
On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide - lisper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3
======
aaron695
No link between solar activity and earthquakes -
[https://phys.org/news/2013-04-link-solar-
earthquakes.html](https://phys.org/news/2013-04-link-solar-earthquakes.html)

OK, don't trust scientists.

I don't like this line. You don't jump from "No" to this -

"The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be
wrong lower than 10^–5. "

Not sure what this is, but it doesn't look good -

"We choose to create 10^5 synthetic data sets, using the real data inter-event
time intervals randomly combined."

This is a big deal. This affects economic markets, humanitarian aid and is
pretty interesting science about how the earth and planets work.

It's over a month old. Why can't I find either a take down or any confirming
evidence from an expert that supports this?

[edit] Previous discussion -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24393743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24393743)

~~~
aw1621107
> OK, don't trust scientists.

An interesting reaction, in my opinion.

> I don't like this line. You don't jump from "No" to this -

Where did the "No" come from?

> Why can't I find either a take down or any confirming evidence from an
> expert that supports this?

I found a Salon article [0] with some responses from other seismologists and
corresponding responses from a co-author. There's some vague criticism given
in this Forbes article, too [1]. Haven't found anything specific and/or
comprehensive, unfortunately.

I found some criticism in Reddit comments [2, 3], but I have no idea whether
those criticisms are valid. [2] criticizes the way the synthetic data sets
were created.

[0]: [https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar-
ac...](https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar-activity-to-
earthquakes-is-sending-shockwaves-through-the-science-world/)

[1]:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar-
origin-for-earthquakes/)

[2]:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may...](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may_trigger_earthquakes_a_new_study/fy2h67y/)

[3]:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_pa...](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_paper_shows_a_clear_correlation_between/g48pqt5/)

~~~
aaron695
I can't say I thought I'd ever read another not 'want to put a bullet in my
head' Salon article in my lifetime! But that was good.

This comment from another researcher I think is the problem "I'm not an
enthusiast,"

We need to say, "This paper is fucking bullshit"

I understand these offhandish comments work might within a community as a
gentlemanly code. But these dam articles circle the blogersphere for decades.

These are worrying - "We have therefore considered, in our analyses, four
different proton variables" "We hence decided to investigate 5 conditions"

I'd say they certainly are reading tea leaves. But there's nothing in it for
me to sit down and prove that properly.

~~~
aw1621107
> We need to say, "This paper is fucking bullshit"

> I understand these offhandish comments work might within a community as a
> gentlemanly code. But these dam articles circle the blogersphere for
> decades.

One guess might be that stronger criticism might be avoided until a more
thorough analysis/a replication attempt might be made. That reduces the
possibility that something is misunderstood, and ensures strong claims ("this
is absolute nonsense") have good evidence ("because the statistical tests they
use are not appropriate for this data", or "because the method they claim to
use does not produce their claimed results").

Curious if this is ever going to see a thorough debunking.

