Number of (mainly amateur) researchers have noticed coincidence between sunspot minima and occurrences of major earthquakes or volcanoes.

You may think this is just a coincidence. My motto: the nature is adverse to a coincidence; it is ruled by a cause and the consequence.

 Worldwide earthquakes with M4.0+ located by USGS and Contributing Agencies. (Earthquakes with M2.5+ within the United States and adjacent areas.) Reference list for the past 7 days

The above is the answer provided by vukcevic to my email with question if there is, in his view, any link between sunspot cycle and the occurrence of earthquakes and volcanoes. It is posted with his permission

Novak:

You may think this is just a coincidence. My motto: the nature is adverse to a coincidence; it is ruled by a cause and the consequence.

There certainly is room for coincidence in nature. For example, it appears you and vukcevic live in the same neighborhood. You should knock on his door and have a chat.

chipdatajeffB:

 

There certainly is room for coincidence in nature. For example, it appears you and vukcevic live in the same neighborhood. You should knock on his door and have a chat.

There certainly is,  There seems to be another person from that very same neigborhood who is also a member here. Goes by the name of Radun..

Have A Nice ____________

Novak,

While you put forward an interesting theory which may be correct, I don't believe you have made your case with this post. Vukcevic's article, Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity, merely points out that he found a polynomial that fits the data with a reasonably good fit. He doesn't state that this is a unique polynomial or the only polynomial or even that his polynomial is correct. He discusses it as a positive correlation, and, of course, he is right. But as every student of statistics knows, correlation does not imply causation. I would be more impressed if you showed a similar correlation with observations of earthquakes and volcanoes. You state that the occurrence of major earthquakes are linked to times of sunspot minima. Can you provide a reference for this? I shouldn't have to accept this statement as gospel.

This is an interesting coincidence of statistical data but beyond that it is essentially useless.  As a geologist I can tell you that no one with any decent credentials in geophysics, seismology, or volcanology would consider this relevant information. 

Earthquake prediction is impossible with the present state of our understanding. After the debacle of the Chinese models of the 1990's, as well as others based on very simple Parkfield experiments, geologists have been trying to inform the public that anyone saying they can predict them even on a broad scale is playing very fast and loose with the data and what can be derived from it.  This model does nothing to change this either. If there is a statitistical trend for more earthquakes during solar minimums on a planetwide scale this will not help pinpoint the location or severity of said quakes at any point during the solar cycle. 

The forces and stresses that cause earthquakes occur in our planet's crust and involve total masses that are immense and far removed from the influence of weather, planetary alignments, or electromagnetic forces either at the core or in space.

L

Most detailed work in this field was done by Frank Glasby in his book Planets, Sunspots and Earthquakes where he presents a working hypothesis of how planets trigger sunspots and earthquakes. Two distinct and separate effects are considered: one is an internal effect whereby the core of the sun and the earth become more active. The other is an external effect whereby the combined effect from external bodies stresses the earth's crust at a point where it enters or leaves the gravitational field of the group of external bodies.

The book in its entirety is available via web link for Google books

 Planets, Sunspots and Earthquakes

To his credit, the author of this self-published, non-peer-reviewed book doesn't claim it to be factual and does, in fact, warn against accepting its premises "unless confirmed by further scientific research".

This book is quite seductive in its style but the substance is sheer speculation and has no real understanding of basic geology. As an example the author does indeed start out his chapter on planetary alignments by saying the possibility of said bodies having any impact on Earth's geology is not likely, he throws out Mercury as being too small and close to the sun to have an effect, but then goes on to state that Jupiter's and Saturn's infinitesimal gravitational effect does tip the balance during certain alignments and therefore can cause an effect.  He then provides tables of these planetary alignments as quides to earthquake prediction!  His very reasonableness is quite engaging but the resultant conclusions are not supported by evidence of any kind.

Sorry but this is rubbish. Well written, but rubbish nonetheless.  Take Frank at his word and treat this as random thoughts from an interested layman and not the product of scientific methodology.

L

Heck, why not toss in "The Jupiter Effect"

The U.S. Geological Survey said a 6.4 magnitude quake hit 60 km (40 miles) northeast of the provincial capital, Quetta, Pakistan.

Novak:

The U.S. Geological Survey said a 6.4 magnitude quake hit 60 km (40 miles) northeast of the provincial capital, Quetta, Pakistan.

 

However, currently there is no sunspot activity.

wait for it, wait for it ....

tkerr:

However, currently there is no sunspot activity.

Indeed, that is the point, the earthquake frequency appears to rise at solar minima. Sunspots are not caused by planetary factors, just modulated via feedback through interaction between heliospheric current (HC) and large planets’ strong magnetospheres. HC is strongest during solar minima (least loaded by the magnetosheric interaction) thus its magnetic force is able to suppress most if not all activity. Just look at size of the current coronal holes (sources of HC) http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_195/512/ they are absolutely huge and since there is no load on HC they grow larger. As soon as HC is loaded coronal holes will get smaller and eventually disappear.

Novak:

Sunspots are not caused by planetary factors, just modulated through interaction between heliospheric current (HC) and large planets’ strong magnetospheres.

Is there published science supporting the statement above? What is the causal link?

HC is strongest during solar minima (least loaded by the magnetosheric interaction) thus its magnetic force is able to suppress most if not all activity.

Ditto

...??

Novak:

Indeed, that is the point, the earthquake frequency appears to rise at solar minima.

Really?  Lets put your little pet hypothesis to the test.

In October 2008 there have been 14 earthquakes and aftershocks above 6th magnitude.  In October 1997 during the solar maximum there were 57.

Since this sample is restricted to a monthly comparison which might be too small a sample when dealing with unpredictable things like earthquakes I enlarged the data pool to January 1st through October 27th of each year. The results were that in 1997 there were 554 seismic events over 6th magnitude and in 2008 there were 389. 

If anything the data are the exact opposite of your hypothesis.

Once again I must stress that there is no connection between solar activity and seismic events.  Neither weather, sunspots, planet alignments, electromatic forces in outer space, nor death stars have any effect on forces that occur on enormous masses miles under the Earth's crust.

L

leo731:

Novak:

Indeed, that is the point, the earthquake frequency appears to rise at solar minima.

 

Really?  Lets put your little pet hypothesis to the test.

In October 2008 there have been 14 earthquakes and aftershocks above 6th magnitude.  In October 1997 during the solar maximum there were 57.

Since this sample is restricted to a monthly comparison which might be too small a sample when dealing with unpredictable things like earthquakes I enlarged the data pool to January 1st through October 27th of each year. The results were that in 1997 there were 554 seismic events over 6th magnitude and in 2008 there were 389. 

If anything the data are the exact opposite of your hypothesis.

Once again I must stress that there is no connection between solar activity and seismic events.  Neither weather, sunspots, planet alignments, electromatic forces in outer space, nor death stars have any effect on forces that occur on enormous masses miles under the Earth's crust.

L

No need to shout.  The only thing you have "proved' is that I am not infallible.  Please be aware that the actual cycle is 22 years but we speak of the 11 year cycle when dealing with sunspots.  I forgot that: so mea culpa.

As to the data I did as you so kindly suggested and pulled up the figures for the following years for events over 6th magnitude:

In 2001 there were 41 seismic events in October and 457 for the year January- October.

In 2002 there were 149 seismic events in October and 810 for the year January-October.

In 2003 there were 123 seismic events in October and 985 for the year January-October.

You can compare these to 2008 event numbers of 14 and 389.

The point I am making is still valid. 

 There is no correlation between sunspots and seismic activity.

By the way, I am a trained geologist and an amatuer astronomer so perhaps when the next time I make a mistake, and I will, you might want to point it out in a more civil manner.

L

Sorry guys,

I am really off my game today.

For the year 2000 the figures are 137 sesmic events for October and and 1259 for the year.

L