过去太阳能强度的主要代理,我们有来自证明相关太阳黑子的数量,已记录以来的发明望远镜在1600年代初。和情节看起来太普通,差不多是这样的:[![太阳能输出][1]][1]* *我们没有任何的证据之间的显著相关性太阳周期和地震或火山活动。* *你不会找到合法的同行评议的学术期刊上的论文关于缺乏相关性,因为一般零结果不是最感兴趣的。这是同样的原因,为什么你没有找到论文关于龙和独角兽。而是我自己挖出数据。今年我绘制统计从1950年到2017年全球的所有地震7级或更高版本发现的(美国地质勘探局Earthqueake目录)[2](红色),随着太阳黑子的总数每年从(太阳黑子指数和长期的太阳观测)[3](蓝色)。这是合成图:[![在这里输入图像描述][4]][4]似乎没有任何明显的两个图形之间的联系。太阳能部分显示了良好的11年太阳活动周期(实际上(这是22年周期)[5]有两个类似的部分)。 The earthquakes show much less 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 that have no statistical value, even less if there is no physical mechanism proposed for such influence. But as you can see in the graph above, if we include all earthquakes, the correlation just doesn't exists. And even for the [New Madrid fault][6] 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 were recorded during the 20th century grand solar maximum). Also, [solar activity is now as low as for the 1895 earthquake][7] and nothing have happened yet. So you have four points, three match your supposed correlation and one doesn't. That data is far from providing a robust statistical correlation. And just doesn't exists if you look at all the seismic faults on Earth. 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 recent warming observed in the last century, and it does not drive ice ages either (which are triggered by larger factors like [changes in the earth orbit][8], 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 will be right. [Here is a small sampling][9] of past apocalyptic forecasts. You can see that most did not come true. Because earthquakes happen periodically, some people do claim their claims are 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.** UPDATE: An updated and extended version of the plot of sunspots versus earthquakes can be found in my answer to [this question][10]. [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nwvd6.png [2]: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ [3]: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles#total [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UQwNJ.png [5]: https://scied.ucar.edu/sunspot-cycle [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone [7]: http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events [10]: //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/14370/what-would-a-graph-of-magnitude-7-5-earthquakes-over-last-400-years-compared-to/14846#14846