3 ms·

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.

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

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aw1621107 6y ago
> 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-activity-to-earthquakes-is-sending-shockwaves-through-the-science-world/ https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar-ac... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar-origin-for-earthquakes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar... [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may_trigger_earthquakes_a_new_study/fy2h67y/ https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may... [3]: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_paper_shows_a_clear_correlation_between/g48pqt5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_pa...
- aaron695 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    > 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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aw1621107 6y ago

> 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-activity-to-earthquakes-is-sending-shockwaves-through-the-science-world/ https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar-ac... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar-origin-for-earthquakes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar... [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may_trigger_earthquakes_a_new_study/fy2h67y/ https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may... [3]: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_paper_shows_a_clear_correlation_between/g48pqt5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_pa...

aaron695 6y ago
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 6y ago
  > 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.