Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.

Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.

If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).