Talk:Solar cycle 2

Huge change in max smoothed sunspot number
On 24 May 24 2017, Jan Janssens (STCE) increased the maximum sunspot number for Solar Cycle 2 from 115.8 to 193.0 (diff)

The new number is apparently based on this data file, which is the "13-month smoothed monthly total sunspot number" from this page:

http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles].

That page says, "Since July 1st 2015, the original Sunspot number data have been replaced by a new entirely revised data series... the present version is numbered 2.0." It also links to an explanatory page here:

http://www.sidc.be/silso/newdataset

That page says, "The most prominent change in the Sunspot Number values is.. dropping the conventional 0.6 Zürich scale factor, thus raising the scale of the entire Sunspot Number time series... This change is equivalent to a change of unit and thus raises the scale of the entire sunspot number time series by a factor 1/0.6."

Indeed, 115.8 / 0.6 = exactly 193.0

So that explains the new sunspot numbers. But, for the sake of clarity I think it would be much better if the article included both the v.1 and v.2 sunspot numbers, with an indication of which is which.

Would anyone object if I make this change, to this page and to the rest of the Solar Cycle pages? NCdave (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Any changes need to be very clear that a non-traditional sunspot number is now being reported, even if it is (becoming) widely accepted. If nothing else, this will avoid confusion with many graphs and books which still almost ubiquitously show the old ISNv1.  Wolf_number explains the change with appropriate citations.  In the infobox, it seems that this value should go in a new field, which can then be appropriately linked or footnoted.  For historical comparisons, and fairly current comparisons for a few more years at least, the old field should probably be retained unchanged.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , if the consensus is to add a new parameter, I'll happily update the IB. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a new field - confusion with older records would be a problem if we simply replaced the pre-existing numbers with the revised version. Perhaps call the new field "Wolfer scale count"? Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with including both new and old numbers (adding back the old numbers, but also keeping the new ones), with a description that makes it clear. You may call them whatever you think is appropriate (maybe ISNv1 and ISNv2, with a link to Wolf_number?). Thank you, Primefac for volunteering to do this drudge work!
 * BTW, what does "IB" stand for? NCdave (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Infobox. I'll see about updating this on the weekend. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)