and Schatten (2016) are significantly higher. The reason these estimates are so low in the in the reconstruction by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) is that for sunspots observed prior to 1715 only a single group was reported. Observers seemed quite consistent on this point. Thus, in a hypothetical case, if a sunspot group was observed every day in 1705, the upper limit of solar activity would be about 12.1. Since many days in 1705 had no sunspots, the annual mean for that year must be much less than 12. There is a similar case for 1715, when for the first time two sunspot groups were reported on the Sun during a day, indicating that the Solar Cycle -3 had low solar activity.
Finally, Spörer made detailed drawings of the Sun from 1860 to 1893, which agree fairly well with RGO when they overlap, so that the GSN would appear to be reliable from 1860 to 1880 (i.e., see Cycles 10 and 11 in Figure 5), and not as high as other sunspot reconstructions. Wolf had at least two different sunspot reconstructions and the Hoyt and Schatten (1998) GSN reconstruction agrees well with Wolf’s earlier reconstruction (see Figure 6), before he altered his results using magnetic needle observations (Hoyt, Schatten, and Nesme-Ribes, 1994).
Appendix B: Wavelet Analysis of the Bayesian ML Reconstructed GSN
In Figure 8, we show the wavelet analysis of our Bayesian ML model of the annual GSN (black line) from 1610 to 2020 (Figure 3 in the main text).
The global wavelet spectral analysis shows that there are three periodicities with a confidence level greater than 95% (i.e., 5.5, 11, and 120 years) as well as three periodicities with a confidence level lower than 95% (i.e., 22, 30, and 60 years). The wavelet PSD in the central panel shows the evolution of each periodicity. This result is similar to that shown in Figure 1, where the original GSN record of Hoyt and Schatten (1998) was analyzed.
Appendix C: Comparison Between Different Reconstructions
Table 8 compares the original GSN record by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) with two possible interpretations of the sunspot number reconstructed by R. Wolf in the eighteenth century in relation to the 1.25 \(k\)-factor. We show that under the proposal that this correction is unnecessary and probably incorrect, then the sunspot counts for both reconstructions agree to within the difference of 1.2% over the 1700 – 1799 time interval.
Table 9 provides a summary of the differences in the correction factors involved in the construction of the sunspot-number record of Clette et al. (2014) and the group sunspot number of Hoyt and Schatten (1998). We note that the correction factors by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) were designed to put all observers on the same scale as the photographic record of RGO. The high values for the correction factors by Clette et al. (2014) for the two early observers causes the solar activity to be overestimated. The low correction factors by Clette et al. (2014) for the two later observers cause the twentieth-century solar activity to be underestimated. Visual observers might miss small spots and transient spots when compared to photographic results. Occasionally, visual observers might confuse two or more sunspot groups that were close together and claimed that one sunspot group was present, thus underestimating the total number of groups. This mistake was slightly more common with earlier observers than with more recent observers. These errors mean that correction factors for most visual observers need to be corrected upwards, giving rise to correction factors greater than one.
The GSN calibration factor used for Staudacher is 2.0, using the count of groups provided by Wolf. Svalgaard (2017) re-examined Staudacher’s drawings and concluded that there are 25% more sunspot groups than Wolf reported. If these new counts are incorporated in the GSN reconstruction, the calibration factor does not remain unchanged because then the observer would become inconsistent with overlapping observers. In the case of Staudacher, the new calibration factor would be 25% less and equal to 1.6. The change in Staudacher’s counts affects only one observer and not others. That is how the GSN reconstruction works.
Clette et al. (2014) and Svalgaard (2017) overlooked the previously mentioned issue in their research. This lead them inappropriately to multiply the WSN V1 by 1.25 or a number close to 1.25 for most years before 1879. The exception to this rule is the period from 1849 to 1866, when a 1.43 multiplier was used, indicating that Clette et al. (2014) considered that Schwabe suddenly became a poorer observer in 1849. Leussu et al. (2013) showed that no such discontinuity exists. There are approximately 250 observers between 1700 and 1879. Just because the Staudacher’s count is wrong by 25% does not mean the other 249 observers are also wrong by exactly 25%. Usoskin et al. (2016b) agreed that the GSN reconstruction after 1830 is correct, implying that these authors believe that the 25% correction is not valid.
An example of how a recount and calibration factor are intertwined is the case of W.C. Bond. For Bond, the calibration factor is 0.75, indicating that an overcount of groups was detected in the GSN reconstruction. When Carrasco et al. (2020b) considered Bond’s recount, they found a 20% overcount. With the new count, the new calibration factor becomes about 0.94.
Appendix D: Comparison Between Reconstructions Based on Machine Learning and Cosmogenic 14C Isotope
Cosmogenic isotopes like 10Be and 14C have been used to analyze and reconstruct solar activity, including the creation of proxy records for sunspot activity cycles (see, e.g., Usoskin, 2017; Miyahara et al., 2021). Unfortunately, there is not yet a methodology and/or algorithms that allow a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the sunspot activity cycles, especially during the Maunder minimum.
In Figure 9, we compare our ML reconstructed GSN (blue shaded area) with the reconstructed SSN from the tree-ring isotopic 14C by Usoskin et al. (2021b) using a black line for sunspot Cycles -12 to 13 (1610 – 1900 time interval). For comparison, we have also added the currently recommended SSN record of Clette et al. (2014) using a red line connected by dots set every year in Figure 9. All three records are put on the canonical Wolf Sunspot Number (V1) scale, vertical axis on the right, as in the comparison shown in Table 3 of the main text.
We would like to highlight here the complexity involved in adequately reconstructing not only the phase of the sunspot cycles but also the amplitude of these cycles, both during the Maunder minimum and during the entire interval from 1700 to 1900 using the 14C record. Particularly, one of the main problems to be solved are the negative values of sunspot counts. In contrast, our ML reconstructed GSN fully accounts for both phases and the amplitudes of these sunspot activity cycles. In addition, the comparison with the recommended SSN record by Clette et al. (2014), in turn, suggests the potential application of AI/ML in the reconstruction of SSN or \(R_{z}\), especially before 1700 using the cosmogenic isotope records as the input for training and calibration steps outlined in Section 2.6.2.
Appendix E: Comparison Between the GSN by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) and the Updated Sunspot Group Counts from Debrecen Photoheliographic Data (DPD)
In Table 10 we tabulate the yearly mean GSN calculated by Hoyt and Schatten (1998), the updated GSN calculated using the sunspot group counts from Debrecen Photoheliographic Data (DPD), the Solar Optical Observing Network (SOON) database operated by the US Air Force, the ML GSN computed in this article, the canonical Wolf Sunspot Numbers (V1 from SILSO) calculated up to 2013/2014 (point at which they ceased being tabulated; this is labeled as Wolf), and their replacement called the International Sunspot Number (ISN V2) multiplied by 0.6 to put it on the same scale as the other four tabulations.
For the years of overlap, 1977 to 1995, the mean values for the five-time series are 83.9 (HS98), 86.3 (DPD), 81.6 (SOON), 83.6 (ML), 84.3 (Wolf V1), and 69.5 (ISN V2), respectively. If the Waldmeier Jump of 20% is removed from ISN V2, the corresponding mean would be 83.4, in good agreement with the other four series.
For the years of overlap, 1977 to 2013, the means are 73.2 (DPD), 64.9 (SOON), 71.4 (ML), 67.1 (Wolf V1), and 56.9 (ISN V2). Again removing the Waldmeier Jump, the ISN V2 mean becomes 68.3, in reasonable agreement with the other three series.
The values from Debrecen Photoheliographic Data tend to be slightly higher than the other time series, particularly during the last two solar minima. The reason for this difference is still under investigation, but it may be caused by the use of the observations by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Michelson Doppler Imager (SOHO/MDI) for those days when there were no ground-based observations. It should be noted that the DPD time series is based solely on photographic images and computer analysis of the images (but using their accurate checking by eye after the computer procedures and comparison with magnetograms), so it is likely to be the most homogeneous sunspot group record currently available (Baranyi, Győri, and Ludmány, 2016; Győri, Ludmány, and Baranyi, 2017). Unfortunately, the last complete year of observations for DPD is 2017.
Finally, for an additional perspective, we have further included our ML reconstructed GSN values to Table 10 to compare them with the original GSN by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) and the GSN derived from DPD values in Figure 10. As previously stated, the three records are in reasonable agreement and we intend to extend the original GSN records by Hoyt and Schatten (1998) indefinitely in the future using our algorithms.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Velasco Herrera, V.M., Soon, W., Hoyt, D.V. et al. Group Sunspot Numbers: A New Reconstruction of Sunspot Activity Variations from Historical Sunspot Records Using Algorithms from Machine Learning. Sol Phys 297, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-021-01926-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-021-01926-x