Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Hubble Space Telescope wikipedia , lookup
Optical telescope wikipedia , lookup
Very Large Telescope wikipedia , lookup
Allen Telescope Array wikipedia , lookup
James Webb Space Telescope wikipedia , lookup
Lovell Telescope wikipedia , lookup
Spitzer Space Telescope wikipedia , lookup
Reflecting telescope wikipedia , lookup
Reconciling Group and Wolf Sunspot Numbers Using Backbones Leif Svalgaard Stanford University 5th Space Climate Symposium, Oulu, 2013 The ratio between Group SSN and Wolf [Zürich, International] SSN has a marked discontinuity ~1882: Reflecting the well-known secular increase of the Group SSN 1 Why a Backbone? And What is it? Building a long time series from observations made over time by several observers can be done in two ways: • Daisy-chaining: successively joining observers to the ‘end’ of the series, based on overlap with the series as it extends so far [accumulates errors] • Back-boning: find a primary observer for a certain [long] interval and normalize all other observers individually to the primary based on overlap with only the primary [no accumulation of errors] When several backbones have been constructed we can join [daisy-chain] the backbones. Each backbone can be improved individually without impacting other backbones Chinese Whispers Carbon Backbone 2 The Wolfer Backbone Alfred Wolfer observed 1876-1928 with the ‘standard’ 80 mm telescope Years of overlap 1928 1876 Rudolf Wolf from 1860 on mainly used smaller 37 mm telescope(s) so those observations are used for the Wolfer Backbone 80 mm X64 37 mm X20 3 Normalization Procedure Number of Groups Number of Groups: Wolfer vs. Wolf 12 9 Wolfer 8 Yearly Means 1876-1893 10 Wolf*1.653 7 8 Wolfer = 1.653±0.047 Wolf 6 2 R = 0.9868 5 Wolfer 6 4 4 3 Wolf 2 2 F = 1202 1 Wolf 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 For each Backbone we regress each observers group counts for each year against those of the primary observer, and plot the result [left panel]. Experience shows that the regression line almost always very nearly goes through the origin, so we force it to do that and calculate the slope and various statistics, such as 1-σ uncertainty. The slope gives us what factor to multiply the observer’s count by to match the primary’s. The right panel shows a result for the Wolfer Backbone: blue is Wolf’s count [with his small telescope], pink is Wolfer’s count [with the larger telescope], and the orange curve is the blue curve multiplied by the slope. It is clear that the 4 harmonization works well [at least for Wolf vs. Wolfer]. Regress More Observers Against Wolfer… 5 The Wolfer Group Backbone Wolfer Group Backbone 14 12 10 14 Wolfer Backbone Groups Weighted by F-value Number of Observers Standard Deviation 12 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 1840 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 The Wolfer Backbone straddles the interval around 1882 with good coverage (~9 observers) and with reasonable coverage 1869-1925 (~6 observers). Note that we do not use the Greenwich [RGO] data for the Wolfer Backbone. 6 Hoyt & Schatten used the Group Count from RGO [Royal Greenwich Observatory] as their Normalization Backbone. Why don’t we? Because there are strong indications that the RGO data is drifting before ~1900 José Vaquero found a similar result which he reported at the 2nd Workshop in Brussels. Sarychev & Roshchina report in Solar Sys. Res. 2009, 43: “There is evidence that the Greenwich values obtained before 1880 and the Hoyt–Schatten series of Rg before 1908 are incorrect”. Could this be caused by Wolfer’s count drifting? His kfactor for RZ was, in fact, declining slightly the first several years as assistant (seeing fewer spots early on – wrong direction). The group count is less sensitive than the Spot count and there are also the other observers… 7 The Schwabe Backbone Schwabe received a 50 mm telescope from Fraunhofer in 1826 Jan 22. This telescope was used for the vast majority of full-disk drawings made 1826–1867. Years of overlap ? Schwabe’s House For this backbone we compare with Wolf’s observations with the large 80mm standard telescope 8 Regressions for Schwabe Backbone 9 The Schwabe Group Backbone Schwabe Group Backbone 8 7 10 Weighted by F-value Number of Observers Schwabe Backbone Groups 9 8 6 Standard Deviation 7 5 6 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 0 1790 1 1795 1800 1810 1815 1820 1825 1830 1835 1840 1845 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 0 1885 Comparing Schwabe Backbone with Hoyt & Schatten Group Number 9 8 1805 10 9 Groups 8 7 7 6 Schwabe Backbone 5 6 5 H&S Groups 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 0 1890 10 Joining the Two Backbones Comparing Schwabe with Wolfer backbones over 1860-1883 we find a normalizing factor of 1.55 Comparing Overlapping Backbones Reducing Schwabe Backbone to Wolfer Backbone 12 12 10 10 1860-1883 Wolfer 1.55 8 6 6 4 4 2 0 1860 Wolfer = 1.55±0.05 Schwabe 8 Schwabe R2 = 0.9771 2 Wolfer Schwabe 0 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 0 1 And can thus join the two backbones covering ~1825-1946 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 8 Comparison Backbone with GSN and WSN Sunspot Group Numbers 1790-1945 14 12 Backbone Groups = GSN/13.149 Groups = WSN/12.174 10 8 6 4 2 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 14 The discrepancy around 1860 might be resolved using the newly digitized Schwabe data supplied by Arlt et al. (This meeting). 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Scaling all curves to match for 1912-1946 shows that the combined backbone matches the scaled Wolf 1920 1930 1940 12 Number Conclusions • Using the ‘Backbone’ technique it is possible to reconstruct a Group Sunspot Number 18251945 that does not exhibit any systematic difference from the standard Wolf [Zürich, Intnl.] Sunspot Number • This removes the strong secular variation found in the Hoyt & Schatten GSN • And also removes the notion of a Modern Grand Maximum 13