Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Reappraising the Elatina series: Solar dynamo clocking and inference of orbital periods

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A 680-million-year-old sediment series records a nearly clocked solar cycle, broken once by a 90-degree phase jump, and tiny orbital shifts can explain its altered periods.

desk verdict A transparent but fragile chain: the Dicke-ratio clocking claim is not yet supported because the fit-and-flip pipeline can manufacture it, while the orbital inversion is an underdetermined problem closed by strong assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02628 v1 pith:3EDOEGDN submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

F. Stefani , T. Weier , G.M. Horstmann , G. Mamatsashvili This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords ElatinaseriessolarcycledynamosynchronizationDickeratioSuess-deVriesplanetarytidesPrecambrianvarvesorbitalperiodinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the 1337-lamina Elatina formation from 680-million-year-old South Australia preserves a solar-activity record so phase-stable that, after subtracting long-period components, it behaves like a clock rather than a random walk. The only blemish is a break around varve year 600, which the authors show can be healed by swapping cycle minima for maxima, i.e. a 90-degree phase jump. Taking the 314-year 'Elatina cycle' to be a stretched Suess-de Vries cycle, and feeding the modified 23.7-year Hale cycle into a planetary-synchronization model of the solar dynamo, the paper infers that modest orbital changes—Jupiter's period about 3 percent longer, Earth's about 0.015 percent longer—would reproduce both periods. If right, this supports the idea that the solar cycle is synchronized by planetary tides and that the Elatina layers are annual, not tidal, deposits.

What carries the argument

Dicke's ratio, $\displaystyle D=\frac{\sum_{i=2}^{N}\delta_i^2}{\sum_{i=2}^{N}(\delta_i-\delta_{i-1})^2}$, distinguishes a clocked process, whose ratio approaches $0.5$, from a random walk, whose ratio grows as $N/15$ for large $N$. The second engine is the synchronization model's beat equations: $P_{\mathrm{Hal}}=2P_{\mathrm{Sch}}=(3/P_V-5/P_E+2/P_J)^{-1}$, $P_{\mathrm{Bar}}=P_J P_S/(P_S-P_J)$, and $P_{\mathrm{SdV}}=P_{\mathrm{Hal}}P_{\mathrm{Bar}}/(P_{\mathrm{Hal}}-P_{\mathrm{Bar}})$, closed by pairwise angular-momentum conservation with $L_i=m_i(GM/\sqrt{2\pi})^{2/3}P_i^{1/3}\sqrt{1-e_i^2}$. These equations convert the two observed periods into the four orbital periods, and the 90-degree phase-jump device (minima replaced by maxima before varve year 600) reconciles the otherwise unexplained break in Dicke's ratio.

What would settle it

Count the Elatina laminae against an independent chronological anchor (for example, a dated ash bed or lunar-nodal cyclicity): if the 1337 laminae span roughly half a century instead of 1337 years, the annual-varve premise fails and the phase-jump and orbital-period inferences collapse. Alternatively, a full 700-million-year N-body integration showing that Jupiter's period cannot increase by about 3 percent while conserving the Jupiter-Saturn angular-momentum sum would falsify the inversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the Elatina varve-thickness series is a clocked solar-activity proxy, not a random-walk oscillator. Computing Dicke's ratio for the residuals of cycle minima from a linear trend, and subtracting a two-sine fit with periods of about 323 and 161 years, the authors find the ratio tracks the theoretical clocked-process curve closely up to a break near varve year 600; replacing all minima before that year by the corresponding maxima removes the break, which they read as a genuine 90-degree phase jump in the solar cycle. The paper then uses a dynamo-synchronization model with three resonance and beat equations—the Hale period as a beat of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter spring-tide wave periods, the 19.86-year barycentric period as the Jupiter-Saturn synodic beat, and the Suess-de Vries period as the beat between the Hale and barycentric periods—to invert the observed 23.7-year Hale and 314-year Elatina cycles into planetary orbital periods, assuming pairwise conservation of Jupiter/Saturn and Venus/Earth angular momenta. The unique solution shifts Jupiter's period from 11.86 to about 12.21 years (about 1 percent angular-momentum increase) and Earth's from 1.00000 to 1.00015 years (0.005 percent increase), with correspondingly small Venus and Saturn changes; the inversion is robust against large eccentricity variations. The paper acknowledges that all of this depends on the laminae being annual varves recording solar activity rather than fortnightly tidal deposits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each Elatina lamina is one year of accumulated sediment whose thickness tracks solar activity, rather than a half-month tidal deposit; if the tidal reading is right, the clocked-process signature and the reconstructed orbital periods no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Elatina series behaves as a clocked process, not a random walk, once the roughly 314-year and 161-year components are subtracted, with a single phase jump near varve year 600.
  • A 90-degree phase jump, implemented by swapping minima and maxima before varve year 600, makes Dicke's ratio converge to 0.5, the clocked-process value.
  • Interpreting the 314-year Elatina cycle as a prolonged Suess-de Vries cycle and applying the synchronization model yields Jupiter's orbital period of about 12.21 years (2.95 percent larger) and Earth's of about 1.00015 years (0.015 percent larger) as the unique solution under pairwise angular-momentum conservation.
  • The inferred orbital periods are robust to large assumed eccentricity changes: Jupiter stays between 12.208 and 12.215 years and Saturn between 27.37 and 27.39 years.
  • A 90-degree phase jump is hard to explain under the tidal interpretation, so the clocking result favours the solar-activity reading of the Elatina laminae.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's pairwise angular-momentum conservation is a modelling choice; if one allows eccentricities to evolve freely or lets the terrestrial planets exchange angular momentum with other bodies, a family of equally good orbital solutions likely exists, so the quoted percentage changes should be read as conditional.
  • A 90-degree phase jump at a specific varve year should, if real, show up at the same absolute age in any other contemporaneous proxy archive; searching for such a matched discontinuity in independent Precambrian records would test whether the break is a solar event or an artefact of the drilling or digitization.
  • The synchronization equations imply that tiny modern drifts in planetary periods would be amplified into measurable changes of the roughly 200-year Suess-de Vries cycle; comparing long historical solar-cycle series with barycentric ephemerides could provide a cheap, independent check of the mechanism.
  • The paper's Dicke-ratio analysis is run on the whole 1337-varve series with one break; a cleaner test would be to split the series at the break and verify that each half separately approaches the clocked-process limit, which the current analysis only implies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-analyzes the digitized Elatina varve-thickness series, treating the thickness variations as a proxy for solar activity. It constructs residuals of the cycle minima from a linear trend, computes Dicke's ratio, and claims that after subtracting a fitted two-sine (323-yr and 161-yr) component the residuals behave like a clocked process except for a break near varve year 600. The authors attempt to explain the break by inserting a missing minimum, fail, and then replace all pre-600 minima by maxima, which removes the jump and leads them to interpret the break as a 90° phase jump. In the second half, they assume the 23.7-yr Hale cycle and the 314-yr Elatina cycle are a modified Hale/Suess-de Vries pair, and use the synchronization-model equations together with pairwise angular-momentum conservation to infer modified orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, obtaining a ~2.95% increase in Jupiter's orbital period and a ~0.015% increase in Earth's orbital period. The paper is candid about the contrived nature of the phase-jump transformation and about the competing tidal interpretation of the laminae.

Significance. If the clocking claim held, this would be a striking result for solar dynamo synchronization and for the interpretation of Precambrian sedimentary records. The paper is transparent about its procedures and caveats, and the graphical inversion is easy to follow. However, the load-bearing evidence for clocking is not established: the Dicke-ratio analysis is vulnerable to bias from post-hoc subtraction and from the selected sign flip, and no null distribution is provided. The orbital inference is a consistency exercise by construction, not an independent test, since the target periods are fed back through the model equations. The paper is best read as a suggestive consistency study, but the strength of the conclusions currently exceeds what the analysis supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (4), Figs. 2-3] The claim that the residual minima define a clocked process is not supported because the pipeline can manufacture a clocked-looking Dicke ratio. D in Eq. (4) is the ratio of mean-square residual to mean-square increment; subtracting the fitted 323-yr and 161-yr sinusoids (chosen from the same residuals) removes low-frequency variance and thereby reduces the numerator much more than the denominator, pushing D toward the clocked-process value 0.5. No surrogate null distribution is provided for D after this fit-and-subtract sequence, so the 'clinging' of the green curve to the clocked curve in Fig. 2(b) is not evidence of phase stability. The authors should repeat the analysis on non-clocked surrogates (e.g., random walks, AR(1) processes, or phase-randomized versions of the residual spectrum) processed through the same two-sine subtraction, and report the distribution of D.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 4, and Sec. 4] The 90° phase jump is implemented as a post-hoc replacement of all minima by maxima before varve year 600, a sign flip chosen because it removes the remaining jump. The paper itself calls this 'heavily contrived' (Sec. 4). No a priori physical justification is given, and the only cited precedent (Vos et al. 2004) concerns algae growth conditions, not solar dynamo phase jumps. A selection-adjusted test is needed: for example, one should apply the same search over flip location and flip direction to an ensemble of non-clocked surrogate series and ask whether the observed 'perfect' convergence to D=0.5 is surprising. Without such a null, the existence of a single 90° break point is not established.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (1)-(8)] The orbital inference is underdetermined and is made unique by imposing pairwise conservation of the sum of angular momenta for Jupiter/Saturn and Venus/Earth. These constraints are assumptions imported from the authors' synchronization model, and the inferred periods are constructed by solving the model equations with PHal=23.7 yr and PSdV=314 yr as exact inputs. The agreement is therefore built into the inversion, not an independent prediction. The paper should either provide an uncertainty propagation, an out-of-sample test (e.g., using the inferred orbits to predict another observed period of the Elatina series), or explicitly reframe Sec. 3 as a consistency check rather than an inference. The authors' own admission that the Venus/Earth angular-momentum conservation is 'less plausible' (Sec. 3.1) further weakens the uniqueness claim.
  4. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4] The entire analysis depends on the assumption that the Elatina laminae are annual deposits whose thickness variations record solar activity. The paper acknowledges the competing tidal theory (Williams 1989; Deubner 1990) but does not provide any new argument for the annual/solar interpretation. If the layers are fortnightly tidal deposits, the residuals, the Dicke ratio, and all inferred planetary periods lose their meaning. The conclusions should be conditioned much more explicitly on this assumption, and the paper should either present supporting evidence for the solar-proxy interpretation or significantly soften the claims in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The notation 'PSvD' appears in Eq. (6); this should read 'PSdV' for consistency with Eq. (3).
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence giving present eccentricities of Venus and Earth writes 'eV,t = 0.007 and eV,t = 0.017'; the second subscript should presumably be 'E,t' for Earth.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that 'Laskar's very long and highly accurate simulations had found variations between 0 and 0.06 (for Earth)' lacks a specific citation or figure reference; the reader is left without a quantitative source.
  4. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says 'Graphical solution of Equation (2)' but the figure actually solves for Venus and Earth using the Hale-cycle equation (1); the caption should be corrected.
  5. [References] The in-text citation 'F. L. Reineck & G. E. Williams (1990)' corresponds to the reference 'Reineck, F. L., & Williams, G. E. 1990'; please verify the authorship and spelling (Reineck vs. Reineck).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase-stability evidence is partly self-constructed: the 90° phase jump is imposed as a sign flip chosen after seeing the break, and the 'clocked' Dicke ratio appears only after subtracting sinusoids fitted to the same residuals; the orbital periods are an explicit inverse solution, not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Figure 4 paragraph, p. 5]
    "In a first attempt to assess a possible 90◦ phase-jump effect for the Elatina series, we have replaced, before the year 600, the minima of the series by the maxima. The results of this procedure are shown in Figure 4. Remarkably, the former jump in Dicke’s ratio close to the year 600 completely disappears, as if a 90◦ phase jump at this point would perfectly describe the clocked process."

    The test transformation is the hypothesis itself: replacing minima by maxima before varve year 600 is precisely the operational realization of a 90° phase shift on that segment. Applying that shift removes the phase discontinuity that had been located there, so the disappearance of the Dicke-ratio jump follows by construction from the applied transformation. It therefore cannot serve as independent evidence that a 90° phase jump occurred. The paper later concedes the replacement 'may seem heavily contrived' (Conclusions), and no null or surrogate ensemble is provided to calibrate what would happen to a non-clocked process under the same fit-and-flip pipeline. The subsequent argument that the 90° jump favors the solar theory over the tidal theory inherits this self-constructed evidence.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Figure 2 discussion, p. 4]
    "The black curve in Figure 2(a) represents an optimal fit of the violet curve with two sine-functions whose periods turn out to be 323 and 161 year, respectively... After having subtracted the optimal double-sine fit, we arrive at the green curve in Figure 2(a)... Remarkably, Dicke’s ratio following from it (green curve in Figure 2(b)) clings now closely to the clocked-process..."

    The two sine periods are fitted optimally to the very residual series whose Dicke ratio is then presented as 'clocked.' Since Dicke's ratio is the ratio of mean-square residual to mean-square increment, subtracting a fitted low-frequency (323-yr and 161-yr) component preferentially removes the numerator variance that drives D above the clocked plateau; the post-fit green curve approaching the clocked curve is therefore the expected consequence of variance removal, not an independent test of clocking. No null distribution for D after the fit-and-subtract procedure is supplied, so the 'clinging' cannot discriminate a clocked process from a non-clocked process with long-period components removed.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about several important caveats: it notes that rhythmites are thickness sequences rather than time series, acknowledges the competing tidal interpretation, labels the minima/maxima replacement 'heavily contrived,' and admits uncertainty about long-term planetary dynamics. The orbital-period section is explicitly framed as an inverse problem: the periods of Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, and Earth are solved from the model equations using the 23.7-yr and 314-yr cycles as inputs. That is not circular by itself — inverse modeling is a legitimate operation — but it means the resulting 'only small orbital changes are required' statement is a restatement of the constructed solution rather than an independent prediction of the model. The central circularity lies in the clocking evidence. The demonstration that a 90° phase jump removes the break at varve year 600 is self-definitional, because the jump is implemented as the very operation (minima replaced by maxima) that is then found to remove the break. Likewise, the 'clocked' character of the Dicke ratio is assessed only after subtracting an optimal two-sine fit to the same residuals, so the close approach to the clocked curve is partly manufactured by the fitting. These two steps carry the paper's key claim of solar-dynamo clocking and the subsequent inference of orbital periods, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on several adopted inputs and assumptions: the annual solar-proxy interpretation of the varves, the authors' synchronization model, the contentious Elatina/Suess-de Vries identification, and pairwise angular momentum conservation. The inverse problem is explicitly underdetermined without these constraints, so the inferred orbital periods inherit all of them. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Tilde P_Sch (assumed Schwabe period for residual construction) = 11.95 years in Figure 2, 11.80 years in Figure 3
    Chosen by hand to make the residuals curve appear horizontal; directly affects the residuals and Dicke's ratio. The paper says the choice leads to 'a relatively horizontal appearance of the curve'.
  • Elatina-type period from double-sine fit = 322.9 years, or 320.4 years with an inserted minimum
    Fitted to the residuals with two sine functions and used to subtract long-term periods before computing Dicke's ratio for the detrended green curve.
  • First-overtone period in the residual fit = 161 years, approximately half of 322.9 years
    Second sine component in the two-period fit; not independently constrained, but included to remove long-period structure.
  • Hale cycle period PHal = 23.7 years
    Adopted from Bracewell 1988a as an exact input to the inverse problem, without uncertainty or discussion of how it was derived.
  • Suess-de Vries or Elatina period PSdV = 314 years
    Adopted from Bracewell 1988a and identified with the Elatina cycle; the authors acknowledge this identification is contentious.
  • Putative extra minimum at year 624 = one inserted minimum
    Ad hoc insertion made to test whether a missed cycle could explain the break at year 600; the paper calls this 'trickery'.
  • 90-degree phase jump transformation = minima replaced by maxima before year 600
    Post-hoc data transformation applied so that Dicke's ratio converges to the clocked-process curve; the paper calls the replacement 'heavily contrived'.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Dicke's ratio formulas for random-walk and clocked processes are correct and applicable to the Elatina residuals.
    Used in Section 2 to interpret the residual statistics; the theoretical curves are taken from Dicke 1978.
  • domain assumption The Elatina varves are annual deposits whose thickness variations record solar activity.
    Central premise for any solar interpretation; the competing tidal theory is discussed in Section 1 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption The synchronization model equations (1), (2), and (3) describe how planetary tidal beats set the Hale and Suess-de Vries periods.
    Equations (1) through (3) are adopted from the authors' prior work without re-derivation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Pairwise conservation of the sum of angular momenta for Jupiter/Saturn and Venus/Earth holds over 700 million years.
    Introduced in Section 3.1 to close the underdetermined inverse problem; the authors concede the Venus/Earth application is 'less plausible'.
  • ad hoc to paper The 314-year Elatina cycle is a modified Suess-de Vries cycle.
    Section 3.1 states this identification 'is certainly contentious', yet the entire orbital inference depends on it.
  • domain assumption Present-day eccentricities are either held constant or varied to 0.1 and 0.2 as a robustness check.
    Used in Equations (7) and (8) and in the robustness analysis of Section 3.2; no full secular evolution model is applied.
  • domain assumption The beat formula PHal = (3/PV - 5/PE + 2/PJ)^-1 correctly represents the solar dynamo synchronization.
    Equation (1) is the key relation used to infer Venus and Earth periods from the Jupiter period and the Hale cycle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reappraising the Elatina series: Solar dynamo clocking and inference of orbital periods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3EDOEGDN

@misc{pith2026250602628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reappraising the Elatina series: Solar dynamo clocking and inference of orbital periods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3EDOEGDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02628}
}
read the original abstract

We reconsider the 680 million year old Elatina series of sedimentary laminae from South Australia that show a remarkably stable periodicity with a main period of around 12 years, which is close to the Schwabe cycle, and a second period of 314 years that has been coined Elatina cycle. By analyzing the residuals of the series' minima from a linear trend, and deriving Dicke's ratio, we first show that the series exhibits a high degree of phase stability, except one single break point which may indicate a 90{\deg} phase jump. We discuss the data in terms of a recently developed synchronization model of the solar dynamo. This model is then employed to infer those orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn that would be required to jointly explain the moderately changed Schwabe cycle, and the Elatina cycle when interpreted as a prolonged Suess-de Vries cycle. Assuming pairwise conservations of the sum of the angular momenta of Jupiter/Saturn and Venus/Earth, respectively, we find solutions of the underlying inverse problem which amount to approximately 1 percent angular momentum increase of Jupiter and a 0.005 per cent angular momentum increase of Earth. The plausibility of such changes over a period of seven hundred million years is discussed in light of solar system dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Series of varve thicknesses in mm, as digitized from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. in F. Stefani et al. (2020)). It suggests itself to think here about the usual Gnevyshev-Waldmeier rule of anticorrelation between amplitude and duration of solar cycles (Y. A. Nagovitsyn et al. 2019). After having subtracted the optimal double-sine fit, we arrive at the green curve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical solution of Equation (2) under the pairwise angular-momentum constraint (7) for Jupiter and Saturn. (a) The period of Jupiter must be shifted (red arrow) from 11.86 to 12.21 years, and that of Saturn from 29.46 to 27.38 years, so that the arising period of th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graphical solution of Equation (2) under the pairwise angular-momentum constraint (7) for Jupiter and Saturn. In addition to the case of unchanged eccentricities, we also consider four cases with large eccentricities (0.1 and 0.2) for either Jupiter and Saturn, and zer…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bracewell, R. N. 1988a, SoPh, 116, 179, doi: 10.1007/BF00171722

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00171722

  2. [2]

    Bracewell, R. N. 1988b, SoPh, 117, 261, doi: 10.1007/BF00147247

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00147247

  3. [3]

    N., & Williams, G

    Bracewell, R. N., & Williams, G. E. 1986, MNRAS, 223, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/223.3.457

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/223.3.457 1986

  4. [4]

    2021, Nat

    Brehm, N., Bayliss, A., Christl, M., et al. 2021, Nat. Geosci., 14, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-00674-0

    doi:10.1038/s41561-020-00674-0 2021

  5. [5]

    Deubner, F.-L. 1990, J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 147, 1083, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.147.6.1083

    work page doi:10.1144/gsjgs.147.6.1083 1990

  6. [6]

    Dicke, R. H. 1978, Nature, 276, 676, doi: 10.1038/276676b0

    work page doi:10.1038/276676b0 1978

  7. [7]

    S., McIntosh, S

    Dikpati, M., Cally, P. S., McIntosh, S. W., & Heifetz, E. 2017, Sci. Rep., 7, 14750, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14957-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14957-x 2017

  8. [8]

    A., Chatterjee, S., McIntosh, S

    Dikpati, M., Gilman, P. A., Chatterjee, S., McIntosh, S. W., & Zaqarashvili, T. V. 2020, ApJ, 896, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8b63

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8b63 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2012, An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139152310

    Fitzpatrick, R. 2012, An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139152310

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Koeberl, C., & Fedorov, A

    Fu, M., Abbot, D. S., Koeberl, C., & Fedorov, A. 2024, Sci. Adv., 10, eadk5489, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adk5489

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    1982, EOS, 63, 250, doi: 10.1029/EO063i017p00250-01

    Goguel, J. 1982, EOS, 63, 250, doi: 10.1029/EO063i017p00250-01

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    Horner, J., & Jones, B. W. 2012, Int. J. Astrobiol., 11, 147, doi: 10.1017/S1473550412000043

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    V., & Stefani, F

    Zaqarashvili, T. V., & Stefani, F. 2023, ApJ, 944, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca278

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2007,, Tech

    Hung, C.-C. 2007,, Tech. Rep. NASA/TM-2007-2148172012

    2007

  7. [15]

    1996, in Proc

    Ito, T., & Tanikawa, K. 1996, in Proc. 32nd Symp. Cel. Mech., Vol. 47

    1996

  8. [16]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 90, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02173-y

    Klevs, M., Stefani, F., & Jouve, L. 2023, SoPh, 298, 90, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02173-y

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2008, Icarus, 196, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.02.017

    Laskar, J. 2008, Icarus, 196, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.02.017

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, A&A, 532, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116836

    Laskar, J., Fienga, A., Gastineau, M., & Manche, H. 2011, A&A, 532, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116836

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    2005, Earth-Sci

    Mazumder, R. 2005, Earth-Sci. Rev., 72, 119, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.05.002

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Ferraz-Mello, S

    Michtchenko, T. A., & Ferraz-Mello, S. 2001, Icarus, 149, 357, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6539

    2001

  13. [21]

    A., Ivanov, V

    Nagovitsyn, Y. A., Ivanov, V. G., & Skorbezh, N. N. 2019, Astron. Lett., 45, 396, doi: 10.1134/S1063773719060045

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Okhlopkov, V. P. 2016, Moscow Univ. Phys., 71, 440, doi: 10.3103/S0027134916040159

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, Geology, 32, 581, doi: 10.1130/G20553.1

    Prasad, S., Vos, H., Negendank, J., et al. 2004, Geology, 32, 581, doi: 10.1130/G20553.1

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Psychoyos, D., & Hadjidemetriou, J. D. 2004, IAU Coll., 2004, 55, doi: 10.1017/S174392130400849X

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    Raphaldini, B., & Raupp, C. F. M. 2015, ApJ, 799, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/78

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Bustamante, M. D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5067

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Williams, G

    Reineck, F. L., & Williams, G. E. 1990, J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 149, 1083

    1990

  20. [28]

    Scafetta, N. 2012, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 81–82, 27, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.002

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Shirley, J. H. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 280, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10107.x

    2006

  22. [31]

    Solheim, J. E. 2013, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 159, doi: 10.5194/prp-1-159-2013 10 Stefani et al

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 83, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02174-x

    Stefani, F., Beer, J., & Weier, T. 2023, SoPh, 298, 83, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02174-x

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    2020, Magnetohydrodynamics, 56, 269, doi: 10.22364/mhd.56.2-3.18

    Weier, T. 2020, Magnetohydrodynamics, 56, 269, doi: 10.22364/mhd.56.2-3.18

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    2016, SoPh, 291, 2197, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0968-0

    Stefani, F., Giesecke, A., Weber, N., & Weier, T. 2016, SoPh, 291, 2197, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0968-0

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    2018, SoPh, 293, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1232-y

    Stefani, F., Giesecke, A., Weber, N., & Weier, T. 2018, SoPh, 293, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1232-y

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    2019, SoPh, 294, 60, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1

    Stefani, F., Giesecke, A., & Weier, T. 2019, SoPh, 294, 60, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    M., Klevs, M., Mamatsashvili, G., & Weier, T

    Stefani, F., Horstmann, G. M., Klevs, M., Mamatsashvili, G., & Weier, T. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 51, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02295-x

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    2025, arXiv:2503.22337, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22337

    Weier, T. 2025, arXiv:2503.22337, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22337

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 88, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01822-4

    Stefani, F., Stepanov, R., & Weier, T. 2021, SoPh, 296, 88, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01822-4

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    J., & Wisdom, J

    Sussman, G. J., & Wisdom, J. 1992, Science, 257, 56, doi: 10.1126/science.257.5066.56

    1992 doi

  32. [41]

    I., Dmitriev, P

    Tyasto, M. I., Dmitriev, P. B., & Dergachev, V. A. 2020, Adv. Space Res., 66, 2476, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.08.011

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    2004, in The Climate in Historical Times: Towards a Synthesis of Holocene Proxy Data and Climate Models, ed

    Vos, H., Br¨ uchmann, C., L¨ ucke, A., et al. 2004, in The Climate in Historical Times: Towards a Synthesis of Holocene Proxy Data and Climate Models, ed. H. Fischer, T. Kumke, G. Lohmann, G. Fl¨ oser, H. Miller, H. von Storch, & J. F. W. Negendank (Berlin: Springer), 293–317,...

    2004 doi

  34. [43]

    1982, EOS, 63, 794, doi: 10.1029/EO063i039p00794-01

    Williams, G. 1982, EOS, 63, 794, doi: 10.1029/EO063i039p00794-01

    1982 doi

  35. [44]

    Williams, G. E. 1981, Nature, 291, 624, doi: 10.1038/291624a0

    1981 doi

  36. [45]

    Williams, G. E. 1985, Aust. J. Phys., 38, 1027, doi: 10.1071/ph851027

    1985 doi

  37. [46]

    Williams, G. E. 1989, J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 146, 97, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.146.1.0097

    1989 doi

  38. [47]

    E., & Sonett, C

    Williams, G. E., & Sonett, C. P. 1985, Nature, 318, 523, doi: 10.1038/318523a0

    1985 doi

  39. [48]

    Wilson, I. R. G. 2013, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 147, doi: 10.5194/prp-1-147-2013

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    J., & Walker, J

    Zahnle, K. J., & Walker, J. C. G. 1987, Clim. Change, 10, 269, doi: 10.1007/BF00143906

    1987 doi

  41. [50]

    V., Carbonell, M., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J

    Zaqarashvili, T. V., Carbonell, M., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2010, ApJ, 709, 749, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/749

    2010 doi

  42. [51]

    V., Albekioni, M., Ballester, J

    Zaqarashvili, T. V., Albekioni, M., Ballester, J. L., et al. 2021, Space Sci Rev, 217, 15, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00790-2

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.