Comment on 'The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline' by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau

📝 Original Info

• Title: Comment on ‘The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline’ by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau
• ArXiv ID: 1304.2023
• Date: 2013-04-09
• Authors: Researchers from original ArXiv paper

📝 Abstract

Callebaut et al. (2012)'s claim that Scafetta (2010)'s results about a correlation between 20-year and 60-year temperature cycles and the orbital motion of Jupiter and Saturn were not confirmed by Humlum et al. (2011) is erroneous and severely misleading. Also Callebaut et al. (2012)'s absolute claim that a planetary influences on the Sun should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability is not conclusive because: (1) their calculations are based on simplistic classical Newtonian analytical mechanics that does not fully characterize solar physics; (2) the planetary theory of solar variation is supported by empirical findings. We show that both claims are already questioned in the scientific literature.

💡 Deep Analysis

Deep Dive into Comment on "The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline" by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau.

Callebaut et al. (2012)’s claim that Scafetta (2010)’s results about a correlation between 20-year and 60-year temperature cycles and the orbital motion of Jupiter and Saturn were not confirmed by Humlum et al. (2011) is erroneous and severely misleading. Also Callebaut et al. (2012)’s absolute claim that a planetary influences on the Sun should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability is not conclusive because: (1) their calculations are based on simplistic classical Newtonian analytical mechanics that does not fully characterize solar physics; (2) the planetary theory of solar variation is supported by empirical findings. We show that both claims are already questioned in the scientific literature.

📄 Full Content

Reference