Just two days after sunspot 983 was reported, it has now disappeared. They just aren’t sticking around like they used to. This is yet another indication of the bottomed out solar minima we are in.
It will be very interesting to see if the cycle 24 predictions by Hathway at NASA for an even stronger cycle will materialize.
Though there does seem to be more discussion of a weak cycle 24 than a strong one as of late. Personally, I think this graph of Average Planetary magnetic index (Ap) is quite telling in the step that occurred in 2005. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below:
click for a larger image
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
From this story on space.com where they talk about the opposing views solar scientists have for cycle 24 they offer some opinions. NOAA Space Environment Center scientist Douglas Biesecker, who chaired the panel, said in a statement:
[…] despite the panel’s division on the Sun cycle’s intensity, all members have a high confidence that the season will begin in March 2008.
We shall soon see if they are correct, March starts this Saturday.
Nature will truly be the final arbiter of this argument.
UPDATE: Jeff C writes
I thought you might find this chart interesting. Since sunspot cycles overlap and there is no clear start/stop, the “start” of the new solar cycle is usually defined as the smoothed sunspot minimum between cycles (as opposed to the appearance of the first reversed-polarity spot). Although different definitions are sometimes used, this seems to be the most common and accepted variation.
The enclosed chart shows the transition from cycle 22 to cycle 23 back in 1996. It is interesting how the first new cycle sunspots appeared over a year before the commonly accepted May 1996 start date of the new
cycle.
I’m unsure of the cycle start date definition used by Douglas Biesecker, but if it is the commonly accepted definition, he will be way off. It will be interesting to see if they claim the appearance of a few reversed cycle sunspots count as a “start”. If so, then cycle 23 actually started back in March 1995 and is 13 years old.
Click for a larger image
On the SOHO image of today, March 6, at 08:00 UT I notice at extreme right a very small sunspot. It is situated in a small lighter region of the sun’s surface. Being close to the sun’s equator, that small spot again belongs to sunspot cycle No.23. Maybe it is again a short-living spot. Anyway, being close to the sun’s western limb, it will soon disappear behind the limb.
The other day I was reminded about what I learned in geology decades ago – for the last several hundred thousand years ice over a mile thick was typical for North America and Northern Europe. Short interglacial periods dotted that period, with periods of about 10,000 years of warmth be typical in the last 100,000 years. Our last Ice Age ended about 11 thousand years ago and so we are about 1000 years over due. The Mini Ice Age we saw several hundred years ago would be typical for the beginning phase of a new Ice Age. Obviously the sun has been going through long dim cycles for the last several hundred thousand years. Yet NASA and modern Science (perhaps in an effort to protect Wall Street and prevent panic in the streets) is trying very hard to pretend like this interglacial period will go on forever. Actually the only thing that MIGHT save us is a larger carbon footprint.