The year of the quiet Sun

[pscot]

2013 is supposed to be a year of solar maximum. Indeed, the sun's magnetic field is poised to flip, a long-held sign that Solar Max has arrived. But if this is Solar Max, it looks a lot like Solar Min. The face of the sun is almost completely blank:




A careful inspection of the solar disk reveals only two sunspots, very small and quiet. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of M- or X-class flares during the next 24 hours.

In fact, this is Solar Max, the weakest one in more than 50 years. Long spells of quiet and spotlessness are punctuated by occasional flares and CMEs. At least one researcher believes the ongoing maximum is actually double-peaked, and we are now experiencing the valley between peaks. If so, a surge in solar activity could be in the offing in late-2013 and 2014

http://www.spaceweather.com/

[DreamGypsy]

1. There has to be an invisible sun...

...that gives us hope when the day is done.

http://vimeo.com/63705688

[agent46]

2. Interesting!

Do you have a link for this?

[pscot]

3. Link added

Sorry about that. I spaced out.

[defacto7]

4. Today is kind of a light day

nothing unusual in natural light....

But what they are showing is not the whole story. Take a look now in other than visible light...

http://www.n3kl.org/sun/index.html

It's still kicking. And as far as the year.... It's been a spectacular high level storm season! I'm not sure where space weather is getting all their ideas... or even what they are talking about. It's been a hell of a show this year.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. From NASA?

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high. The smoothed sunspot number has been flat over the last four months. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.



http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Compared to cycles 15 through 23 - so, fewer sunspots than the last 9 maxima

No, the sun spots have not 'been crazy' this year - that's the whole point of what NASA is saying. The actual number of sunspots there have been is small, for a 'maximum' year - that's what the solid line on the graph is, up to the present time.

Give me solar data for the last thousand years and we just may have something to talk about. Relative, relative. Otherwise just a nice story.

Since I'm sure you know that sunspot history isn't known that far back, you may as well stop talking about it, then. But you shouldn't complain when people who are interested look at a hundred years of data and comment on it.

BTW, I'm not 'following' you. I don't know who you are, nor what has caused you to think I follow you, or anyone else, around DU. I've even looked up threads we were both in, to see what brought this on, and still can't find anything that might have (I did find a thread in which we both called a find in the Sea of Galilee 'a pile of rocks'). The strange thing is that you've said this in a thread where you yourself criticise the OP for being incorrect, as you see it. I pointed to NASA, a reliable source for data about the Sun, for where spaceweather.com gets its information, and you take that as "looking for logical fallacy", or even " a opening or a personality weakness to exploit". WTF? I don't have any grudge against you, and, as far as I can tell, we haven't 'dealt' with each other in any significant way on DU.