<p>The main proxy that we have of past solar intensity comes from its <a href="https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/Earth8.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">proven correlation to the number of sunspots</a>, which have been recorded since the invention of the telescope in the early 1600's. And the plot looks like this:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/nwvd6.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/nwvd6.png" alt="solar output"></a></p>

<p><strong>We have no evidence of any significant correlation between the solar cycle and earthquakes or volcanic activity.</strong></p>

<p>You won't find papers in legitimate peer-reviewed journals regarding the lack of correlation, because generally null results are not of much interest. 
Therefore, I dug up the data myself: Here I've plotted the year count of all of the earthquakes worldwide from 1950 to 2017 of magnitude 7 or greater found in the <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">USGS Earthqueake Catalog</a> (orange), along with the total number of sunspots per year from the <a href="http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles#total" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations</a> (blue):</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/UQwNJ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/UQwNJ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>There doesn't appear to be any significant connection between the two graphs. The solar portion shows the well-proven 11 year solar cycle (actually <a href="https://scied.ucar.edu/sunspot-cycle" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it's a 22 year cycle</a> with two similar halves). And the earthquakes doesn't show any clear pattern.</p>

<p><strong>There are many fault systems on earth, and if you cherry-pick one (like the New Madrid fault), you might found a correlation just by chance</strong>, but such correlation have no statistical value. To believe such correlation is even more difficult if there is no physical mechanism proposed for such influence. Nevertheless, as you can see in the graph above, if we include all earthquakes the correlation just doesn't exists.</p>

<p>Even for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New Madrid fault</a> the correlation is weak. Sure, there was an earthquake in 1699 coinciding with the Maunder minimum, one in 1812 coinciding with the Dalton minimum, and a smaller one in 1895 coinciding with a minor minimum. But what about the one in 1843? That one doesn't match any minimum (let aside several magnitude 5 earthquakes that were recorded during the 20th century grand solar maximum). Also, <a href="http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot" rel="nofollow noreferrer">solar activity is now as low as for the 1895 earthquake</a> and nothing have happened yet. So you have four points, three of them match your supposed correlation and one doesn't. Such data is far from providing a robust statistical correlation. </p>

<p>After the OP's comments complaining that the above graph, that extends back to 1950 only, is too short to capture the grand solar minimums, I consulted other, arguably impartial database of historical earthquakes beyond the instrumental record: Wikipedia. In particular, its <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">list of historical earthquakes</a> (before year 1900). I've downloaded the data and created a histogram of earthquakes per decade. Which is presented below together with the most popular reconstruction of solar activity, that is derived from <span class="math-container">$^{14}$</span>C in tree rings (<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">figure source</a>)</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FZpo5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FZpo5.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Once again, you can see that there is no correlation between earthquakes and grand solar minimums, so you can stop believing that claim based on cherry-picking seismic areas that by chance show a (still questionable) correlation with grand solar minimums.</p>

<p>The solar cycle does indeed have some influence on climate - by changing the intensity of UV radiation, which in turn changes the properties of the upper atmosphere. However, the variation in total energy due to the solar cycles are actually very small (~0.1%). The impacts of those small fluctuations are not large enough to explain the warming observed in the last century, and it does not drive ice ages either (that are triggered by larger factors like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles" rel="nofollow noreferrer">changes in the earth orbit</a>, which operate at a MUCH longer timescale [~100,000 years]).</p>

<p>The exact cycle of earthquakes can vary by hundreds of years, and there is still NO way to predict WHEN they will exactly happen with current technology. When enough people make enough predictions that a catastrophic event will happen, some of them will be right. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here is a small sampling</a> of past apocalyptic forecasts.  You can see that most did not come true. Because earthquakes happen periodically, some people do claim their predictions were right, but those accidental hits can be explained by pure chance.</p>

<p><strong>Once again, there is no observed link between solar activity and earthquakes or volcanic activity.</strong></p>

<p>A variant of the supposed correlation between solar minimums and earthquakes is one arguing that solar flares are correlated with earthquakes, something that is also false. <a href="http://www.thesuntoday.org/solar-facts/flares-and-earthquakes/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> explains it well. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602208" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Research have pointed that there are some statistical properties that are very similar in both processes</a>. However, there is no correlation or connection between them.</p>

<p>UPDATE: An updated and extended version of the plot of sunspots versus earthquakes can be found in my answer to <a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14370/what-would-a-graph-of-magnitude-7-5-earthquakes-over-last-400-years-compared-to/14846#14846">this question</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T00:56:28.290Z
Well, wonderful answer.   All data I've seen, shows that it is a close association.  Please listen to John L. Casey?  I mean he was the President's Science Advisor...with a huge resume/credibility.  He has been blocked and harassed because now everything about science warnings is conspiracy.  Thanks for your answer...I'll absorb this.
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T01:20:21.197Z
I don'y know much of John Casey, but I did hear part of the talk and sounded like pseudoscience to me. I check the prediction center he leads (http://ievpc.org) and it definitely looks VERY unscientific, I see links to books in amazon, press releases, and donation buttons but not a single publication in a respectable peer reviewed journal. All the publications are in the very same journal (NCGT) of which curiously, Casey himself is part of the editorial board. To be honest, it doesn't sound reliable at all to me.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T01:37:40.893Z
Gees.  I can say I know pseudoscience speak and I did not at all get that from this guy. He did have a 'stroke' this last September, so there won't be any more information coming from Dr. Casey anytime soon.  What sounded pseudoscience in particular?  I feel this is sorta kinda a big deal...and truly,  have not found anything to say this is all fake.  History tells all?  Right?  Remember, TPTB, have been working overtime to silence this guy.  I bought and own Upheaval and most of it is just solid evidence...not much if any supposition.  Listen to that first link...
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T01:40:20.163Z
What  would be reliable information to you, Camilo?  For this site?  I had no idea this would not already be a hot subject.  If at all  true, looks like we would be fools to not be knowing?
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:28:43.137Z
That paper look fishy to me. It is of bad quality (I didn't reed it fully but is now well written and the arguments are weak), and the author is not affiliated to the university is says it is (there is nothing about her in the university website). And that journal (Natural Sciences), is not listed as a peer reviewed journal and has no impact factor (check here: https://www.scopus.com/sources) so ir can easily be fake. Be carefull, there is a lot of fake science going around.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:37:11.350Z
Generally when it comes to science most often when there's no signs of fire trucks, there's probably no giant undiscovered fire.  In other words, the fact there aren't scientists hotly discussing it... is more likely to indicate that the data doesn't tend to support the claim.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:37:17.183Z
@stormy What are exactly you worried about? The process that might links solar  activity with earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? Or the fact that there is a large earthquake due in North America? Or something else?
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:47:01.563Z
@stormy On a site like this, even if we disagree with an idea, you'll generally find we're willing to address specific questions posed straightforwardly. We have questions about flat earth, chemtrails, challenges to global warming data, alternative theories of Earth's core composition - simple questions/answers survive (though may be downvoted) to get good input. Is there a mathematical connection between disasters and solar output? Camilo's data shows no. Generally graphs/data are most convincing. So if Casey's theories still entice you, give an answer with the most convincing evidence.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T03:28:43.663Z
One thing I will note, it's a little misleading and confusing that the W/m^2 scale on the second image is inconsistent.  (it ends up exaggerating the appearance of both the solar and the anthropogenic inputs?)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T03:45:38.340Z
This Jeopardy, is stuff I want pointed out...yet, gosh there is no anthropogenic input here at all.  There is no problem with CO2.  Are we on the same page?  I am not worried I am preparing as always but with a bit of a quicker step.  I will find that one graph showing the New Madrid always going off during GSM.  They actually name these things like hurricanes...data can be found to support any claim, right or so off base that smart people believe it?  Like CO2, my goodness.  Warming?  Melting ice?  Rising sea levels?  Polar bears dying out?  Ocean temps have been decreasing for 10 years...
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T06:08:02.283Z
@stormy I just downloaded  the actual data for earthquakes and sunspots. Take a look to the edited answer above and you will see the details. That is reliable information, from the guys who are actually putting seismometers on the ground and the guys who are observing the sun on a daily basis.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-01-19T00:37:47.750Z
2019-04-05T21:32:01.373Z
2019-04-05T21:32:01.373Z
Camilo Rada
<p>I've found many claims arguing that the periods of minimum solar activity are associated with increases earthquakes and volcanic activities.</p>

<p>Some of these claims are supported by articles in scientific format. However, they are not published in mainstream scientific journals (as the ones listed by <a href="https://www.scopus.com/sources" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SCOPUS</a>), but they seem to show some compelling evidence of the correlation between GSM and earthqueakes. Some of such articles are:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/qk-volc_and_solarlowcycle.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volcanic and seismic activities during the solar
hibernation periods</a></li>
<li><a href="http://file.scirp.org/Html/5319.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Influences of solar cycles on earthquakes</a></li>
<li><a href="http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/newmadridchoi_and_casey.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New Madrid Seismic Zone, central USA: The great 1811-12 earthquakes, their relationship to solar cycles, and tectonic settings</a></li>
<li><a href="http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/newmadrid_and_caribbean.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The January 2018 M7.5 offshore North Honduras earthquake: its possible energy link to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Mississippi Valley</a></li>
<li><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMIN33A..03J" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Whether solar flares can trigger earthquakes?</a></li>
</ul>

<p>They put special emphasis in the association of GSM's with the activity of the New Madrid Fault.</p>

<p>However, in the mainstream scientific literature this correlations seem to be ignored. Then I wonder:</p>

<p><strong>Is there any real correlation between Grand Solar Minimums and earthquakes?</strong></p>

<p>If there is: How can solar activity affect earthquakes and volcanic activity?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:01:00.677Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because (1) this isn't a question, and (2) this is pure bollocks.

And that's putting it as nicely as I can.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:28:00.953Z
Stormy, I do want to see your question get response... it's what this site is all about. However as you've edited it, you've made it less a single question, and more a run-on asking numerous questions, trying to convince people and show your own finds, and in the end, difficult to understand what the topic is. I would suggest you go back to about Edit 7 and simplify. Then if you're convinced you've found more info, make it an answer instead. But keep in mind you're asking scientists who look at the data continually their input. And honestly, you'll find the answer Camilo gave is more reality.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T02:29:01.607Z
But if you keep changing the question, and make it long and verbose... you won't get an answer.  If you have multiple things you want to look into, make them separate questions down the road.  But if you want real scientific input on a specific topic, like the correlation between solar output and earthquakes/other disasters... I suggest you keep it much simpler.  Or it won't fit the purpose/format of this site and will indeed be closed :-(
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T03:37:21.863Z
According to Casey and Choi, the past four strong periods of earthquake activity in this zone have all occurred during periods of very low solar activity-- during the Sporer (1450), Maunder (1699), Dalton (1811-12), and Centennial (1895) Grand Minima.

THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE  Haven't found the one graph among these hundreds showing graphically the New Madrid going off every single GSM.
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T03:42:35.460Z
@stormy a question's goal is not to supply large quantities of supporting evidence, but to ask about a claim. Your "supporting evidence" is an answer. And it appears that Camilo is a geophysicist complete with a doctorate degree... so I doubt it's the first time he's encountered the subject!  You shouldn't feel you are walking on eggshells, no one gets banned for making honest tries. Your question may be downvoted (if written badly, or if people disagree with it)... or it may be closed (if it isn't a simple question). But no reason to delete, just suggest you improve it if you want real input.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T06:28:52.277Z
@stormy I think it is a fair question. But as Jeopardy say it can be put in a better way, but everything is perfectible. I did downloaded the actual data for earthquakes and sunspots and added  that to my answer below. Take a look to the edited text.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T08:53:34.067Z
Yes, please [edit] this into something readable. Junk text like *global cooling Do you like this post? Be the first to comment Sign in with Or sign in with email* shows the layout is currently a mess. If you quote stuff, make sure we recognize it as a quote. Suggestion: remove at least 50% of the text.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T14:28:02.247Z
Since comments here were cleaned, I would like to note that the criticism above isn't valid anymore as the question has been edited and improved.
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T15:04:35.277Z
@Communisty I didn't see the evolution of this question, but I think it's still unanswerable in its current state. "What is it about GSMs that causes earthquakes?" is unanswerable, because it's founded on a false premise: GSMs don't cause earthquakes, so nobody can specify what it is that makes them cause earthquakes. It's like asking "How tall is the current king of France?". If the question were "**Is there** a relationship between GSMs and earthquakes?" it would be answerable, but I have the impression that OP doesn't want to ask that, for fear of getting an answer they disagree with.
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-19T22:28:13.237Z
This appeared in my review queue. As it is right now, the question posted in the body ("s there a clear correlation between Grand Solar Minimums and earthquakes?") is clear and answerable. The title has a different question. I shall vote to leave open, and edit the title.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-20T01:57:13.113Z
Thank you Simon...to dump this question into the category of not on topic? Would be gravely very very sad.  If this GSM and earthquakes has any chance of being true, I would think giving it this site's endorsement just might save lives. Again, thank you.
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-20T02:02:31.610Z
...and I actually went to look at the 'rules' in the help center.  Nothing I found there indicated how I should word this title or question, to be better allowed 'on topic'..
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-20T15:46:28.417Z
@SemidiurnalSimon It's an improvement, but the question still opens with a bald assertion of "major earthquakes always associated" with GSMs -- before going on to ask *whether* they are! I'll try to clean it up some more, and will vote to re-open if it can be made coherent.
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-29T03:53:27.583Z
@stormy I hope you don't mind I fully reworded your question so it can be re-opend. I think it point to an interesting fact and it is worth keeping for others to benefit from it and the answer.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-29T04:04:04.063Z
@DavidHammen I've fully reworded this question, because I recognize how hard it can be for non-scientist to differentiate between those papers I referenced and real science, so I think it is a useful question. I hope you agree that this question is worth re-opening. But it seem that with my current privileges voting to re-open is out of my reach.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-29T06:14:58.147Z
Thank you Camilo.  I shall pay even closer attention to what you have posted.  I thought I was being vigilant and now I shall try to make sure I am able to read your papers.  This is not easy.  I want 'real' science.  I want the real stuff.  I don't care if my assertions are correct... I really want to be able to discern even better than I think I  already do the truth, between the lines?  I am grateful.  I think this warrants a real effort by 'the scientists' to explain this...phenomenon.  Major huggs, Camilo.
stormy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-02T08:05:19.343Z
@CamiloRada I hear where you're coming from, but I don't want to vote this question re-opened.  It's a bonkers idea based on weak statistical correlation that doesn't deserve attention, in the comments, the asker keeps pushing the idea, saying the author is "being silenced" and you even pointed out to him that he should stop criticizing.   You gave a good answer, but it's a bad question that doesn't represent any semblance of mainstream ideas and the asker isn't listening to feedback.    I don't see what re-opening would add.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-09T23:24:16.273Z
Camillo you did a fantastic job of rewording.  Truly.  Thank you for taking the time.  History actually shows this correlation quite well, the GSM and the New Madrid Fault have what, 100% correlation with thousands of GSMs and the New Madrid going off each and every single GSM?  I'll go check to make dang sure but that is what I've been reading and hearing and seeing.  I think that is a very big deal.  If we are looking forward to a New Madrid Fault event this continent of people should be getting prepared.  History, consistency, historical records, ice cores...facts.
stormy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-27T04:49:12.983Z
Is anyone asking themselves what the heck is wrong with what I've said?  Where are the dudes with data to refute what I am asking?  Again, what is the definition of a 'scientist'?  Wanna see my resume?  How did my question get 1000 views?  If I am so off course?  Why would I bother making something out of nothing?  Why is no one checking this stuff out?  Why does a question need to be POPULAR to be okay?
stormy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-27T04:53:01.880Z
Walking into Earth Science on this site is a lot like walking into a hostile arena.  My goodness.  Just tell me what it is I have said that is wrong instead of dissing me completely without the benefit of reading what I've written?!
stormy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T23:23:38.530Z
There most certainly is enough evidence to support earthquakes ALWAYS HAPPEN during GSMs.  Is anyone looking at these graphs that were added that are supposed to prove there is no correlation between GSM and earthquakes? Gosh, you guys deleting my answer is fairly scary.  BOOKs have been written.  Famous oil paintings of these periods plaster the walls of museums.  yet what I am asking is OFF TOPIC?  Honest?  I guess I have to become the rebel here.   None of you have give one hint of information that would cause me to reconsider my assertions!  Deleting a viable question like this ummmm....??
stormy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T01:18:53.097Z
I've voted questions down before but it was clear the OP was out of their mind.  This little old OP is not out of her mind, I do  not  go with the popular thoughts when the  popular thoughts are nonsensical.   The  popular thought (CO2 causing global warming?  hello?) in question even though I am not some research scientist, makes  no   sense   at   all.  What about my question was incorrect?  Or is this about  PC?  hummmm.  I'll bop in from time to time and I sincerely feel I deserve an apology sometime in the near future.  Hey, I'll be the first if I am wrong but I think not...huggs anyway.
stormy
<earthquakes><sun><solar-terrestrial-physics><seismic-hazards><insolation>
Is there any correlation between Grand Solar Minimums (GSM) and earthquakes?
stormy
# Is there any correlation between Grand Solar Minimums (GSM) and earthquakes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-18)

I've found many claims arguing that the periods of minimum solar activity are associated with increases earthquakes and volcanic activities.

Some of these claims are supported by articles in scientific format. However, they are not published in mainstream scientific journals (as the ones listed by [SCOPUS](https://www.scopus.com/sources)), but they seem to show some compelling evidence of the correlation between GSM and earthqueakes. Some of such articles are:

* [Volcanic and seismic activities during the solar
  hibernation periods](http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/qk-volc_and_solarlowcycle.pdf)
* [Influences of solar cycles on earthquakes](http://file.scirp.org/Html/5319.html)
* [New Madrid Seismic Zone, central USA: The great 1811-12 earthquakes, their relationship to solar cycles, and tectonic settings](http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/newmadridchoi_and_casey.pdf)
* [The January 2018 M7.5 offshore North Honduras earthquake: its possible energy link to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Mississippi Valley](http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/4/0/21850043/assets/newmadrid_and_caribbean.pdf)
* [Whether solar flares can trigger earthquakes?](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMIN33A..03J)

They put special emphasis in the association of GSM's with the activity of the New Madrid Fault.

However, in the mainstream scientific literature this correlations seem to be ignored. Then I wonder:

**Is there any real correlation between Grand Solar Minimums and earthquakes?**

If there is: How can solar activity affect earthquakes and volcanic activity?

**Tags:** earthquakes, sun, solar-terrestrial-physics, seismic-hazards, insolation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because (1) this isn't a question, and (2) this is pure bollocks.  And that's putting it as nicely as I can.  
> **username_2**: username_0, I do want to see your question get response... it's what this site is all about. However as you've edited it, you've made it less a single question, and more a run-on asking numerous questions, trying to convince people and show your own finds, and in the end, difficult to understand what the topic is. I would suggest you go back to about Edit 7 and simplify. Then if you're convinced you've found more info, make it an answer instead. But keep in mind you're asking scientists who look at the data continually their input. And honestly, you'll find the answer username_3 gave is more reality.  
> **username_2**: But if you keep changing the question, and make it long and verbose... you won't get an answer.  If you have multiple things you want to look into, make them separate questions down the road.  But if you want real scientific input on a specific topic, like the correlation between solar output and earthquakes/other disasters... I suggest you keep it much simpler.  Or it won't fit the purpose/format of this site and will indeed be closed :-(  
> **username_0**: According to Casey and Choi, the past four strong periods of earthquake activity in this zone have all occurred during periods of very low solar activity-- during the Sporer (1450), Maunder (1699), Dalton (1811-12), and Centennial (1895) Grand Minima.  THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE  Haven't found the one graph among these hundreds showing graphically the New Madrid going off every single GSM.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 a question's goal is not to supply large quantities of supporting evidence, but to ask about a claim. Your "supporting evidence" is an answer. And it appears that username_3 is a geophysicist complete with a doctorate degree... so I doubt it's the first time he's encountered the subject!  You shouldn't feel you are walking on eggshells, no one gets banned for making honest tries. Your question may be downvoted (if written badly, or if people disagree with it)... or it may be closed (if it isn't a simple question). But no reason to delete, just suggest you improve it if you want real input.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I think it is a fair question. But as Jeopardy say it can be put in a better way, but everything is perfectible. I did downloaded the actual data for earthquakes and sunspots and added  that to my answer below. Take a look to the edited text.  
> **username_4**: Yes, please [edit] this into something readable. Junk text like *global cooling Do you like this post? Be the first to comment Sign in with Or sign in with email* shows the layout is currently a mess. If you quote stuff, make sure we recognize it as a quote. Suggestion: remove at least 50% of the text.  
> **username_5**: Since comments here were cleaned, I would like to note that the criticism above isn't valid anymore as the question has been edited and improved.  
> **username_6**: @username_5 I didn't see the evolution of this question, but I think it's still unanswerable in its current state. "What is it about GSMs that causes earthquakes?" is unanswerable, because it's founded on a false premise: GSMs don't cause earthquakes, so nobody can specify what it is that makes them cause earthquakes. It's like asking "How tall is the current king of France?". If the question were "**Is there** a relationship between GSMs and earthquakes?" it would be answerable, but I have the impression that OP doesn't want to ask that, for fear of getting an answer they disagree with.  
> **username_7**: This appeared in my review queue. As it is right now, the question posted in the body ("s there a clear correlation between Grand Solar Minimums and earthquakes?") is clear and answerable. The title has a different question. I shall vote to leave open, and edit the title.  
> **username_0**: Thank you username_7...to dump this question into the category of not on topic? Would be gravely very very sad.  If this GSM and earthquakes has any chance of being true, I would think giving it this site's endorsement just might save lives. Again, thank you.  
> **username_0**: ...and I actually went to look at the 'rules' in the help center.  Nothing I found there indicated how I should word this title or question, to be better allowed 'on topic'..  
> **username_6**: @username_7 It's an improvement, but the question still opens with a bald assertion of "major earthquakes always associated" with GSMs -- before going on to ask *whether* they are! I'll try to clean it up some more, and will vote to re-open if it can be made coherent.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I hope you don't mind I fully reworded your question so it can be re-opend. I think it point to an interesting fact and it is worth keeping for others to benefit from it and the answer.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 I've fully reworded this question, because I recognize how hard it can be for non-scientist to differentiate between those papers I referenced and real science, so I think it is a useful question. I hope you agree that this question is worth re-opening. But it seem that with my current privileges voting to re-open is out of my reach.  
> **username_0**: Thank you username_3.  I shall pay even closer attention to what you have posted.  I thought I was being vigilant and now I shall try to make sure I am able to read your papers.  This is not easy.  I want 'real' science.  I want the real stuff.  I don't care if my assertions are correct... I really want to be able to discern even better than I think I  already do the truth, between the lines?  I am grateful.  I think this warrants a real effort by 'the scientists' to explain this...phenomenon.  Major huggs, username_3.  
> **username_8**: @username_3 I hear where you're coming from, but I don't want to vote this question re-opened.  It's a bonkers idea based on weak statistical correlation that doesn't deserve attention, in the comments, the asker keeps pushing the idea, saying the author is "being silenced" and you even pointed out to him that he should stop criticizing.   You gave a good answer, but it's a bad question that doesn't represent any semblance of mainstream ideas and the asker isn't listening to feedback.    I don't see what re-opening would add.  
> **username_0**: Camillo you did a fantastic job of rewording.  Truly.  Thank you for taking the time.  History actually shows this correlation quite well, the GSM and the New Madrid Fault have what, 100% correlation with thousands of GSMs and the New Madrid going off each and every single GSM?  I'll go check to make dang sure but that is what I've been reading and hearing and seeing.  I think that is a very big deal.  If we are looking forward to a New Madrid Fault event this continent of people should be getting prepared.  History, consistency, historical records, ice cores...facts.  
> **username_0**: Is anyone asking themselves what the heck is wrong with what I've said?  Where are the dudes with data to refute what I am asking?  Again, what is the definition of a 'scientist'?  Wanna see my resume?  How did my question get 1000 views?  If I am so off course?  Why would I bother making something out of nothing?  Why is no one checking this stuff out?  Why does a question need to be POPULAR to be okay?  
> **username_0**: Walking into Earth Science on this site is a lot like walking into a hostile arena.  My goodness.  Just tell me what it is I have said that is wrong instead of dissing me completely without the benefit of reading what I've written?!  
> **username_0**: There most certainly is enough evidence to support earthquakes ALWAYS HAPPEN during GSMs.  Is anyone looking at these graphs that were added that are supposed to prove there is no correlation between GSM and earthquakes? Gosh, you guys deleting my answer is fairly scary.  BOOKs have been written.  Famous oil paintings of these periods plaster the walls of museums.  yet what I am asking is OFF TOPIC?  Honest?  I guess I have to become the rebel here.   None of you have give one hint of information that would cause me to reconsider my assertions!  Deleting a viable question like this ummmm....??  
> **username_0**: I've voted questions down before but it was clear the OP was out of their mind.  This little old OP is not out of her mind, I do  not  go with the popular thoughts when the  popular thoughts are nonsensical.   The  popular thought (CO2 causing global warming?  hello?) in question even though I am not some research scientist, makes  no   sense   at   all.  What about my question was incorrect?  Or is this about  PC?  hummmm.  I'll bop in from time to time and I sincerely feel I deserve an apology sometime in the near future.  Hey, I'll be the first if I am wrong but I think not...huggs anyway.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-01-19. Score: 22

The main proxy that we have of past solar intensity comes from its [proven correlation to the number of sunspots](https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/Earth8.pdf), which have been recorded since the invention of the telescope in the early 1600's. And the plot looks like this:

[![solar output](https://i.sstatic.net/nwvd6.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/nwvd6.png)

**We have no evidence of any significant correlation between the solar cycle and earthquakes or volcanic activity.**

You won't find papers in legitimate peer-reviewed journals regarding the lack of correlation, because generally null results are not of much interest.
Therefore, I dug up the data myself: Here I've plotted the year count of all of the earthquakes worldwide from 1950 to 2017 of magnitude 7 or greater found in the [USGS Earthqueake Catalog](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/) (orange), along with the total number of sunspots per year from the [Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations](http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles#total) (blue):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/UQwNJ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/UQwNJ.png)

There doesn't appear to be any significant connection between the two graphs. The solar portion shows the well-proven 11 year solar cycle (actually [it's a 22 year cycle](https://scied.ucar.edu/sunspot-cycle) with two similar halves). And the earthquakes doesn't show any clear pattern.

**There are many fault systems on earth, and if you cherry-pick one (like the New Madrid fault), you might found a correlation just by chance**, but such correlation have no statistical value. To believe such correlation is even more difficult if there is no physical mechanism proposed for such influence. Nevertheless, as you can see in the graph above, if we include all earthquakes the correlation just doesn't exists.

Even for the [New Madrid fault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone) the correlation is weak. Sure, there was an earthquake in 1699 coinciding with the Maunder minimum, one in 1812 coinciding with the Dalton minimum, and a smaller one in 1895 coinciding with a minor minimum. But what about the one in 1843? That one doesn't match any minimum (let aside several magnitude 5 earthquakes that were recorded during the 20th century grand solar maximum). Also, [solar activity is now as low as for the 1895 earthquake](http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot) and nothing have happened yet. So you have four points, three of them match your supposed correlation and one doesn't. Such data is far from providing a robust statistical correlation.

After the OP's comments complaining that the above graph, that extends back to 1950 only, is too short to capture the grand solar minimums, I consulted other, arguably impartial database of historical earthquakes beyond the instrumental record: Wikipedia. In particular, its [list of historical earthquakes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes) (before year 1900). I've downloaded the data and created a histogram of earthquakes per decade. Which is presented below together with the most popular reconstruction of solar activity, that is derived from $^{14}$C in tree rings ([figure source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg))

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/FZpo5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/FZpo5.png)

Once again, you can see that there is no correlation between earthquakes and grand solar minimums, so you can stop believing that claim based on cherry-picking seismic areas that by chance show a (still questionable) correlation with grand solar minimums.

The solar cycle does indeed have some influence on climate - by changing the intensity of UV radiation, which in turn changes the properties of the upper atmosphere. However, the variation in total energy due to the solar cycles are actually very small (~0.1%). The impacts of those small fluctuations are not large enough to explain the warming observed in the last century, and it does not drive ice ages either (that are triggered by larger factors like [changes in the earth orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles), which operate at a MUCH longer timescale [~100,000 years]).

The exact cycle of earthquakes can vary by hundreds of years, and there is still NO way to predict WHEN they will exactly happen with current technology. When enough people make enough predictions that a catastrophic event will happen, some of them will be right. [Here is a small sampling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) of past apocalyptic forecasts. You can see that most did not come true. Because earthquakes happen periodically, some people do claim their predictions were right, but those accidental hits can be explained by pure chance.

**Once again, there is no observed link between solar activity and earthquakes or volcanic activity.**

A variant of the supposed correlation between solar minimums and earthquakes is one arguing that solar flares are correlated with earthquakes, something that is also false. [This article](http://www.thesuntoday.org/solar-facts/flares-and-earthquakes/) explains it well. [Research have pointed that there are some statistical properties that are very similar in both processes](https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602208). However, there is no correlation or connection between them.

UPDATE: An updated and extended version of the plot of sunspots versus earthquakes can be found in my answer to [this question](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14370/what-would-a-graph-of-magnitude-7-5-earthquakes-over-last-400-years-compared-to/14846#14846).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well, wonderful answer.   All data I've seen, shows that it is a close association.  Please listen to John L. Casey?  I mean he was the President's Science Advisor...with a huge resume/credibility.  He has been blocked and harassed because now everything about science warnings is conspiracy.  Thanks for your answer...I'll absorb this.  
> **username_3**: I don'y know much of John Casey, but I did hear part of the talk and sounded like pseudoscience to me. I check the prediction center he leads (http://ievpc.org) and it definitely looks VERY unscientific, I see links to books in amazon, press releases, and donation buttons but not a single publication in a respectable peer reviewed journal. All the publications are in the very same journal (NCGT) of which curiously, Casey himself is part of the editorial board. To be honest, it doesn't sound reliable at all to me.  
> **username_0**: Gees.  I can say I know pseudoscience speak and I did not at all get that from this guy. He did have a 'stroke' this last September, so there won't be any more information coming from Dr. Casey anytime soon.  What sounded pseudoscience in particular?  I feel this is sorta kinda a big deal...and truly,  have not found anything to say this is all fake.  History tells all?  Right?  Remember, TPTB, have been working overtime to silence this guy.  I bought and own Upheaval and most of it is just solid evidence...not much if any supposition.  Listen to that first link...  
> **username_0**: What  would be reliable information to you, username_3?  For this site?  I had no idea this would not already be a hot subject.  If at all  true, looks like we would be fools to not be knowing?  
> **username_3**: That paper look fishy to me. It is of bad quality (I didn't reed it fully but is now well written and the arguments are weak), and the author is not affiliated to the university is says it is (there is nothing about her in the university website). And that journal (Natural Sciences), is not listed as a peer reviewed journal and has no impact factor (check here: https://www.scopus.com/sources) so ir can easily be fake. Be carefull, there is a lot of fake science going around.  
> **username_2**: Generally when it comes to science most often when there's no signs of fire trucks, there's probably no giant undiscovered fire.  In other words, the fact there aren't scientists hotly discussing it... is more likely to indicate that the data doesn't tend to support the claim.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 What are exactly you worried about? The process that might links solar  activity with earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? Or the fact that there is a large earthquake due in North America? Or something else?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 On a site like this, even if we disagree with an idea, you'll generally find we're willing to address specific questions posed straightforwardly. We have questions about flat earth, chemtrails, challenges to global warming data, alternative theories of Earth's core composition - simple questions/answers survive (though may be downvoted) to get good input. Is there a mathematical connection between disasters and solar output? username_3's data shows no. Generally graphs/data are most convincing. So if Casey's theories still entice you, give an answer with the most convincing evidence.  
> **username_2**: One thing I will note, it's a little misleading and confusing that the W/m^2 scale on the second image is inconsistent.  (it ends up exaggerating the appearance of both the solar and the anthropogenic inputs?)  
> **username_0**: This Jeopardy, is stuff I want pointed out...yet, gosh there is no anthropogenic input here at all.  There is no problem with CO2.  Are we on the same page?  I am not worried I am preparing as always but with a bit of a quicker step.  I will find that one graph showing the New Madrid always going off during GSM.  They actually name these things like hurricanes...data can be found to support any claim, right or so off base that smart people believe it?  Like CO2, my goodness.  Warming?  Melting ice?  Rising sea levels?  Polar bears dying out?  Ocean temps have been decreasing for 10 years...  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I just downloaded  the actual data for earthquakes and sunspots. Take a look to the edited answer above and you will see the details. That is reliable information, from the guys who are actually putting seismometers on the ground and the guys who are observing the sun on a daily basis.  

---

