Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Santa brought us a new Sunspot prediction to be added to NASA’s incredibly high series of at least five ill-fated predictions starting in 2006. NASA’s latest peak Sunspot Number for Solar Cycle #24 (SC24) is down 60% from their original, but it still seems a bit too high, judging by David Archibald’s recent WUWT posting that analogizes SC24 and SC25 to SC5 and SC6 which peaked around 50, during the cold period (Dalton minimum) of the early 1800’s.
According to Yogi Berra “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Team leader Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of NASA’s National Center for Atmospheric Research and Solar physicist Dr. David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center have most likely learned that lesson well, having predicted, back in March 2006, that SC24 would start by the end of 2006 or early 2007 and would peak 30% to 50% higher than SC23, which would yield counts of 156 to 180. The latest prediction is 64 (I love their precision :^) but I predict it will have to be reduced further, kind of like an after-Christmas sale :^)
[NOTE added 28 Dec 9:45PM. See clarification comment by: John from CA, December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm. I was mistaken in conflating NASA with NOAA in the graphic and discussion, wrongly assuming they coordinated their Sunspot predictions. The base chart, as labeled, is from NOAA but the predictions are from Dikpati and/or Hathaway at NASA, but later ones, on a NASA website, may be personal, not official. Thanks John from CA and sorry for my ignorance of government organization. Ira]
My graphic traces the downward progression of NASA Sunspot predictions, superimposed over NASA’s NOAA’s latest chart of actual Sunspot Numbers. SC23 is shown from its peak in 2000 to its demise in 2009, along with the rise of SC24 up to the latest November 2010 data. The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January. [Click graphic for larger version].
As indicated, SC23 peaked at a count of 120 around January 2000. It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it). Some direct quotes [emphasis added]:
“The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” [Dikpati] says… Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun…
Hathaway … explains: “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”…
“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!
All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”
When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Did Dikpati and Hathaway honestly believed they had cracked the Sunspot code that had eluded science for two centuries? In hindsight, we all know they were wrong in their heady predictions of a “doozy”. (A doozy, according to Webster is “an extraordinary one of its kind”. NASA expected SC24 to be extraordinarily intense. But it is shaping up to be extraordinarily weak, so they at least get credit for using the correct word :^)
But, were they being honest? Well, Hathaway had long been aware of the relationship between Sunspot counts and climate, writing:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Is it possible that their prediction was skewed to the high side by the prevalent opinion, in the Inconvenient Truth year of 2006, that Global Warming was “settled science”. Could it be that they felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell?
It seems to me that NASA has a long history of delayed Sunspot predictions, particularly when the trend was downward. They seem to have waited until the actual counts forced them to do so.
Have a look at the graphic. SC23 SC24 [thanks Steeptown December 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm] was supposed to start by early 2007, but it did not. Yet, it took them until October 2008 to revise their prediction of a later start and lower peak (137) and then they dropped it further in January 2009 (predicting a peak of 104 to occur in early 2012).
I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots, yet it was clear to me, nearly two years ago, that 104 was way too high so I predicted a peak of 80 and moved the date of that peak to mid-2013. NASA eventually reduced their peak to 90, and just this month down to 64, and they moved the peak date to mid-2013. My latest prediction is 60, to occur in early 2014, but I believe I may still be a bit too high.
With apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don’t know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Great comments. If Layman’s nails another solar cycle and temperatures continue to fall it isn’t looking good for the man made warmers. Science is a beautiful thing. Didn’t Galileo say something like its a great time to be a denier?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
The NASA page also says Boulder (one can only hope this is not NOAA) is reporting daily numbers “typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number”. What’s the point of inflating sunspot numbers beyond an International prediction?
The NOAA people do it right. The problem is with the rest of the world 🙂
There should be no need to maintain the 0.6 conversion factor that is used to be compatible with Wolf. We should simply revert to the original idea: SSN = 10*Groups + Spots, all referred to the 8 cm x64 telescope and counting everything that we see. NOAA is not ‘inflating’ anything, just not ‘deflating. So if there are two groups with three spots, the SSN should simply by 10*2+3 = 23, and not 23*0.6 = 14 [which looks like one group with 4 spots].
========
Once again, Thank You for the insights!
In my opinion, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center’s Solar Physics and NOAA need to jointly develop a single site for Space Weather and Solar Physics. NASA is clearly a budget hog and the fact that they aren’t more proactive in the face of NOAA’s responsibility for Solar Weather is disturbing.
If they can’t play in the same sandbox, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center’s Solar Physics page should dump all predictions and inappropriate links.
Mike D. says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:07 am
I am relieved to hear that moneyed interests and other wheeler dealers are not bending NASA science to fit their political agendas.
Whatever they do or don’t do, the panel was not bent.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:37 am
If they can’t play in the same sandbox, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center’s Solar Physics page should dump all predictions and inappropriate links.
That page does not reflect official NASA views, any more than my webpage reflect Stanford’s or SDO’s. The Hathaway page is David’s personal view and, as I said, not even funded anymore.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:48 am
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:37 am
If they can’t play in the same sandbox, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center’s Solar Physics page should dump all predictions and inappropriate links.
That page does not reflect official NASA views, any more than my webpage reflect Stanford’s or SDO’s. The Hathaway page is David’s personal view and, as I said, not even funded anymore.
=========
The NASA predictions page is served by a nasa.gov server with NASA’s logo at the top: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Maybe we’re talking about 2 different pages?
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:55 am
Maybe we’re talking about 2 different pages?
No. The ‘we’ referred to on the page is Hathaway and Wilson, not NASA collectively. NASA is not in the prediction business. They pay contractors to do that [e.g. Ken Schatten]. NASA (Goddard) uses our model, to undertake the needed calculations, which do work, for its orbital planning — for example, they decided to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope, rather than design a special multi-multi-million dollar mission to bring it down, since the Goddard Flight dynamics analysis branch figured out, that Hubble would “fly over” solar cycle 24 — (The cycle would be too weak, and thus the drag too small to bring it down in the next decade).. so, Hubble now has a lot more life to it.. because NASA believed in our prediction and kept Hubble up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:48 am
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:37 am
If they can’t play in the same sandbox, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center’s Solar Physics page should dump all predictions and inappropriate links.
That page does not reflect official NASA views, any more than my webpage reflect Stanford’s or SDO’s. The Hathaway page is David’s personal view and, as I said, not even funded anymore.
=======
I took a closer look and found this on the Home page:
“The Solar Physics Group at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center was formed in the early 1970’s in conjunction with the Apollo Skylab Mission. These pages contain an overview of solar physics itself along with highlights of our own work, our current projects, and possible future missions.”
I also found “Author: Dr. David H. Hathaway” listed on the bottom right corner of each webpage.
I also did a google search for “Dr. David H. Hathaway” and the first link to be listed was “David Hathaway’s Solar Cycle Prediction – NASA/Marshall Solar Physics”.
My mistake, I was thrown off by the title of this article: NASA’s Sunspot Prediction Roller Coaster which should be changed to David Hathaway’s Solar Cycle Prediction.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:45 am
…That would mean to send our friend Vukcevic to the tribunal of “Holy Inquisition”, with all its consequences. And that would be no joke.
Never a collective organization has made something that history has ever remembered. There are no exceptions to this rule. Once you submit your individual soul to any “egregore” you lose the capacity of a successful individual reasoning.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 11:48 am
My mistake, I was thrown off by the title of this article: NASA’s Sunspot Prediction Roller Coaster which should be changed to David Hathaway’s Solar Cycle Prediction.
That is one way to resolve your conundrum 🙂
Leif (I should be saying Dr. Svalgaard),
Thanks for using the example.
Its a perfect example of forecasting that’s absolutely necessary for critical decision-making and long term planning.
Wow:
“Hubble now has a lot more life to it.. because NASA believed in our prediction and kept Hubble up.”
L.S says : prediction 72 for the ssn
Given the actual performance of cycle 24, solar flux and ssn, and the LP effect still holds a ssn of 10 over 4 years from now(below 5 is too erratic- LS) will generate low numbers for the max. of flux (90?) and ssn (30?) Other curve fittings will be peculiar.
A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks.
is that why specks that last less than a day are being counted?
J.Gommers says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm
generate low numbers for the max. of flux (90?) and ssn (30?) Other curve fittings will be peculiar.
My predictions for flux is ~120 and for active regions ~6. What the sunspot number will be is anybody’s guess, but this is somewhat irrelevant because it is the magnetic field [and not whether a spot is visible] that determines the effects of solar activity.
ked5 says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm
A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks.
Actually, most spots live only about a day. The active region may live a few weeks
is that why specks that last less than a day are being counted?
The rules [if you can use that term] depend on who is counting. NOAA requires the spot to live more than 12 hours and to be seen by more than one observer. The old Wolfer method [until 1980] stipulated that you only use ONE observation [usually in the 6-9 am time slot]. SIDC [since 1980] collects all the observations they get [typically ~65 per day]. People try to do the best they can. It is somewhat remarkable that the Wolf formula works so well, across observers and across time.
Ira,
Here are issues I’ve found with this post:
– Title: NASA’s Sunspot Prediction Roller Coaster. None of these predictions are from NASA.
– your graphic uses a NOAA graph with predictions from NASA (note these are not NASA predictions) but the article only supports predictions for 2006 and 2010.
– “The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January.” This implies Dikpati and Hathaway’s previous prediction? The red “hoop”on the NOAA graph represents NOAA/SWPC Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel consensus. Are Dikpati and Hathaway on NOAA’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel?
– “It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it).” The predictions aren’t from NASA, the article was a NASA Science News release.
Please correct the article and graph. I’m all in favor of a black-eye for NASA when they deserve it but this isn’t “It”.
[Thanks for the corrections John. I mistakenly believed that NOAA was one of the divisions under NASA, or that they coordinated some kind of “official” Sunspot prediction. Clearly, I was wrong. I added a note to the original posting, just ahead of the graphic. (Perhaps its just me, but I thought anything with a NASA logo on a nasa.gov site was “from NASA”. On this NOAA page I find “The official NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel” indicating coordination of some sort.)]
Thank you for the comments on tides!
Now for a different question. What do you think about the following sentence: “Scafetta tested this theory using the sun’s movement relative to the center of mass of the solar system (called the “barycenter”) as a proxy for all the known and unknown cycles involving natural oscillations of the solar system. He found “all alternating periods of warming and cooling since 1860 are very well reconstructed by the model.” He goes on to use the model to predict future climate change:”
It is found on page 21 under THEORY #6
Planetary Motion
at the site
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/seven_theories.pdf
The mass is not so important. The important element is the distance: move Jupiter in to an orbit one tenth its present size, and its [tidal] effect will go up a thousand times, and the planetary influence will increase correspondingly.
Well, Leif, if the physics were that simple but they aren’t are they? Let’s not forget angular momentum and other factors that reinforce each other. Clearly, if the sun is moved a whole diameter out of it’s position within the solar system by the planets that orbit it, then obviously their influence upon the sun is more than trivial. Observation trumps theory every time. My original point being we don’t understand what really drives the sunspot cycle because if we really did then Hathway’s predictions wouldn’t be a series of extrapolation fallacies.
jeremy says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:29 am
“We really should stop arguing over predictions in science. This is a completely worthless activity and doesn’t advance knowledge any. If you want to be able to predict something, learn first. We’re putting the predictions ahead of the learning here, and it’s sad to watch.”
It is not a “completely worthless activity” if we learn what NOT to base our predictions upon.
Isn’t NCAR sponsored by NSF rather than NASA?
If the prediction contest is still open for additions I wish to add my humble, but very scientific, contribution to the pile of utter drivel and the not probable, but irrational, but irritatingly logical by the single fact that it is in fact a human number within the range of rational permutations at the same time not being a complete wild stab in the dark but in fact referenced in a book filled with all manner of scientific mumbo jumbo which subsequently got it translated to more languages even I can read.
42
(Ps If I should happen to win, I prefer my balloons to be of the yellowish color and they ought to be large enough to fit at least on squirmish hippie. Two seems to be asking for too much, and there’s always the safety regulations to adhere too…if there were any that is.)
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
Cycle 20 was predicted to the very large and it was small, etc.
Not exactly , case of ignoring inconvenient (as on the previous occasions too)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
It clearly states ‘low cycle’
As in the original article:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
page 2, written in 2003, when Dr. Hathaway predicting ‘greatest ever cycle’ for SC24.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 7:55 am
The purpose of the LSC is supposedly to get a sunspot number that Rudolf Wolf would have counted. Wolf did not [on purpose] count the smallest specks and pores. Later observers pointed out that the decision on what not to count was then very arbitrary [as there was no precise definition of what not to count]. A better method [and that is used by everybody since the 1880s] is to count everything you can see [with a given telescope]. Since different people have different acuity [and experience] they would still count differently, but that can be measured by comparing with others.
Wolf used a 8 cm aperture refractor at magnification 64 in the 1850s. This telescope still exists and is still being used. Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum [almost nobody did] and the sunspot number he reconstructed for that time is mainly based on counts of aurorae and simple interpolation between the very sparse actual observations.
From 1861 on, Wolf mostly used an even smaller telescope [handheld and portable – as he was often on travel]. He determined that he needed to multiply the counts with that smaller scope by 1.5 to match what he would count with the 8 cm ‘standard’ telescope. His assistant, Wolfer, was using the 8 cm in parallel with Wolf for 17 years and determined that to get to the same count as Wolf, he would have to multiply his own counts [which included everything] by 0.6. So now we have this convoluted scheme: Wolf counts 20 [say] with the small handheld scope, multiplies that by 1.5 getting 30 and claims that that is what he would have counted with the 8 cm. Wolfer using the 8 cm [counting everything] counts 50, then multiplies by 0.6: 50*0.6 = 30, as an estimate of what Wolf would have counted. With me so far?
The Wolfer count is the better method [as it is better defined], but Wolfer wanted to stay compatible with the old [already published] Wolf list, so the 0.6 factor has become the ‘conversion’ factor between the ‘all count’ and the Wolf count. Now, the LSC people think that the Wolf number ‘is under threat’ [by some conspiracy it seems] and want to restore the count to ‘what Wolf would have counted’. The reason for this seems to be the desire to show that we are entering a Dalton-type grand minimum, and the official count is claimed to be [nefariously] too high, so needs to be reduced to fulfill the prophesy. The way to reduce the official count is to remove groups that are too small [below a ‘threshold’] and subtract their contribution from the official SIDC sunspot number. So, here is what is wrong with the LSC:
1) Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum, so there are no ‘Wolf numbers’ to reproduce
2) The threshold [for throwing out groups] is uncalibrated. I.e. there were no comparisons on which the threshold is based other than ‘it seems to be a good number’
3) The factor 0.6 that is used by SIDC already takes into account the conversion from Wolfer to Wolf
4) The notion that the modern counts by SIDC is too high [for political reasons] while, in fact, comparisons with hundreds of other [amateur] observers and even with the NOAA count show that the official SIDC count since ~2001 has been slightly [~12%] too low.
================================
Leif. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position so clearly.
I see your point that if it is arbitrary where Layman – and earlier Wolf – makes the cut between which sunspots are counted and which not, that creates a serious problem.
But I also see Layman’s point that in a period with many little sunspots that Wolf would not have counted, the Wolfer number would be higher than Wolf’s and when there are mostly big sunspots, the Wolfer number would be lower.
If there are 10 tiny specks, Wolf would have given a sunspot number of 0, while Wolfer would count 10 times 0.6 = 6.
If there are 10 big sunspots, Wolf would have given a sunspot number of 10, and Wolfer again 10 times 0.6 = 6.
It seems to me that if we go back to the period when Wolfer came up with his conversion factor of 0.6, we could get a reasonably accurate idea of what Wolf counted and what not – supposing that Wolfer kept accurate records of how many big or small sunspots were that he saw.
Did he?
Concluding, I would say that the Wolfer sunspot number gives a consistent and trustable sequence of sunspot numbers from Wolfer onwards.
The Wolf number is an interesting addition to that, and helps extend the sequence, if it is possible to find a threshold that can be reasonably argued to correspond with Wolf’s.
In any case, you clear explanation makes Layman’s accusations of bad intentions behind the SIDC-numbers look silly. Thanks again.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Are Dikpati and Hathaway on NOAA’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel?
Yes they were.
Werner Brozek says:
December 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm
What do you think about the following sentence: “Scafetta tested this theory using the sun’s movement relative to the center of mass of the solar system (called the “barycenter”)
Not much, see below
dscott says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Let’s not forget angular momentum and other factors that reinforce each other. Clearly, if the sun is moved a whole diameter out of it’s position within the solar system by the planets that orbit it, then obviously their influence upon the sun is more than trivial.
The angular momentum is conserved and there is no transfer mechanism between the orbital angular momentum and rotational momentum. Both theory and calculation show that. The Sun is in free fall and does not feel any gravitational forces. Same thing for an astronaut on a spacewalk. Think of a binary star. The barycenter is halfway between the two stars and each star orbit the barycenter with no ill effects. Or the Earth and the Moon, their barycenter is somewhere near the surface of the Earth moving through the Earth at something like 5 mph. We don’t feel a thing. We do feel the tides, as the Sun would.
My original point being we don’t understand what really drives the sunspot cycle because if we really did then Hathway’s predictions wouldn’t be a series of extrapolation fallacies.
This only means that Hathaway didn’t understand or that he employed the ‘wrong understanding’. There is no doubt that a dynamo drives the cycle, but to understand how the dynamo works we need to know the ‘boundary conditions’, that is the flows inside the Sun. And that we don’t know yet. There is a fair chance that SDO will provide some of the answers.
Don Garber says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Isn’t NCAR sponsored by NSF rather than NASA?
======
“The National Science Foundation is NCAR’s primary sponsor, with significant additional support provided by other U.S. government agencies, other national governments and the private sector.”
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Cycle 20 was predicted to the very large and it was small, etc.
Not exactly , case of ignoring inconvenient (as on the previous occasions too)
That formula has no justification and was just ad-hoc to explain away any discrepancy.
If ever any of the formulae fails one can always add a new formula that takes care of the error, and so on ad infinitum.
Robin Kool says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I see your point that if it is arbitrary where Layman – and earlier Wolf – makes the cut between which sunspots are counted and which not, that creates a serious problem.
indeed
If there are 10 tiny specks, Wolf would have given a sunspot number of 0, while Wolfer would count 10 times 0.6 = 6.
The LSC is made to mimic Wolf.
supposing that Wolfer kept accurate records of how many big or small sunspots were that he saw. Did he?
No, not in that way. Now he worked closely with Wolf [was his assistant] and know precisely what Wolf was doing. wolfer states that the conversion factor did not vary with the sunspot number itself.
Concluding, I would say that the Wolfer sunspot number gives a consistent and trustable sequence of sunspot numbers from Wolfer onwards.
This is indeed the case.
The Wolf number is an interesting addition to that, and helps extend the sequence, if it is possible to find a threshold that can be reasonably argued to correspond with Wolf’s.
Wolfer observed in parallel with Wolf for 17 years and during that time the two series track each other well, when applying the conversion factor, so we are justified in accepting Wolf’s series as a fair representation of the Wolfer series. We have a completely independent and objective way of testing this: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf
In any case, you clear explanation makes Layman’s accusations of bad intentions behind the SIDC-numbers look silly.
In any case, trying to make a Wolf-version does not make sense when such a version is clearly inferior to a Wolfer-version. And even more so as the avowed reason for doing this is to compare modern counts with the sunspot number during the Dalton minimum, when Wolf was not even observing [he was born in 1816].