Tidally synchronized solar dynamo: a rebuttal

TL;DR

This paper critically examines a proposed planetary influence on the solar cycle, demonstrating that previous evidence for a clocked solar cycle is invalid and that magnetized fluid instabilities can mimic such behavior.

Contribution

It refutes the claim that the solar cycle is clocked by planetary effects and clarifies the limitations of previous analyses, emphasizing the role of fluid instabilities.

Findings

The Dicke ratio analysis is invalid due to assumptions in the data.

Magnetized fluid instabilities can produce near-clocked fluctuations.

Previous evidence for planetary influence on the solar cycle is not supported.

Abstract

The idea of a planetary origin for the solar cycle dates back to the nineteenth century. Despite unsurmounted problems, it is still advocated by some. Stefani, Giesecke, and Weier (2019) thus recently proposed a scenario based on this idea. A key argument they put forward is evidence that the $\sim$11 years-solar cycle is clocked. Their demonstration rests upon the computation of a ratio proposed by Dicke (1978) applied to the solar cycle time series of Schove (1955). I show that their demonstration is invalid, because the assumptions used by Schove to build his time series force a clocked behaviour. I also show that instabilities in a magnetized fluid can produce fluctuation time series that are close to being clocked.