RETRACTED ARTICLE: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solarirradiance on a millennial timescale
Authors: S I Zharkov
E Popova
S J Shepherd
V V Zharkova
Journal: Scientific Reports (2019)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: solar activity; solar magnetic field; solar irradiance; terrestrial temperature; solar cycles
Affiliations: Northumbria University, Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE, UK. ., University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK., University of Hull, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Kingston upon Hull, HU6 7RX, UK., Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory Azerbaijan, AZ 1000, Pirqulu, Azerbaijan., National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow, Russia.

Abstract:  Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019-2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1-1.5 Wm-2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350-400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo. In addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a running averaging filter to suppress large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles. Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its maximum at 2600 to be followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries. This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 This is a rather confusing paper, that seems to be suggesting that most of the recent warming is natural and that we will see continued warming due to the motion of the Sun around the Solar System s barycentre leading to increased Solar irradiation at the Earth. This seems to be implying that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre can substantially influence the distance from the Sun to the Earth. This, however, seems to violate basic orbital dynamics. It is well known that the other planets in the Solar System can perturb the orbit of the earth leading to changes in the Earth s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. This is known as Milankovitch cycles and they have periods of 10s of thousands of years and are associated with the glacial cycles. However, the semimajor axis of the Earth s orbit remains essentially constant, and so these cycles do not substantially change the average solar irradiation received by the Earth; they do change where it is deposited and it is thought that large changes in solar irradiation at high Northern Latitudes can trigger the switch from a glacial, to an inter-glacial. Even in this scenario, albedo changes due to ice sheet retreat advance and changes in atmospheric CO2 due to ocean outgassing and vegetation changes, play a key role in moving the system from a glacial to an inter-glacial, or from an inter-glacial to a glacial. There are some other issues with the paper, but this seems like a pretty egregious error. I wrote a [blog post] that covers this in some more detail. , 
 https: andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com 2019 07 07 nature-scientific-reports , 
 Mr Ken Rice claims that he does simulations. However, he seems does not manage to capture that of Sun moves about the barycentre than by default has to be closer to one part of planetary orbit and further from another. He sent me about 10 emails and I tried to explain him this and other points. Here is my first reply to his question where I explained where we include solar inertial motion - to explain the newly discovered cycle of duration of about 2000 years which we found from the summary (solar activity) curve of solar background magnetic field. This solar activity curve correlated very closely with the increase of the temperature reported earlier by Akasofu, 2018 https: file.scirp.org pdf NS20101100012_47058306.pdf and increase of solar irradiance reported by Solanki et al, 2011 and Krivova et al, 2011. These are undeniable facts which exist beyond Mr. Rice like them or not. Nothing on the sun could explain this oscillation. The only one can be helpful is the solar inertial motion which is well known from 1965 and later developed by Fairbridge, R. W. Shirley, 1987 and many others (Charvatova, Palus and others see references in our paper). This motion is well protocolled in the past. However, Mr Rice denied that the Sun moves in SIM 0.02AU colder of=r further to different parts of the Earth orbit. I needed to send him the paper where this distance is calculated, only then he admitted that the distance is correct. I also mentioned to him that there is even a solar orbit simulator on the web, which one can use to produce the orbits for different epochs. Strange that the people who claim to model the terrestrial temperature do not know this important phenomenon. In my first reply I have explained to him as outlined below: Milankovich cycles do come from the different effects as per website we cited in the paper and can repeat here https: en.wikipedia.org wiki Milankovitch_cycles As we reported in the paper, we found in the summary curve the obliquity effect, or the effect of inclination of the axis of the Earth which occurs every 41 000 years. There are different elements of this motion which affect the terrestrial temperature. But what we are reporting is the additional effect which Milankovich did not look yet at his time. As fas as I see the Earth orbit does not change much because of this solar inertial motion as it is tiny compared with the major gravitational forces. So the major axis of the Earth orbit does not change, as you stated. However, the Sun is meandering about this barycentre makes its ways closer to the Earth in different part of its orbit, depending where it is on this cycle of inertial motion (conic picture in our paper). Currently, the sun moves closer to the Earth during summers and autumns in the Northern hemisphere. This is why we feel higher temperatures in the summers and autumns and colder one in the winter and springs. In the Southern Hemisphere the situation vice versa, of course. Given the fact that in the past 120 000 years the Earth and Sun had about 60 such full period of inertial motion gives us a clue that this is not something extra-ordinary. Sun-Earth system knows how to handle this process. And we who live on Earth have no other choice as to embrace this process. We were lucky to live in the past 500 years on a recovery from mini ice age, but we now move to the warming phase. In this sense the upcoming grand solar minimum from 2020 till 2053 and the next one in 2370-2415 will allow the population to prepare for the further increases of temperature. I understand as being the climate alarmist Mr. Rice ids ending any natural reasons of the terrestrial temperature decrease. Well.. The Earth orbit remains constant but the sun moves about the barycentre, thus being either closer or further from one or another part of this orbit. And the Earth came through many of those heating periods including the Roman Empire times when grapes and wine was made in Scotland, UK. This is only a natural process which can explain many processes reported before (increase of solar irradiance, terrestrial temperature and now magnetic field baseline). With my deepest respect Valentina Zharkova and co-authors , 
 Dr Zharkova, Firstly, I didn t ever dispute that the Sun moves relative to the Solar System barycentre. Can I also clarify what you re claiming here *The Earth orbit remains constant but the sun moves about the barycentre, thus being either closer or further from one or another part of this orbit. * The Earth s orbit is eccentric and so there are clearly times when it is closer to the Sun than at others. The eccentricity changes due to the perturbations from the other planets, but this change is very slow (the period is ~100000 years). So, on the timescale of decades, or centuries, the Earth s orbit around the Sun can reasonably be regarded as having a constant semimajor axis and eccentricity. Are you really suggesting that the motion of the Sun around the Solar System barycentre changes the distance from the Sun to the Earth and, consequently, changes the Solar irradiation and that this will lead to substantial warming in the coming centuries? , 
 #3 p.s. I can make available the whole email trail of this conversation with Mr. Rice, if he insists, to demonstrate that I have tried to explain him the points we obtained and he refused to accept them I have stopped explaining on the third round of exchanges. Ken Rice believes that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the terrestrial atmosphere acts stronger than the hot Sun moving towards the Earth, this is his belief, I cannot change it. But the common sense and basic logics of analysing the solar data speaks otherwise. Kindest regards Valentina Zharkova , 
 Dr Zharkova, Before we make the email exchange public, maybe we can simply clarify what you re suggesting. It seems to me that you re suggesting that the recent warming we ve experienced is not really due to increasing atmospheric CO2, but is mostly due to solar magnetic effects and because the Sun is moving closer to the Earth due to its motion around the Solar System barycentre. Is that a fair description of what you re suggesting? , 
 By the way we did not calculate the solar inertial motion in our paper, we used those calculated by the people whom we cited in our paper (Fairbridge, Charvatova, Palus etc.) . If Mr. Rice has objections to their calculations why does not he take them with these authors or journals. If anyone search Google you can find a simulation of SIM with the dates which anybody can insert and see how the Sun moves. Regards V.Zharkova , 
 Dr Zharkova, I don t have a problem with the calculations of the motion of the Sun around the barycentre. I ve done them myself. I get the same results as those presented by other calculations. What I m pointing out is that it s not correct to then infer (as you seem to have done) that as *the Sun is meandering about this barycentre makes its ways closer to the Earth in different part of its orbit, depending where it is on this cycle of inertial motion*. It is indeed the case that the other planets in the Solar System do perturb the orbit of the Earth, but this is the well known Milankovitch cycles that have periods of 10s of thousands of years, or longer. On the timescale of decades, or centuries, the changes are very small and we can reasonably regard the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as having a constant semimajor axis and eccentricity. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, and I don t think you have yet explained the basis for suggesting something that seems at odds with our understanding of basic orbital dynamics. Regards, Ken , 
 Not going into the details of the idea of  movement about the barycenter , which is not real, I will focus on some formal errors which strike the eye and raise a question how they could appear in a fully peer-reviewed paper.  It can be noted that in many occasions the summary curve plotted backward for 3000 years in Fig. 1 reveals a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity reported for these 3000 years from the carbon isotope dating[27]. This statement is wrong. The correlation between the Zh19 results and the curve (incorrectly cited to as ref. 27) does not exist. The Pearson s linear correlation coefficient (Zh19 result vs. a recent TSI reconstruction by the Solanki team (Wu et al. A A, 2018) for the last 3000 years) is ~0.1 (p-value ~0.12) implying only ~1% of common variability. The correlation between Zh19 and the sunspot numbers (SILSO, v.2) since 1700 is 0.2 (p-value 0.28) = 4% common variability). A few periods of seeming agreement appear consistent with an idea of a purely random coincidence. This can be proven strictly, but beyond this short comment. Thus, a quantitative comparison between the Zh19 results and direct reconstructions fails completely for both proxy-based (cosmogenic isotopes) and sunspot ones. How the 120,000-yr curve can be trusted? There are few other apparent errors in the paper, raising questions about qualification of the authors and reviewers:  since the end of the Maunder minimum there was the increase of the irradiance by a value of about 1u20131.5 Wmu22122 [27,28], or about 3% of the total solar irradiance .  circle with a diameter of about u0394 = 4.3RSun, or u0394 = 29 910 km, where RSun is a solar radius. Best regards, Ilya , 
 Does the sun orbiting around the barycenter have an influence on earth s magnetic field s baselines, which then would have an impact on earth s climate ? , 
 Dr. Zharkova, you state that  Currently, the sun moves closer to the Earth during summers and autumns in the Northern hemisphere. This is why we feel higher temperatures in the summers and autumns and colder one in the winter and springs. In the Southern Hemisphere the situation vice versa, of course. Could you please explain how exactly this works? After all, during NH summer, when you claim the sun is closer to earth, it is SH winter, when the sun (according to you) should be furthest from earth. This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. Or are you arguing that SH summer is exactly because the sun is further away? I am truly wondering whether there is a language barrier here, and you actually meant to refer to the obliquity, which is unrelated to the distance between the earth and the sun. , 
 Dr. Rice, This SIM is the different cycle from those reported by Milankovich as per website https: en.wikipedia.org wiki Milankovitch_cycles which consider the Earth orbit axis inclination, precession and other disturbances besides SIM. It is cited in our paper. I doubt that you have done the proper SIM calculations prior our paper publication as you emails to me have shown you never knew about the scale of the Sun displacement (0.02 AU) about the barycentre of the solar system and the focus of the Earth orbit. I cite your emails: from 5 July 2019, 13:03 UT Are you suggesting the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies by 0.02 AU on century timescales (which seems completely wrong) or that the perihelion distrance can change by 28000 km? and from 7 July, 9:43 UK time where you wrote What I m pointing out is that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre does not lead to comparable changes in the typical distance of the Earth from the Sun (i.e., that the average typical distance from the Earth to Sun does vary by as much as ~0.02 AU). After these emails I replied to you on 7 July with the copies of the papers by Palus et al, 2007 and Charvatova, 2000 where this number was published many time I stated in that email You better read our paper and the papers we cited on SIM, we did not simulate it, we used what other people did already. We just analysed how it would be possible to increase periodically the magnetic field which we measure from the Earth. And SIM seems to be the only mechanism which can account for this magnetic field change. I also emphasised that Before criticising the SIM size and estimations of the irradiance change presented in our paper I would advise you to read the papers where these points are taken from. These are the paper by Palus et al, 2007, PRL and Charvatova, 2000, Ann.Geo. attached. I also explained to you that ... other people already confirmed to me the shift of the perihelion distance I the modern era by 28000 km, so the eccentricity is not constant.u2019 I wrote that It is the shift in the current stage of SIM, which is only 370 years from its minimum which occur at the top of the cone where the SIM is minimal. Now sun moved slightly up towards the base, but it is still 2 3 of the motion to go ahead in the next 600-700 years before it reaches the maximum at 2600-2700 . Only after that email you admitted that the Sun indeed changes its distance from Earth by 0.02 AU. And if you draw a circle or ellipse, please the Sun into its focus and start moving the Sun to either side on this distance you obtain the estimations we presented. This is a basic geometry. I can draw the picture for you, photo it on my mobile and place on this site for everyone to see. I am in Canada now on a meeting, but I will do the drawing later to visualise what you cannot imagine without a picture. Our kindest regards Valentina Zharkova , 
 Dr. Rice (sorry for the formalities), Everett F Sargent here. I know you don t need any help but I ll still make the offer anyway. I ve done an FFT on 2^20 (1,048,576 consecutive days, ~2871 years) of JPL Horizons Sun-Earth (both wrt their geometric centers) distances. The annual and Lunar harmonics are all there (the annual has at lease a main f , 2f and 3f, where f is frequency in years and the nunber refers to super harmonics (multiples of the primary). I m thinking of doing the entire 20K years of JPL daily distances. I also do have what I consider to be a state-of-the-art linear harmonics analysis program (input frequencies or range of frequencies (usually taken from the FFT) and it computes the most exact frequency, phase, amplitude and (vertical) offset). The program is in quad precision and uses a Search and Destroy technique (e. g. removes the best RMSE fit). goes on to the next frequency range and repeats until completion. I am quite confident that if there is a relatively narrow band period of ~2000 years (or at least the strongest periodicity in that time frame) I can find it. Normally people use a time series of 1.25x-2x of the sought after frequency, JPL will give at least 8-10 wave periods of ~2000 years, if they are actually there. I ve used these in finding the most recent 18.6-year Moon-Earth nodal tide period using the same JPL data source. Best Regards, EFS , 
 Prof. Zharkova, I doubt that you have done the proper SIM calculations prior our paper publication as you emails to me have shown you never knew about the scale of the Sun displacement (0.02 AU) about the barycentre of the solar system and the focus of the Earth orbit. I teach a class in which I discuss the motion of the Sun around the barycentre, and even calculate the magnitude of this, so certainly knew about it. And if you draw a circle or ellipse, please the Sun into its focus and start moving the Sun to either side on this distance you obtain the estimations we presented. This is a basic geometry. Yes, if you did such a drawing, you would indeed obtain the estimates you presented. It would, however, be wrong. Clearly the orbital dynamics of multi-planet systems is rather complicated. However, it is not correct to assume (as you seem to be doing) that the Earth has an orbit around the Solar System barycentre that has a constant semimajor axis and eccentricity. The Earth s orbit around the Sun is clearly perturbed by the other Solar System planets, but these perturbations are slow (timescales of 10s of thousands of years). One the timescale of decades centuries the orbit of the Earth around the *Sun* can be taken to have a fixed semimajor axis and eccentricity. Bear in mind that the figures I sent you, and that are included in my blog post, are from a full N-body simulation that properly recovers the Milankovitch cyles and the motion of the Sun around the Solar System barycentre. They re not just geometrical representations. So, again, just because the Sun executes a motion about the Solar System barycentre that can have a magnitude of 0.02 AU does *not* mean that the distance between the Earth and the Sun varies by this amount. Regards, Ken , 
 It seems pretty clear that there is an assumption here that a difference in the relative position of the Sun with respect to the SSB directly translates to a change in the Earth-Sun distance which is simply not true. Even if you ignore basic principles of orbital dynamics which tell us why the key orbital parameters of the Earth remain effectively constant on these timescales any simulation data *clearly* demonstrates the absence of evidence for the claims of changing peri and apo-apsis made here. I attached what I hope is another way for Dr Zharkova to visualise what Dr Rice is trying to convey. ![file] This figure shows the per-orbit (Earth orbit) averaged position of both the Sun and the Earth with respect to the solar-system barycentre at 0,0 for the years 2019-2059. the Sun is undergoing the same motions as the paper describes, and indeed it does so with a maximum magnitude of approximately the claimed 0.02 AU. What the author has neglected is the fact that the exact same motion is seen by the Earth such that, on these timescales, the Earth-Sun distance at any time is unchanged. NB. In case it isn t clear the reason why the two do not exactly overlap is simply because the Earth series shows the centre of the orbit but the Sun is located at a focus of the orbit. The source for this is JPL Horizons ephemerides which I think we can agree is an extremely reliable simulation for this timeseries. Incidentally, this dataset also agrees with the established rate of change of the eccentricity of the Earth s orbit. Regards, , 
 Dear Ken and others, There is no need to discuss the imaginary (it s only a mathematical trick) movement around the barycenter. Just ask astronomers or irradiance experts (e.g., at WRC -- World radiation Center at Davos) what they think about + -2% change in the Sun-Earth distance or respectively + -4% in TSI within a year, and enjoy the answer :) As I mentioned earlier, and also published last year, the  double-wave dynamo model fails reproducing the known solar activity variations during the last centuries and millennia. Best Ilya , 
 #13 Dr. Rice, This SIM is the different cycle from those reported by Milankovich as per website https: en.wikipedia.org wiki Milankovitch_cycles which consider the Earth orbit axis inclination, precession and other disturbances besides SIM. It is cited in our paper. I doubt that you have done the proper SIM calculations prior our paper publication as you emails to me have shown you never knew about the scale of the Sun displacement (0.02 AU) about the barycentre of the solar system and the focus of the Earth orbit. I cite your emails: from 5 July 2019, 13:03 UT Are you suggesting the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies by 0.02 AU on century timescales (which seems completely wrong) or that the perihelion distrance can change by 28000 km? and from 7 July, 9:43 UK time where you wrote What I m pointing out is that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre does not lead to comparable changes in the typical distance of the Earth from the Sun (i.e., that the average typical distance from the Earth to Sun does vary by as much as ~0.02 AU). After these emails I replied to you on 7 July with the copies of the papers by Palus et al, 2007 and Charvatova, 2000 where this number was published many time I stated in that email You better read our paper and the papers we cited on SIM, we did not simulate it, we used what other people did already. We just analysed how it would be possible to increase periodically the magnetic field which we measure from the Earth. And SIM seems to be the only mechanism which can account for this magnetic field change. I also emphasised that Before criticising the SIM size and estimations of the irradiance change presented in our paper I would advise you to read the papers where these points are taken from. These are the paper by Palus et al, 2007, PRL and Charvatova, 2000, Ann.Geo. attached. I also explained to you that ... other people already confirmed to me the shift of the perihelion distance I the modern era by 28000 km, so the eccentricity is not constant.u2019 I wrote that It is the shift in the current stage of SIM, which is only 370 years from its minimum which occur at the top of the cone where the SIM is minimal. Now sun moved slightly up towards the base, but it is still 2 3 of the motion to go ahead in the next 600-700 years before it reaches the maximum at 2600-2700 . Only after that email you admitted that the Sun indeed changes its distance from Earth by 0.02 AU. And if you draw a circle or ellipse, please the Sun into its focus and start moving the Sun to either side on this distance you obtain the estimations we presented. This is a basic geometry. I can draw the picture for you, photo it on my mobile and place on this site for everyone to see. I am in Canada now on a meeting, but I will do the drawing later to visualise what you cannot imagine without a picture. Our kindest regards Valentina Zharkova , 
 #16 We have answered the comments by Usoskin in the paper at JASTP journal Zharkova et al, 2018 which can be read here http: computing.unn.ac.uk staff slmv5 kinetics reply2usoskin_jastp17.pdf. Regards V. Zharkova , 
 #15 Why don t you look better on the paper by Palus et al at PRL pr Charvatobe, AnnGeo, 2000? and others as per list below. They calculated the SIM and we used their calculations. I am surprised that solid supporters of global warming by humans never did it before. Missed the elephant in a. room.. Regards V. Zharkova 32. Kuklin, G. V. Cyclical and Secular Variations of Solar Activity. Basic Mechanisms of Solar Activity, Proceedings from IAU Symposium Prague, Czechoslovakia, 25u201329 August 1975 71, 147 (1976). 33. Charvatova, I. The solar motion and the variability of solar activity. Adv. Space Res. 8, 147u2013150 (1988). ADSArticle Google Scholar 34. Paluu0161, M. Kurths, J. and Schwarz, U. and Seehafer, N. and Novotnu00e1, D. and Charvu00e1tovu00e1, I., The solar activity cycle is weakly synchronized with the solar inertial motion. Physics Letters A 365, 421u2013428 (2007). ADSArticle Google Scholar 35. Mackey, R. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earthu2019s climate. Journal of Coastal Research, (Proceedings of the Ninth International Coastal Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia) SI 50, 955u2013968 (2007). Google Scholar 36.Charvatova, I. Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? AnnGeo 18, 399u2013405 (2000). , 
 If you did not see there is a SIM simulator on the web which anyone can use.![file] , 
 #15 Oh dear, You suggest that the Earth does follow in its orbit this solar inertial motion? And its orbit is not stable? You have to have a very vivid imagination assuming that the Earth moves like a drunken men... This is the similar ridiculous idea as Theo one put forward by Usoskin, that the sun has stochastic solar activity... According to this assumption the sun would be on its last leg of life before explosion.. V. Zharkova , 
 Xylaria, Nice. I hadn t thought of doing that. I ve just done something similar with my code and it seems to produce something that is essentially the same as you re getting from the JPL Horizons Ephemerides site. The reason the Earth s averaged orbit is wavy is simply because I m not quite averaging it properly. ![file] , 
 Prof. Zharkova, Noone is disputing that the Sun moves around the Solar System barycentre. The point is that the Earth also executes a motion around the Solar System barycentre that means that the average distance from the Sun to the Earth remains constant. This is illustrated very nicely in the comment by Xylaria and I ve also reproduced their result in the comment above. Also, as Ilya highlights, if the distance from the Sun to the Earth was moving by ~0.02 AU as the Sun moved around the Solar System barycentre, we would observe associated changes in the solar irradiance. We don t. , 
 http: www.sciencepublishinggroup.com journal paperinfo?journalid=298 doi=10.11648 j.ijaos.20190301.13 , 
 #23 Dr. Rice, You did not even know that the Sun moves in this large circle around the barycentre as I have shown from your emails a few posts above. You better learn it properly and stop ignoring the elephant in the room while hunting for a mouse.. , 
 #23 The Earth moves normally about the barycentre on a stable orbit, meaning that the sun is getting closer to different parts of the Earth orbit. This simple concept you seem do not understand. , 
 #23 Noone is disputing that the Sun moves around the Solar System barycentre. I do. The movement of the Sun around the Solar system barycenter is imaginary and is used to simplify some mathematical computations. Of course, you can calcuate these cycloides mathematically and discuss those, but there is no such movement in an inertial system. Try to describe in this way (viz. orbiting around the barycenter of the solar system) a gravitational maneuver of a spacecraft arounf Jupiter... The n-body problem cannot be reduced to this simple movement, it would just too simple. Moreover, since all gravitational movements are free falls, no forces are produced. The only real way of planets to affect solar variability is via tidal effects, but those are negligibly small for the Sun. there is yet an idea of the planetary torque on the tachocline, but that s is not applicable to the Sun. References provided by V. Zharkova on the barycentric movement are to marginally scientific works not taken seriously in the solar-planetary community. Best, Ilya , 
 #27 Illya Usoskin is not a specialist in the planetary motion to declare any thoughts about it. So his conclusions are not the authority and any relevance to our results. He got his answers to his comments. Now he wants a bit more glory at our expenses. While he was afraid to give us an oral talk to discuss this problem in open. Who is speaking then in the bushes??? Regards V. Zharkova , 
 #28 Who is speaking then in the bushes??? Wow! what a language for a scientist! I don t think the discussion should be continued this way. Good luck, Prof. Zharkova, in finding the convincing arguments in scientific discussions! Still, I noticed other apparent errors in your paper: viz. the 3% TSI variability and the 7000 km solar radius, not to say about the wrong statement about the agreement of your results with those by Solanki and Krivova. All the best, Ilya , 
 #29 There is a close correlation between our oscillation of the baseline from Maunder Minimum and Solanki curve. And so is the correlation with the baseline temperature increase by Akasofu, 2010. You could discuss any of these points during the meeting but you were afraid to offer us an oral talk. This is not a scientific approach at all. You give talks to yourself, to the Social chair but not to the authors who made something new. I am not afraid to discuss our results in open but you do. This is why it looks like you can only discuss ithe scientific topics only while you are sitting in the bushes hidden behind the computer. This is not an offence, this is a reflection of the fact of your pattern of behaviour. Real anti-gentleman behaviour. Regards V. Zharkova , 
 #29 Are not you having a conference e dinner? Which I also supposed to attend until you mistreated our contribution. You made me to withdraw my talk and my participation from this conference in protest of your diminishing treatment of our research. So who is lecturing us about manners then? Regards V. Zharkova , 
 #10 Yes this is the main point of the current paper. Kind regards V. Zharkova , 
 #23 Actually, we do observe the variation of solar Irradiance on the scale of 2000 years as our navy blue curve in Fig. 2 shows. In Fig. 3 we plotted this blue curve closer to current time only to discover that the minimum of this curve coincided with the Maunder minimum. Then we compared our blue curve with the curve by Solanki et al, 2011 which we deliberately plotted down as it follows exactly our curve. Furthermore, we compared the curve of baseline temperture increase by Akasofu, 2010 which is closely correlated with our baseline curve. In order to see the full correlation of SIM and irradiance we need tomove i timebyanother 600-700 years, or closer to the conebase from Fig.4. Right plot when the SIM will move on a larger circle. I hope this explains the points. Regards V . Zharkova , 
 This thread is disconcerting. Not so much that Dr. Zharkova decided to ignore my question, but rather the fact that Dr. Zharkova seriously misrepresents the e-mail by Dr. Rice. He clearly refers to the sun-earth distance not varying by 0.02 AU, and yet Dr. Zharkova keeps on attacking him for supposedly not knowing this and then admitting that it is so (which he hasn t!). I wanted to give Dr. Zharkova the benefit of the doubt, and once again considered that Dr. Zharkova s English my be too limited to fully understand what is being said, but then I saw her response #24 and her personal attacks on Dr. Usoskin and Dr. Rice. I ll leave the latter issue, as Dr. Rice has chosen to ignore it and Dr. Usoskin has indicated he has no interest in going there, but need to outline a bit more about my concern about her response #24: Firstly, that paper has nothing to do with the discussion. It appears to be an attempt to derail the discussion. Second, it casts significant doubt on Dr. Zharkova s ability to assess scientific credibility. After all, who in their right (scientific) mind would so easily refer other scientists to a paper published by a predatory publisher? And let there be little doubt that it is: the journal in question has published only 11 papers in 2.5 years of its existence, and still managed to have one of those 11 be completely unrelated to the topic of the journal (and notably co-authored by the infamous Alireza Heidari of the non-existing California South University) and another at best marginally related to the field of the journal (it relates to nanoparticle production using algae - and since algae can be found in the oceans, too, there is a link, however strenuous). The Publisher claims to be located at 1 Rockefeller Plaza in New York and being loc