Why the low SS numbers so soon after peak?

[millrad]

Having been an active ham through three complete solar cycles, I'm somewhat perplexed by the current one.
My assumption has been that solar cycles build to their peak faster than they decay to minimum. However, Cycle 24, which peaked just over two years ago, is already showing dismal sunspot numbers - as though we are near a minimum. (For example yesterday's SS # was 24.) It used to be there was decent HF propagation for several years after peak, especially in the fall and winter months. What makes this one so different?
Looks like 40 meters and I are about to get acquainted again.

W1AMJ

 

[ka3jjz]

There are many mysteries that surround this current cycle - it's been rated as one of the weakest in a century, by some accounts. It's causing scientists to re-think what they thought they new about solar physics. In short - there's no clear cut answer.

And don't go hoping for the next Cycle - it's thought that it could be even weaker than this one was, but it's all guesswork at this point...Mike

 

[ko6jw_2]

Our observations of the sun are based on data collected over 300-400 years. However, the early data is obviously based on observation and not scientific measurement. The idea of an eleven year solar cycle is true only because we have never experienced anything else. Has it always been this way and will it continue? No one can answer that question for sure.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum. The Maunder Minimum was a period between 1645 and 1715 when very few sunspots were observed. It also coincided with the Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.

I fear propagation will never be the same in what remains of my lifetime. If I'm lucky I'll see two more cycles, maybe three.