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

TL;DR

This paper critiques previous claims dismissing planetary influences on solar variability, arguing that their methods are overly simplistic and that empirical evidence still supports planetary effects on the Sun.

Contribution

It challenges prior conclusions by highlighting the limitations of classical mechanics and emphasizing existing empirical support for planetary influences on solar activity.

Findings

Previous claims are based on oversimplified models.

Empirical evidence supports planetary effects on the Sun.

Scientific literature already questions dismissive claims.

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.