To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1110475 ) 1/14/2019 5:04:50 PM From: maceng2 Respond to of 1570363 Interesting paper. I would probably agree with your conclusions on it, and I will read it later. Just an aside, here is the link to the two musical tones analysis again. youtube.com Taken from this post.siliconinvestor.com No, I was interested in this Guardian newspaper article... It's just standard Climate Science fare these days, nothing to see here. the deniers are flicked off from the discussion on the real science. theguardian.com This is the bit that raised an eyebrow for me... I like it when a real scientist talks to me like I'm an idiot. Maybe it was the reporter (journalist) though, quoting Ilya Usoskin incorrectly, or missing a "beat" in his analysis as it were. -g- Quoting from the article.. Ilya Usoskin , head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior: For example, a perfect pendulum – if you saw a few cycles of the pendulum, you can predict its behavior. However, solar activity is known to be non-stationary process, which principally cannot be predicted (the prediction horizon for solar activity is known to be 10-15 years). Deterministic prediction cannot be made because of the essential stochastic component. Just imagine a very turbulent flow of water in a river rapid, and you throw a small wooden stick into water and trace it. Then you do it second time and third time ... each time the stick will end up in very different positions after the same time period. Its movement is unpredictable because of the turbulent stochastic component. This is exactly the situation with solar activity.