--- abstract: | Presented here is a review of present knowledge of the long-term behavior of solar activity on a multi-millennial timescale, as reconstructed using the indirect proxy method. The concept of solar activity is discussed along with an overview of the special indices used to quantify different aspects of variable solar activity, with special emphasis upon sunspot number. Over long timescales, quantitative information about past solar activity can only be obtained using a method based upon indirect proxy, such as the cosmogenic isotopes $^{14}$C and $^{10}$Be in natural stratified archives (e.g., tree rings or ice cores). We give an historical overview of the development of the proxy-based method for past solar-activity reconstruction over millennia, as well as a description of the modern state. Special attention is paid to the verification and cross-calibration of reconstructions. It is argued that this method of cosmogenic isotopes makes a solid basis for studies of solar variability in the past on a long timescale (centuries to millennia) during the Holocene. A separate section is devoted to reconstructions of strong solar–energetic-particle (SEP) events in the past, that suggest that the present-day average SEP flux is broadly consistent with estimates on longer timescales, and that the occurrence of extra-strong events is unlikely. Finally, the main features of the long-term evolution of solar magnetic activity, including the statistics of grand minima and maxima occurrence, are summarized and their possible implications, especially for solar/stellar dynamo theory, are discussed. author: - bibliography: - 'refs.bib' title: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia --- Introduction {#section:introduction} ============ The concept of the perfectness and constancy of the sun, postulated by Aristotle, was a strong belief for centuries and an official doctrine of Christian and Muslim countries. However, as people had noticed even before the time of Aristotle, some slight transient changes of the sun can be observed even with the naked eye. Although scientists knew about the existence of "imperfect" spots on the sun since the early 17th century, it was only in the 19th century that the scientific community recognized that solar activity varies in the course of an 11-year solar cycle. Solar variability was later found to have many different manifestations, including the fact that the "solar constant" (the amount of total incoming solar electromagnetic radiation in all wavelengths per unit area) is not a constant. The sun appears much more complicated and active than a static hot plasma ball, with a great variety of nonstationary active processes going beyond the adiabatic equilibrium foreseen in the basic theory of sun-as-star. Such transient nonstationary (often eruptive) processes can be broadly regarded as solar activity, in contrast to the so-called "quiet" sun. Solar activity includes active transient and long-lived phenomena on the solar surface, such as spectacular solar flares, sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), etc. The very fact of the existence of solar activity poses an enigma for solar physics, leading to the development of sophisticated models of an upper layer known as the convection zone and the solar corona. The sun is the only star, which can be studied in great detail and thus can be considered as a proxy for cool stars. Quite a number of dedicated ground-based and space-borne experiments are being carried out to learn more about solar variability. The use of the sun as a paradigm for cool stars, leads to a better understanding of the processes driving the broader population of cool sun-like stars. Therefore, studying and modelling solar activity can increase the level of our understanding of nature. On the other hand, the study of variable solar activity is not of purely academic interest, as it directly affects the terrestrial environment. Although changes in the sun are barely visible without the aid of precise scientific instruments, these changes have great impact on many aspects of our lives. In particular, the heliosphere (a spatial region of about 100 astronomical units) is mainly controlled by the solar magnetic field. This leads to the modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). Additionally, eruptive and transient phenomena in the sun/corona and in the interplanetary medium can lead to the acceleration of energetic particles with greatly enhanced flux. Such processes can modify the radiation environment on Earth and need to be taken into account for planning and maintaining space missions and even transpolar jet flights. Solar activity can cause, through coupling of solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere, strong geomagnetic storms in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, which may disturb radio-wave propagation and navigation-system stability, or induce dangerous spurious currents in long pipes or power lines. Another important aspect is the link between solar-activity variations and the Earth's climate [see, e.g., the review by @haighLR]. It is important to study solar variability on different timescales. The primary basis for such studies is observational (or reconstructed) data. The sun's activity is systematically explored in different ways (solar, heliospheric, interplanetary, magnetospheric, terrestrial), including ground-based and space-borne experiments and dedicated missions during the last few decades, thus covering 3–4 solar cycles. However, it should be noted that the modern epoch is characterized by unusually-high solar activity dominated by an 11-year cyclicity, and it is not straightforward to extrapolate present knowledge (especially empirical and semi-empirical relationships and models) to a longer timescale. Therefore, the behavior of solar activity in the past, before the era of direct measurements, is of great importance for a variety of reasons. For example, it allows an improved knowledge of the statistical behavior of the solar-dynamo process, which generates the cyclically-varying solar-magnetic field, making it possible to estimate the fractions of time the sun spends in states of very-low activity, what are called grand minima. Such studies require a long time series of solar-activity data. The longest direct series of solar activity is the 400-year-long sunspot-number series, which depicts the dramatic contrast between the (almost spotless) Maunder minimum and the modern period of very high activity. Thanks to the recent development of precise technologies, including accelerator mass spectrometry, solar activity can be reconstructed over multiple millennia from concentrations of cosmogenic isotopes $^{14}$C and $^{10}$Be in terrestrial archives. This allows one to study the temporal evolution of solar magnetic activity, and thus of the solar dynamo, on much longer timescales than are available from direct measurements. This paper gives an overview of the present status of our knowledge of long-term solar activity, covering the Holocene (the last 11 millennia). A description of the concept of solar activity and a discussion of observational methods and indices are presented in Section \[sec:1\]. The proxy method of solar-activity reconstruction is described in some detail in Section \[S:4\]. Section \[sec:3\] gives an overview of what is known about past solar activity. The long-term averaged flux of solar energetic particles is discussed in Section \[S:SEP\]. Finally, conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:conc\]. Solar Activity: Concept and Observations {#sec:1} ======================================== The concept of solar activity ----------------------------- The sun is known to be far from a static state, the so-called "quiet" sun described by simple stellar-evolution theories, but instead goes through various nonstationary active processes. Such nonstationary and nonequilibrium (often eruptive) processes can be broadly regarded as solar activity. Whereas the concept of solar activity is quite a common term nowadays, it is not straightforwardly interpreted nor unambiguously defined. For instance, solar-surface magnetic variability, eruption phenomena, coronal activity, radiation of the sun as a star or even interplanetary transients and geomagnetic disturbances can be related to the concept of solar activity. A variety of indices quantifying solar activity have been proposed in order to represent different observables and caused effects. Most of the indices are highly correlated to each other due to the dominant 11-year cycle, but may differ in fine details and/or long-term trends. The indices can be roughly divided into physical indices (i.e., those representing real physical quantities measurable for the sun) and synthetic indices. In addition to the solar indices, indirect proxy data is often used to quantify solar activity via its presumably known effect on the magnetosphere or heliosphere. The indices of solar activity that are often used for long-term studies are reviewed below. Indices of solar activity ------------------------- Solar (as well as other) indices can be divided into physical and synthetic according to the way they are obtained/calculated. Physical indices quantify the directly-measurable values of a real physical observable, such as the radioflux, and thus have clear physical meaning. Physical indices quantify physical features of different aspects of solar activity and their effects. Synthetic indices (the most common being sunspot number) are calculated (or synthesized) using a special algorithm from observed (often not measurable in physical units) data or phenomena. Additionally, solar activity indices can be either direct (i.e., directly relating to the sun) or indirect (relating to indirect effects caused by solar activity), as discussed in subsequent subsections \[S:dir\], \[S:ind\]. ### Direct solar indices {#S:dir} The most commonly used index of solar activity is based on <span>**sunspot number**</span>. Sunspots are dark areas on the solar disc (of size up to tens of thousands of km, lifetime up to half-a-year), characterized by a strong magnetic field, which leads to a lower temperature (about 4000 K compared to 5800 K in the photosphere) and observed darkening. Sunspot number is a synthetic, rather than a physical, index, but it has still become quite a useful parameter in quantifying the level of solar activity. This index presents the weighted number of individual sunspots and/or sunspot groups, calculated in a prescribed manner from simple visual solar observations. The use of the sunspot number makes it possible to combine together thousands and thousands of regular and fragmentary solar observations made by earlier professional and amateur astronomers. The technique, initially developed by Rudolf Wolf, yielded the longest series of directly and regularly-observed scientific quantities. Therefore, it is common to quantify solar magnetic activity via sunspot numbers. For details see the review on sunspot numbers and solar cycles [@hathaway04; @hathawayLR]. <span>**Wolf sunspot number (WSN) series**</span> The concept of the sunspot number was developed by Rudolf Wolf of the Zürich observatory in the middle of the 19th century. The sunspot series, initiated by him, is called the Zürich or Wolf sunspot number (WSN) series. The relative sunspot number $R_z$ is defined as $$R_z = k\, (10\, G + N) \,, \label{eq:Rz}$$ where $G$ is the number of sunspot groups, $N$ is the number of individual sunspots in all groups visible on the solar disc and $k$ denotes the individual correction factor, which compensates for differences in observational techniques and instruments used by different observers, and is used to normalize different observations to each other. The value of $R_z$ (see Figure \[Fig:SA\]a) is calculated for each day using only one observation made by the "primary" observer (judged as the most reliable observer during a given time) for the day. The primary observers were Staudacher (1749–1787), Flaugergues (1788–1825), Schwabe (1826–1847), Wolf (1848–1893), Wolfer (1893–1928), Brunner (1929–1944), Waldmeier (1945–1980) and Koeckelenbergh (since 1980). If observations by the primary observer are not available for a certain day, the secondary, tertiary, etc. observers are used [see the hierarchy of observers in @waldmeier61]. The use of only one observer for each day aims to make $R_z$ a homogeneous time series. As a drawback, such an approach ignores all other observations available for the day, which constitute a large fraction of the existing information. Moreover, possible errors of the primary observer cannot be caught or estimated. If no sunspot observations are available for some period, the data gap is filled, without note in the final WSN series, using an interpolation between the available data and by employing some proxy data. The observational uncertainties in the monthly $R_z$ can be up to 25% [e.g., @vitinsky86]. The WSN series is based on observations performed at the Zürich Observatory during 1849–1981 using almost the same technique. This part of the series is fairly stable and homogeneous. However, prior to that there have been many gaps in the data that were interpolated. Therefore, the WSN series is a combination of direct observations and interpolations for the period before 1849, leading to possible errors and inhomogeneities as discussed, e.g, by @vitinsky86 [@wilson98; @letfus99]. The quality of the Wolf series before 1749 is rather poor and hardly reliable [@hoyt94; @hoyt98; @hathaway04]. Note that the sun has been routinely photographed since 1876 so that full information on daily sunspot activity is available (the Greenwich series) with observational uncertainties being negligible for the last 140 years. The routine production of the WSN series was terminated in Zürich in 1982. Since then, the sunspot number series is routinely updated as the International sunspot number $R_i$, provided by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Belgium [@clette07]. The international sunspot number series is computed using the same definition (Equation \[eq:Rz\]) as WSN but it has a significant distinction from the WSN; it is based not on a single primary solar observation for each day but instead uses a weighted average of more than 20 approved observers. In addition to the standard sunspot number $R_i$, there is also a series of hemispheric sunspot numbers $R_{\mathrm{N}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{S}}$, which account for spots only in the northern and southern solar hemispheres, respectively (note that $R_i=R_{\mathrm{N}}+R_{\mathrm{S}}$). These series are used to study the N-S asymmetry of solar activity [@temmer02]. <span>**Group sunspot number (GSN) series**</span> Since the WSN series is of lower quality before the 1850's and is hardly reliable before 1750, there was a need to re-evaluate early sunspot data. This tremendous work has been done by @hoyt98, who performed an extensive archive search and nearly doubled the amount of original information compared to the Wolf series. They have produced a new series of sunspot activity called the group sunspot numbers (GSN – see Figure \[Fig:SA\]b), including all available archival records. The daily group sunspot number $R_g$ is defined as follows: $$R_g={12.08\over n}\sum_i{k'_iG_i} \,, \label{eq:Rg}$$ where $G_i$ is the number of sunspot groups recorded by the $i$-th observer, $k'$ is the observer's individual correction factor, $n$ is the number of observers for the particular day, and $12.08$ is a normalization number scaling $R_g$ to $R_z$ values for the period of 1874–1976. $R_g$ is more robust than $R_z$ since it is based on more easily identified sunspot groups and does not include the number of individual spots. The GSN series includes not only one "primary" observation, but all available observations, and covers the period since 1610, being, thus, 140 years longer than the original WSN series. It is particularly interesting that the period of the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) was surprisingly well covered with daily observations allowing for a detailed analysis of sunspot activity during this grand minimum (see also Section \[sec:MM\]). Systematic uncertainties of the $R_g$ values are estimated to be about 10% before 1640, less than 5% from 1640–1728 and from 1800–1849, 15–20% from 1728–1799, and about 1% since 1849 [@hoyt98]. The GSN series is more reliable and homogeneous than the WSN series before 1849. The two series are nearly identical after the 1870's [@hoyt98; @letfus99; @hathaway04]. However, the GSN series still contains some lacunas, uncertainties and possible inhomogeneities [see, e.g., @letfus00; @usoskin_SP_daily03]. The search for other lost or missing records of past solar instrumental observations has not ended even since the extensive work by Hoyt and Schatten. Archival searches still give new interesting findings of forgotten sunspot observations, often outside major observatories [e.g., @casas06; @vaquero05; @vaquero07]. <span>**Other indices**</span> An example of a synthetic index of solar activity is the <span>*flare index*</span>, representing solar flare activity [e.g., @ozguc03; @kleczek52]. The flare index quantifies daily flare activity in the following manner; it is computed as a product of the flare's relative importance $I$ in the $\mathrm{H}_{\alpha}$-range and duration $t$, $Q=I\, t$, thus being a rough measure of the total energy emitted by the flare. The daily flare index is produced by Bogazici University [@ozguc03] and is available since 1936. A traditional physical index of solar activity is related to the radioflux of the sun in the wavelength range of 10.7 cm and is called the <span>*F10.7 index*</span> [e.g., @tapping94]. This index represents the flux (in solar flux units, $1 \mathrm{sfu} = 10^{-22}$ W m$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$) of solar radio emission at a centimetric wavelength. This emission is close to the peak of solar radio emission and is produced as a result of the nonradiative heating of coronal plasma over active regions. It is a good quantitative measure of the level of solar activity, which is not directly related to sunspots. Close correlation between the F10.7 index and sunspot number indicates that the latter is a good index of general solar activity, including coronal activity. The solar F10.7 cm record has been measured continuously since 1947. Another physical index is the <span>*coronal index* </span> [e.g., @rybansky05], which is a measure of the irradiance of the sun as a star in the coronal green line. Computation of the coronal index is based on observations of green corona intensities (Fe XIV emission davidhicks@example.com nm wavelength) from coronal stations all over the world, the data being transformed to the Lomnický Štit photometric scale. This index is considered a basic optical index of solar activity. A synthesized homogeneous database of the Fe XIV 530.3 nm coronal-emission line intensities has existed since 1943 and covers six solar cycles. Often <span>*sunspot area*</span> is considered as a physical index representing solar activity [e.g., @baranyi01; @balmaceda05]. This index gives the total area of visible spots on the solar disc in units of millionths of the sun's visible hemisphere, corrected for apparent distortion due to the curvature of the solar surface. The area of individual groups may vary between tens of millionths (for small groups) up to several thousands of millionths for huge groups. This index has a physical meaning related to the solar magnetic flux davidhicks@example.com. Sunspot areas are available since 1874 in the Greenwich series obtained from daily photographic images of the sun. In addition, some fragmentary data of sunspot areas, obtained from solar drawings, are available for earlier periods [@vaquero04; @arlt08]. An important quantity is solar irradiance, total and spectral. Irradiance variations are physically related to solar magnetic variability [e.g., @solanki00], and are often considered manifestations of solar activity, which is of primary importance for solar-terrestrial relations. For details see the Living Review on solar irradiance [@krivovaLR]. Other physical indices include spectral sun-as-star observations, such as the <span>*CaII-K index*</span> [e.g., @donnelly94; @foukal96], the space-based <span>*MgII core-to-wing ratio*</span> as an index of solar UVI [@donnelly94; @viereck99; @snow05 e.g.,] and many others. All the above indices are closely correlated to sunspot numbers on the solar-cycle scale, but may depict quite different behavior on short or long timescales. ### Indirect indices {#S:ind} Sometimes quantitative measures of solar-variability effects are also considered as indices of solar activity. These are related not to solar activity <span>*per se*</span>, but rather to its effect on different environments. Accordingly, such indices are called indirect, and can be roughly divided into terrestrial/geomagnetic and heliospheric/interplanetary. Geomagnetic indices quantify different effects of geomagnetic activity ultimately caused by solar variability, mostly by variations of solar-wind properties and the interplanetary magnetic field. For example, the $aa$-index, which provides a global index of magnetic activity relative to a quiet-day curve for a pair of antipodal magnetic observatories (in England and Australia), is available from 1868 [@mayaud72]. An extension of the geomagnetic series is available from the 1840s using the Helsinki $Ak(H)$ index [@nevanlinna04; @nevanlinna04a]. A review of the geomagnetic effects of solar activity can be found, e.g., in @pulkkinenLR. It is noteworthy that geomagnetic indices, in particular low-latitude aurorae [@silverman06], are associated with coronal/interplanetary activity (high-speed solar-wind streams, interplanetary transients, etc.) that may not be directly related to the sunspot-cycle phase and amplitude, and therefore serve only as an approximate index of solar activity. One of the earliest instrumental geomagnetic indices is related to the daily magnetic declination range, the range of diurnal variation of magnetic needle readings at a fixed location, and is available from the 1780s [@nevanlinna95]. However, this data exists as several fragmentary sets, which are difficult to combine into a homogeneous data series. Heliospheric indices are related to features of the solar wind or the interplanetary magnetic field measured (or estimated) in the interplanetary space. For example, the time evolution of the total (or open) solar magnetic flux is extensively debated [e.g., @lockwood99; @wang05; @krivova07]. Some details of the derivation and use of these indirect indices for long-term solar-activity studies can be found, e.g., in the Living Review by @lockwoodLR. A special case of heliospheric indices is related to the galactic cosmic-ray intensity recorded in natural terrestrial archives. Since this indirect proxy is based on data recorded naturally throughout the ages and revealed now, it makes possible the reconstruction of solar activity changes on long timescales, as discussed in Section \[S:4\]. Solar activity observations in the pre-telescopic epoch {#sec:2} ------------------------------------------------------- Instrumental solar data is based on regular observation (drawings or counting of spots) of the sun using optical instruments, e.g., the telescope invented by Galileo in the early 17th century. These observations have mostly been made by professional astronomers whose qualifications and scientific thoroughness were doubtless. They form the basis of the Group sunspot-number series [@hoyt98], which can be more-or-less reliably extended back to 1610 (see discussion in Section \[S:dir\]). However, some fragmentary records of qualitative solar and geomagnetic observations exist even for earlier times, as discussed below (Sections \[S:co\] – \[S:ny\]). ### Instrumental observations: Camera obscura {#S:co} The invention of the telescope revolutionized astronomy. However, another solar astronomical instrument, the camera obscura, also made it possible to provide relatively good solar images and was still in use until the late 18th century. Small camera obscuras were known from early times, and they have been used in major cathedrals to define the sun's position [see the review by @vaquero_rev07]. The earliest known drawing of the solar disc was made by Frisius, who observed the solar eclipse in 1544 using a camera obscura. That observation was performed during the Spörer minimum and no spots were observed on the sun. The first known observation of a sunspot using a camera obscura was done by Kepler in May 1607, who erroneously ascribed the spot on the sun to a transit of Mercury. Although such observations were sparse and related to other phenomena (solar eclipses or transits of planets), there were also regular solar observations by camera obscura. For example, about 300 pages of logs of solar observations made in the cathedral of San Petronio in Bologna from 1655–1736 were published by Eustachio Manfredi in 1736 [see the full story in @vaquero_rev07]. Therefore, observations and drawings made using camera obscura can be regarded as instrumental observations. ### Naked-eye observations {#S:ny} Even before regular professional observations performed with the aid of specially-developed instruments (what we now regard as scientific observations) people were interested in unusual phenomena. Several historical records exist based on naked-eye observations of transient phenomena on the sun or in the sky. From even before the telescopic era, a large amount of evidence of spots being observed on the solar disc can be traced back as far as to the middle of the 4th century BC (Theophrastus of Athens). The earliest known drawing of sunspots is dated to December 8, 1128 AD as published in "The Chronicle of John of Worcester" [@willis01]. However, such evidence from occidental and Moslem sources is scarce and mostly related to observations of transits of inner planets over the sun's disc, probably because of the dominance of the dogma on the perfectness of the sun's body, which dates back to Aristotle's doctrine [@bray64]. Oriental sources are much richer for naked-eye sunspot records, but that data is also fragmentary and irregular [see, e.g., @clark78; @wittman_xu87; @yau_steph88]. Spots on the sun are mentioned in official Chinese and Korean chronicles from 165 BC to 1918 AD. While these chronicles are fairly reliable, the data is not straightforward to interpret since it can be influenced by meteorological phenomena, e.g., dust loading in the atmosphere due to dust storms [@willis80] or volcanic eruptions [@scuderi90] can facilitate sunspots observations. Direct comparison of Oriental naked-eye sunspot observations and European telescopic data shows that naked-eye observations can serve only as a qualitative indicator of sunspot activity, but can hardly be quantitatively interpreted [see, e.g., @willis96 and references therein]. Moreover, as a modern experiment of naked-eye observations [@mossman89] shows, Oriental chronicles contain only a tiny ($^1/_{200}$ – $^1/_{1000}$) fraction of the number of sunspots potentially visible with the naked eye [@eddy89]. This indicates that records of sunspot observations in the official chronicles were highly irregular [@eddy83] and probably dependent on dominating traditions during specific historical periods [@clark78]. Although naked-eye observations tend to qualitatively follow the general trend in solar activity according to <span>*a posteriori*</span> information [@vaquero02 e.g.,], extraction of any independent quantitative information from these records seems impossible. Visual observations of aurorae borealis at middle latitudes form another proxy for solar activity [e.g., @siscoe80; @schove83; @krivsky84; @silverman92; @schroder92; @lee04; @basurah04]. Fragmentary records of aurorae can be found in both occidental and oriental sources since antiquity. The first known dated notation of an aurora is from March 12, 567 BC from Babylon [@stephenson04]. Aurorae may appear at middle latitudes as a result of enhanced geomagnetic activity due to transient interplanetary phenomena. Although auroral activity reflects coronal and interplanetary features rather than magnetic fields on the solar surface, there is a strong correlation between long-term variations of sunspot numbers and the frequency of aurora occurrences. Because of the phenomenon's short duration and low brightness, the probability of seeing aurora is severely affected by other factors such as the weather, the Moon's phase, season (night duration), etc. The fact that these observations were not systematic in early times (before the beginning of the 18th century) makes it difficult to produce a homogeneous data set. Moreover, the geomagnetic latitude of the same geographical location may change quite dramatically over centuries, due to the migration of the geomagnetic axis, which also affects the probability of watching aurorae [@siscoe83; @oguti95]. For example, the geomagnetic latitude of Seoul (37.5$^\circ$ N 127$^\circ$ E), which is currently less than $30^\circ$, was about $40^\circ$ a millennium ago [@kovaltsov07]. This dramatic change alone can explain the enhanced frequency of aurorae observations recorded in oriental chronicles. ### Mathematical/statistical extrapolations {#sec:math} Due to the lack of reliable information regarding solar activity in the pre-instrumental era, it seems natural to try to extend the sunspot series back in time, before 1610, by means of extrapolating its statistical properties. Indeed, numerous attempts of this kind have been made even recently [e.g., @nagovistyn97; @demeyer98; @rigozo01]. Such models aim to find the main feature of the actually-observed sunspot series, e.g., a modulated carrier frequency or a multi-harmonic representation, which is then extrapolated backwards in time. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it is not a reconstruction based upon measured or observed quantities, but rather a "post-diction" based on extrapolation. This method is often used for short-term predictions, but it can hardly be used for the reliable long-term reconstruction of solar activity. In particular, it assumes that the sunspot time series is stationary, i.e., a limited time realization contains full information on its future and past. Clearly such models cannot include periods exceeding the time span of observations upon which the extrapolation is based. Hence, the pre or post-diction becomes increasingly unreliable with growing extrapolation time and its accuracy is hard to estimate. Sometimes a combination of the above approaches is used, i.e., a fit of the mathematical model to indirect qualitative proxy data. In such models a mathematical extrapolation of the sunspot series is slightly tuned and fitted to some proxy data for earlier times. For example, @schove55 [@schove79] fitted the slightly variable but phase-locked carrier frequency (about 11 years) to fragmentary data from naked-eye sunspot observations and auroral sightings. The phase locking is achieved by assuming exactly nine solar cycles per calendar century. This series, known as <span>*Schove*</span> series, reflects qualitative long-term variations of the solar activity, including some grand minima, but cannot pretend to be a quantitative representation in solar activity level. The Schove series played an important historical role in the 1960s. In particular, a comparison of the $\Delta^{14}$C data with this series succeeded in convincing the scientific community that secular variations of $^{14}$C in tree rings have solar and not climatic origins [@stuiver61]. This formed a cornerstone of the precise method of solar-activity reconstruction, which uses cosmogenic isotopes from terrestrial archives. However, attempts to reconstruct the phase and amplitude of the 11-year cycle, using this method, were unsuccessful. For example, @schove55 made predictions of forthcoming solar cycles up to 2005, which failed. We note that all these works are not able to reproduce, for example, the Maunder minimum (which cannot be represented as a result of the superposition of different harmonic oscillations), yielding too high sunspot activity compared to that observed. From the modern point of view, the Schove series can be regarded as archaic, but it is still in use in some studies. This approach has been modified using nonlinear relations [@nagovistyn97], but its shortcomings are still limiting the reliability of reconstructions. The solar cycle and its variations {#sec:cycle} ---------------------------------- ### Quasi-periodicities The main feature of solar activity is its pronounced quasi-periodicity with a period of about 11 years, known as the Schwabe cycle. However, the cycle varies in both amplitude and duration. The first observation of a possible regular variability in sunspot numbers was made by the Danish astronomer Christian Horrebow in the 1770s on the basis of his sunspot observations from 1761–1769 [see details in @gleissberg52; @vitinsky65], but the results were forgotten. It took over 70 years before the amateur astronomer Schwabe announced in 1844 that sunspot activity varies cyclically with a period of about 10 years. This cycle, called the 11-year or Schwabe cycle, is the most prominent variability in the sunspot-number series. It is recognized now as a fundamental feature of solar activity originating from the solar-dynamo process. This 11-year cyclicity is prominent in many other parameters including solar, heliospheric, geomagnetic, space weather, climate and others. The background for the 11-year Schwabe cycle is the 22-year Hale magnetic polarity cycle. Hale found that the polarity of sunspot magnetic fields changes in both hemispheres when a new 11-year cycle starts [@hale1919]. This relates to the reversal of the global magnetic field of the sun with the period of 22 years. It is often considered that the 11-year Schwabe cycle is the modulo of the sign-alternating Hale cycle [e.g., @sonett83; @bracewell86; @kurths90; @demeyer98; @mininni01]. A detailed review of solar-cyclic variability can be found in [@hathawayLR]. Sometimes the regular time evolution of solar activity is broken up by periods of greatly depressed activity called grand minima. The last grand minimum (and the only one covered by direct solar observations) was the famous Maunder minimum from 1645–1715 [@eddy76; @eddy83]. Other grand minima in the past, known from cosmogenic isotope data, include, e.g., the Spörer minimum around 1450–1550 and the Wolf minimum around the 14th century (see the detailed discussion in Section \[sec:MM\]). Sometimes the Dalton minimum (ca. 1790–1820) is also considered to be a grand minimum. However, sunspot activity was not completely suppressed and still showed Schwabe cyclicity during the Dalton minimum. As suggested by @schussler97, this can be a separate, intermediate state of the dynamo between the grand minimum and normal activity, or an unsuccessful attempt of the sun to switch to the grand minimum state [@frick97; @sokoloff04]. This is observed as the phase catastrophe of solar-activity evolution [e.g., @vitinsky86; @kremliovsky94]. A peculiarity in the phase evolution of sunspot activity around 1800 was also noted by @sonett83 who ascribed it to a possible error in Wolf sunspot data and by @wilson88, who reported on a possible misplacement of sunspot minima for cycles 4–6 in the WSN series. It has been also suggested that the phase catastrophe can be related to a tiny cycle, which might have been lost at the end of the 18th century because of very sparse observations [@usoskin_lost_AA_01; @usoskin_lost_GRL_02; @usoskin_lost_03; @zolotova07]. Another period associated with a phase catastrophe is the period of sunspot-activity recovery after the Maunder minimum. The recovery of the 11-year cycle passed through the time of distorted phase evolution [@usoskin_JGR_MM_01] with the concurrent loss of the 88-year cycle phase [@feynman90]. The long-term change (trend) in the Schwabe cycle amplitude is known as the secular Gleissberg cycle [@gleissberg39]. However, the Gleissberg cycle is not a cycle in the strict periodic sense but rather a modulation of the cycle envelope with a varying timescale of 60–120 years [e.g., @gleissberg71; @kuklin76; @ogurtsov02]. This secular cycle has also been reported, using a spectral analysis of radiocarbon data as a proxy for solar activity (see Section \[S:4\]), to exist on long timescales [@feynman90; @peristykh03], but the question of its phase locking and persistency/intermittency still remain open. Longer (super-secular) cycles cannot be studied using direct solar observations, but several such cycles have been found in cosmogenic isotope data. A cycle with a period of 205–210 years, called the de Vries or Suess cycle in different sources, is a prominent feature, observed in varying cosmogenic data [e.g., @suess80; @sonett90; @zhentao90; @usoskin_AA_04]. Sometimes variations with a characteristic time of 600–700 years or 1000–1200 years are discussed [e.g., @vitinsky86; @sonett90; @vassiliev02], but they are intermittent and can hardly be regarded as a typical feature of solar activity. A 2000–2400-year cycle is also noticeable in radiocarbon data series [see, e.g., @vitinsky86; @damon91; @vassiliev02]. However, the nonsolar origin of these super-secular cycles (e.g., geomagnetic or climatic variability) cannot be excluded. ### Randomness vs. regularity {#S:RvR} The short-term (days - months) variability of sunspot numbers is greater than the observational uncertainties indicating the presence of random fluctuations (noise). As typical for most real signals, this noise is not uniform (white), but rather red or correlated noise [e.g., @ostryakov90b; @oliver96; @frick97], namely, its variance depends on the level of the signal. While the existence of regularity and randomness in sunspot series is apparent, their relationship is not clear [e.g., @wilson94] – are they mutually independent or intrinsically tied together? Moreover, the question of whether randomness in sunspot data is due to chaotic or stochastic processes is still open. Earlier it was common to describe sunspot activity as a <span>*multi-harmonic process*</span> with several basic harmonics [e.g., @vitinsky65; @sonett83; @vitinsky86] with an addition of random noise, which plays no role in the solar-cycle evolution. However, it has been shown [e.g., @rozelot94; @weiss00; @charbonneau01; @mininni02] that such an oversimplified approach depends on the chosen reference time interval and does not adequately describe the long-term evolution of solar activity. A multi-harmonic representation is based on an assumption of the stationarity of the benchmark series, but this assumption is broadly invalid for solar activity [e.g., @kremliovsky94; @sello00; @polygiannakis03]. Moreover, a multi-harmonic representation cannot, for an apparent reason, be extrapolated to a timescale larger than that covered by the benchmark series. The fact that purely mathematical/statistical models cannot give good predictions of solar activity (as will be discussed later) implies that the nature of the solar cycle is not a multi-periodic or other purely deterministic process, but random (chaotic or stochastic) processes play an essential role in sunspot formation. Different numeric tests, such as an analysis of the Lyapunov exponents [@ostryakov90; @mundt91; @kremliovsky95; @sello00], Kolmogorov entropy [@carbonell94; @sello00] and Hurst exponent [@ruzmaikin94; @oliver98], confirm the chaotic/stochastic nature of the solar-activity time evolution [see, e.g., the recent review by @panchev07]. It was suggested quite a while ago that the variability of the solar cycle may be a temporal realization of a <span>*low-dimensional chaotic system*</span> [@ruzmaikin81 e.g.,]. This concept became popular in the early 1990s, when many authors considered solar activity as an example of low-dimensional deterministic chaos, described by the strange attractor [@kurths90; @ostryakov90; @morfill91; @mundt91; @rozelot95; @salakhutdinova99; @serre00 e.g.,]. Such a process naturally contains randomness, which is an intrinsic feature of the system rather than an independent additive or multiplicative noise. However, although this approach easily produces features seemingly similar to those of solar activity, quantitative parameters of the low-dimensional attractor have varied greatly as obtained by different authors. Later it was realized that the analyzed data set was too short [@carbonell93; @carbonell94], and the results were strongly dependent on the choice of filtering methods [@price92]. Developing this approach, @mininni00 [@mininni01] suggest that one consider sunspot activity as an example of a 2D Van der Pol relaxation oscillator with an intrinsic stochastic component. Such phenomenological or basic principles models, while succeeding in reproducing (to some extent) the observed features of solar-activity variability, do not provide insight into the nature of regular and random components of solar variability. In this sense efforts to understand the nature of randomness in sunspot activity in the framework of dynamo theory are more advanced. Corresponding theoretical dynamo models have been developed [see reviews by @ossendrijver03; @charbonneau05], which include stochastic processes [@weiss84; @feynman90; @schmaltz91; @moss92; @brooke94; @lawrence95; @schmitt96; @charbonneau00 e.g.,]. For example, @feynman90 suggest that the transition from a regular to a chaotic dynamo passes through bifurcation. @charbonneau00 studied stochastic fluctuations in a Babcock-Leighton dynamo model and succeeded in the qualitative reproduction of the anti-correlation between cycle amplitude and length (Waldmeier rule). Their model also predicts a phase-lock of the Schwabe cycle, i.e., that the 11-year cycle is an internal "clock" of the sun. Note that a significant fluctuating component (with the amplitude more than 100% of the regular component) is essential in all these model. ### A note on solar activity predictions Randomness (see Section \[S:RvR\]) in the SN series is directly related to the predictability of solar activity. Forecasting solar activity has been a subject of intense study for many years [e.g., @yule927; @newton928; @gleissberg48; @vitinsky65] and has greatly intensified recently with a hundred journal articles being published before 2008 [see, e.g., the review by @kane07] following the boosting of space-technology development and increasing debates on solar-terrestrial relations. All prediction methods can be generically divided into precursor and statistical techniques or their combinations [@hathaway99]. The precursor methods are usually based on phenomenological, but sometimes physical, links between the poloidal solar-magnetic field, estimated, e.g., from geomagnetic activity in the declining phase of the preceding cycle or in the minimum time @hathaway99 [e.g.,], with the toroidal field responsible for sunspot formation. These methods usually yield better short-term predictions of a forthcoming cycle maximum than the statistical methods, but cannot be applied to timescales longer than one solar cycle. Statistical methods, including a low-dimensional solar-attractor representation [@kurths90], are based solely on the statistical properties of sunspot activity and may give a reasonable result for short-term forecasting, but yield very poor results for long-term predictions @conway98 [@hathaway99; @li01; @usoskin_SP03; @kane07 e.g.,] because of chaotic/stochastic behavior (see Section \[S:RvR\]). Some models, mostly based on precursor method, succeed in reasonable predictions of a forthcoming solar cycle (i.e., several years ahead), but they do not pretend to extend further in time. On the other hand, many claims of the solar activity forecast for 40–50 years ahead and even beyond have been made recently, often without sensible argumentation. However, so far there is no evidence of any method giving a reasonable prediction of solar activity beyond the solar-cycle scale (see, e.g., Section \[sec:math\]), probably because of the intrinsic limit of solar-activity predictability due to its stochastic/chaotic nature [@kremliovsky95]. Accordingly, such attempts can be regarded as speculative, unless they are verified by the actual behavior of solar activity. Note that even an exact prediction of the amplitude of one solar cycle can be just a random coincidence and cannot serve as a proof of the method's veracity. Only a sequence of successful predictions can form a basis for confidence, which requires several decades. Summary ------- In this section, the concept of solar activity and quantifying indices is discussed, as well as the main features of solar-activity temporal behavior. The concept of solar activity is quite broad and covers nonstationary and nonequilibrium (often eruptive) processes, in contrast to the "quiet" sun concept, and their effects upon the terrestrial and heliospheric environment. Many indices are used to quantify different aspects of variable solar activity. Quantitative indices include direct (i.e., related directly to solar variability) and indirect (i.e., related to terrestrial and interplanetary effects caused by solar activity), they can be physical or synthetic. While all indices depict the dominant 11-year cyclic variability, their relationships on other timescales (short scale or long-term trends) may vary to a great extent. The most common and the longest available index of solar activity is the sunspot number, which is a synthetic index and is very useful for the quantitative representation of overall solar activity outside the grand minimum. The sunspot number series is available for the period from 1610 AD, after the invention of the telescope, and covers, in particular, the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. Fragmentary noninstrumental observations of the sun before 1610, while giving a possible hint of relative changes in solar activity, cannot be interpreted in a quantitative manner. Solar activity in all its manifestations is dominated by the 11-year Schwabe cycle, which has, in fact, a variable length of 9–14 years for individual cycles. The amplitude of the Schwabe cycle varies greatly – from the almost spotless Maunder minimum to the very high cycle 19, possibly in relation to the Gleissberg or secular cycle. Longer super-secular characteristic times can also be found in various proxies of solar activity, as discussed in Section \[sec:3\]. Solar activity contains essential chaotic/stochastic components, that lead to irregular variations and make the prediction of solar activity for a timescale exceeding one solar cycle impossible. The Proxy Method of Past Solar-Activity Reconstruction {#S:4} ====================================================== In addition to direct solar observations, described in Section \[S:dir\], there are also indirect solar proxies, which are used to study solar activity in the pre-telescopic era. Unfortunately, we do not have any reliable data that could give a direct index of solar variability before the beginning of the sunspot-number series. Therefore, one must use indirect proxies, i.e., quantitative parameters, which can be measured nowadays but represent different effects of solar magnetic activity in the past. It is common to use, for this purpose, signatures of terrestrial indirect effects induced by variable solar-magnetic activity, that is stored in natural archives. Such traceable signatures can be related to nuclear (used in the cosmogenic-isotope method) or chemical (used in the nitrate method – Section \[sec:nit\]) effects caused by cosmic rays (CRs) in the Earth's atmosphere, lunar rocks or meteorites. The most common proxy of solar activity is formed by the data on cosmogenic radionuclides (e.g., $^{10}$Be and $^{14}$C), which are produced by cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere @stuiver80 [@beer90; @bard97; @beer00]. Other cosmogenic nuclides, which are used in geological and paleomagnetic dating, are less suitable for studies of solar activity [see e.g., @beer00]. Cosmic rays are the main source of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere (excluding anthropogenic factors during the last decades) with the maximum production being in the upper troposphere/stratosphere. After a complicated transport in the atmosphere, the cosmogenic isotopes are stored in natural archives such as polar ice, trees, marine sediments, etc. This process is also affected by changes in the geomagnetic field and climate. Cosmic rays experience heliospheric modulation due to solar wind and the frozen-in solar magnetic field. The intensity of modulation depends on solar activity and, therefore, cosmic-ray flux and the ensuing cosmogenic isotope intensity depends inversely on solar activity. An important advantage of the cosmogenic data is that primary archiving is done naturally in a similar manner throughout the ages, and these archives are measured nowadays in laboratories using modern techniques. If necessary, all measurements can be repeated and improved, as has been done for some radiocarbon samples. In contrast to fixed historical archival data (such as sunspot or auroral observations) this approach makes it possible to obtain homogeneous data sets of stable quality and to improve the quality of data with the invention of new methods (such as accelerator mass spectrometry). Cosmogenic isotope data is the only regular indicator of solar activity on the very long-term scale but it cannot always resolve the details of individual solar cycles. The redistribution of nuclides in terrestrial reservoirs and archiving may be affected by local and global climate/circulation processes, which are, to a large extent, unknown for the past. However, a combined study of different nuclides data, whose responses to terrestrial effects are very different, may allow for disentangling external and terrestrial signals. The physical basis of the method -------------------------------- ### Heliospheric modulation of cosmic rays {#S:mod} Before reaching the vicinity of Earth, galactic cosmic rays experience complicated transport in the heliosphere that leads to modulation of their flux. Heliospheric transport of GCR is described by Parker's theory [@parker65; @toptygin85] and includes four basic processes: the diffusion of particles due to their scattering on magnetic inhomogeneities, the convection of particles by out-blowing solar wind, adiabatic energy losses in expanding solar wind, drifts of particles in the magnetic field, including the gradient-curvature drift in the regular heliospheric magnetic field, and the drift along the heliospheric current sheet, which is a thin magnetic interface between the two heliomagnetic hemispheres. Because of variable solar-magnetic activity, CR flux in the vicinity of Earth is strongly modulated (see Figure \[Fig:NM\_SN\]). The most prominent feature in CR modulation is the 11-year cycle, which is in inverse relation to solar activity. The 11-year cycle in CR is delayed (from a month up to two years) with respect to the sunspots [@usoskin_JGR_98]. The time profile of cosmic-ray flux, as measured by the longest-running neutron-monitor climax, is shown in Figure \[Fig:NM\_SN\] (panel b) together with the sunspot numbers (panel a). Besides the inverse relation between them, some other features can also be noted. A 22-year cyclicity manifests itself in cosmic-ray modulation through the alteration of sharp and flat maxima in cosmic-ray data, originated from the charge-dependent drift mechanism. One may also note short-term fluctuations, which are not directly related to sunspot numbers but are driven by interplanetary transients caused by solar eruptive events, e.g., flares or CMEs. For the last 50 years of high and roughly-stable solar activity, no trends have been observed in CR data; however, as will be discussed later, the overall level of CR has changed significantly on the centurial-millennial timescales. Full solution of the CR transport problems is a complicated task and requires sophisticated 3D time-dependent self-consistent modelling. However, the problem can be essentially simplified for applications at a long-timescale. An assumption on the azimuthal symmetry (requires times longer that the solar-rotation period) and quasi-steady changes reduces it to a 2D quasi-steady problem. Further assumption of the spherical symmetry of the heliosphere reduces the problem to a 1D case. This approximation can be used only for rough estimates, since it neglects the drift effect, but it is useful for long-term studies, when the heliospheric parameters cannot be evaluated independently. Further, but still reasonable, assumptions (constant solar-wind speed, roughly power-law CR energy spectrum, slow spatial changes of the CR density) lead to the force-field approximation [@gleeson68], which can be solved analytically. The differential intensity $J_i$ of the cosmic-ray nuclei of type $i$ with kinetic energy $T$ at 1 AU is given in this case as $$J_i(T,\phi)=J_{{\mathrm{LIS},}i}(T+\Phi_i){(T)(T+2T_{\mathrm{r}})\over (T+\Phi)(T+\Phi_i+2T_{\mathrm{r}})} \,, \label{Eq:ff_sol}$$ where $\Phi_i=(Z_i e/A_i)\phi$ for a cosmic nuclei of $i$-th type (charge and mass numbers are $Z_i$ and $A_i$), $T$ and $\phi$ are expressed in MeV/nucleon and in MV, respectively, $T_{\mathrm{r}}=938$ MeV. $T$ is the CR particle's kinetic energy, and $\phi$ is the modulation potential. The local interstellar spectrum (LIS) $J_{\mathrm{LIS}}$ forms the boundary condition for the heliospheric transport problem. Since LIS is not measured directly, i.e., outside the heliosphere, it is not well known in the energy range affected by CR modulation (below 100 GeV). Presently-used approximations for LIS [e.g., @garcia75; @burger00; @webber03] agree with each other for energies above 20 GeV but may contain uncertainties of up to a factor of 1.5 around 1 GeV. These uncertainties in the boundary conditions make the results of the modulation theory slightly model-dependent [see discussion in @usoskin_Phi_05] and require the LIS model to be explicitly cited. This approach gives results, which are at least dimensionally consistent with the full theory and can be used for long-term studies [@usoskin_JGR_02; @caballero04]. Differential CR intensity is described by the only time-variable parameter, called the modulation potential $\phi$, which is mathematically interpreted as the averaged rigidity (i.e., the particle's momentum per unit of charge) loss of a CR particle in the heliosphere. However, it is only a formal spectral index whose physical interpretation is not straightforward, especially on short timescales and during active periods of the sun [@caballero04]. Despite its cloudy physical meaning, this force-field approach provides a very useful and simple single-parametric approximation for the differential spectrum of GCR, since the spectrum of different GCR species directly measured near the Earth can be perfectly fitted by Equation \[Eq:ff\_sol\] using only the parameter $\phi$ in a wide range of solar activity level [@usoskin_Phi_05]. Therefore, changes in the whole energy spectrum (in the energy range from 100 MeV/nucleon to 100 GeV/nucleon) of cosmic rays due to the solar modulation can be described by this single number within the framework of the adopted LIS. The concept of modulation potential is a key concept for the method of solar-activity reconstruction by cosmogenic isotope proxy. ### Geomagnetic shielding {#S:geom} Cosmic rays are charged particles and therefore are affected by the Earth's magnetic field. Thus the geomagnetic field
{'source': 'arXiv_out/0810'}