From the “anything goes in modeling these days” department. Here’s my take on it.
The paper proposes a capacitive coupling model in which a fractured crustal zone supposedly acts as a capacitor, storing charge that interacts with the ionosphere, and reciprocally, solar-flare–enhanced ionospheric charge induces electrostatic pressures in crustal voids sufficient to trigger rupture.
It is certainly an imaginative (and that is being generous) attempt to unify atmospheric electricity and seismology, but the central weakness is that it moves rapidly from correlation to causation without robust empirical validation.
The authors assume, for example, that descending ionospheric charge density can be treated as equal to total electron content (TEC) and that this charge forms an effective space-charge layer capable of inducing megapascal-scale pressures. That assumption alone carries enormous physical uncertainty: TEC is an integrated vertical column measurement over hundreds of kilometers, not a direct proxy for localized lower-ionospheric space charge. Likewise, the model presumes idealized dielectric behavior in fractured crust saturated with supercritical water, with specified permittivity, breakdown voltage, and uniform void connectivity, yet these parameters are not constrained by real-world field measurements at seismogenic depths. In short, the mechanism rests on layered assumptions rather than observational confirmation. It is a lot like climate science.
Moreover, the invocation of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake and coincident solar flare activity as supporting evidence reads more like post hoc pattern matching than statistical demonstration . Solar flares are frequent; earthquakes are frequent; coincidences will occur. A convincing case would require rigorous statistical analysis across many events, controlling for flare magnitude, geomagnetic latitude, background stress state, and tidal forcing. Instead, the pressure estimates (e.g., ~5 × 10⁶ N/m² for 10 TECU) are presented as comparable to tidal or gravitational stresses , yet no sensitivity analysis is offered to show how stable those results are under more realistic conductivity, charge dissipation, or geometric heterogeneity. The Earth’s crust is not a laboratory capacitor with neatly parallel plates, and electric fields in conductive, fluid-rich rock are likely to dissipate rapidly. IMHO, the paper reads as speculative fiction.
Via Eurekalert:
Could ionospheric disturbances influence earthquakes?
Kyoto, Japan — Researchers at Kyoto University have proposed a new physical model that explores how disturbances in the ionosphere may exert electrostatic forces within the Earth’s crust and potentially contribute to the initiation of large earthquakes under specific conditions.
The study does not aim to predict earthquakes but rather presents a theoretical mechanism describing how ionospheric charge variations — caused by intense solar activity such as solar flares — could interact with pre-existing fragile structures in the Earth’s crust and influence fracture processes.
In the proposed model, fractured zones within the Earth’s crust are assumed to contain high-temperature, high-pressure water, potentially in a supercritical state. These zones behave electrically like capacitors and are capacitively coupled with both the ground surface and the lower ionosphere, forming a large-scale electrostatic system.
When strong solar activity increases electron density in the ionosphere, a negatively charged layer can form in the lower ionosphere. Through capacitive coupling, this space charge may induce strong electric fields inside nanometer-scale voids within fractured crustal regions. The resulting electrostatic pressure could reach magnitudes comparable to tidal or gravitational stresses known to affect fault stability.
Quantitative estimates in the study suggest that ionospheric disturbances associated with large solar flares — corresponding to increases in total electron content of several tens of TEC units — could generate electrostatic pressures on the order of several megapascals within crustal voids.
Ionospheric anomalies, such as increased electron density, lowered ionospheric altitude, and slowed abnormal propagation of medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances, have been repeatedly observed prior to major earthquakes. Traditionally, these phenomena have been interpreted as consequences of stress accumulation within the Earth’s crust.
The new model provides a complementary perspective by proposing a bidirectional interaction: while crustal processes may affect the ionosphere, ionospheric disturbances themselves may also exert feedback forces on the crust. This framework offers a possible physical explanation linking space weather phenomena and seismic processes without invoking direct causation.
The study discusses recent large earthquakes in Japan, including the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, as examples that are temporally consistent with the proposed mechanism. In these cases, intense solar flare activity occurred shortly before the seismic events. The authors emphasize that such temporal coincidence does not establish direct causality, but is consistent with a scenario in which ionospheric disturbances act as a contributing factor when the crust is already in a critical state.
By integrating concepts from plasma physics, atmospheric science, and geophysics, the proposed model broadens the conventional view of earthquakes as purely internal Earth processes. The findings suggest that monitoring ionospheric conditions, together with subsurface observations, may help improve scientific understanding of earthquake initiation processes and seismic hazard assessment.
Future research will focus on combining high-resolution GNSS-based ionospheric tomography with space weather data to clarify the conditions under which ionospheric disturbances may exert significant electrostatic influence on the Earth’s crust.
###
The paper “Possible Mechanism of Ionospheric Anomalies to Trigger Earthquakes: Electrostatic Coupling Between the Ionosphere and the Crust and the Resulting Electric Forces Acting Within the Crust” appeared on 3 February 2026 in International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, with doi: 10.34343/ijpest.2026.20.e01003
https://ijpest.com/Contents/20/1/e01003.html
The 1940’s cartoonist Rube Goldberg could write computer models.
I knew it! That’s what HAARP was doing all along!
(grin)
Haarping on that one again??😋🤔
Isn’t our star the biggest HAARP installation ?
Oh, I knew they’d find a way.
They’ve been conflating the destruction wrought by earthquakes with ‘climate change’ for years now.
They just had to invent ‘The Science’ to support this connection.
Next: asteroids. Elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 draws them like a magnet. 🙄
If you stand on your head, close your eyes, clap three times and repeat I Do Believe in Climate Change you might just begin to see it.
I don’t need to stand on my head to believe in Climate Change. When did it not change?
It’s probably a precursor to blaming CO2 in some way for earthquakes. They are about the only thing that isn’t currently blamed on CO2, so it’s on the list.
I wish I was being sarcastic, too!
Only CO2 from fossil fuels, they have a thicker dielectric to withstand the extra pressure. The thinner dielectric would have ruptured. Trust me, I KNOW things. 😉
Well Sure…
CO2 makes the air warmer.
Warmer air is puffer air.
This pushes atmospheric pressure higher at altitude.
This in turn forces the ionosphere to shift in altitude.
This shift affects the Auroral energy balance between Altitude and surface.
This in turn changes the electrical load beneath the surface.
And Viola… Earthquakes
Nope it’s definitely on the list along with tsunamis and volcanoes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
There is also claims it makes us more likely to get hit by asteroids because the atmosphere expands slightly making it a bigger target 🙂
Anything from the Guardian is likely to give you ‘rhoids
Another unproven speculation about solar flares and seismic events examined by Grok…….
Question to Grok:
Telluric currents that result from X class solar flares? High telluric current density at the rock contact points of geological fault plane interfaces. Fused rock causing friction reduction leading to slippage and seismic events? Evidence supporting this hypothesis?
Grok Reply: (trunkated)
Yes, X-class solar flares (and associated geomagnetic disturbances) can and do generate or enhance telluric currents (also called geomagnetically induced currents, or GICs) in Earth’s crust. These are natural electric currents flowing through the ground, induced by rapid variations in the geomagnetic field. X-ray and extreme ultraviolet radiation from strong flares ionize the ionosphere, boosting its conductivity and creating electric fields and geomagnetic pulsations. These disturbances then induce horizontal electric fields at the surface (typically ~0.01–0.1 mV/m during strong events), driving currents in the conductive layers of the lithosphere.mdpi.comswsc-journal.org
Numerical models of the Sun–ionosphere–lithosphere coupling show that for X-class flares (with integrated X-ray flux ~0.005 J/m² or higher), telluric current densities in the crust can reach 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁶ A/m², with pulse durations of ~10–100 s. These values are 2–3 orders of magnitude above typical background telluric currents (~10⁻¹⁰ A/m²) and comparable to currents from artificial pulsed-power sources used in controlled experiments.mdpi.comui.adsabs.harvard.edu
Models indicate that currents concentrate preferentially in conductive geological structures, such as fault zones. Faults often have enhanced conductivity (due to fluids, mineralization, or graphitization—sometimes orders of magnitude higher than surrounding rock), so current density is higher there than in average crust. In layered conductivity models, density can increase by an order of magnitude in a conductive layer at ~5–10 km depth (typical earthquake nucleation depths in some regions). Fault orientation also matters: currents align more strongly with faults parallel to the induced electric field vectors.mdpi.comui.adsabs.harvard.edu
The specific idea of “high telluric current density at rock contact points (asperities) on fault planes, leading to fused rock and friction reduction” is a plausible but largely unproven extension of the above. At the microscopic scale of fault asperities (the small, actual contact points between rough rock surfaces), current would constrict into a tiny area fraction, greatly amplifying local current density (potentially by factors of 10³–10⁶ or more, depending on contact area). This could produce localized Joule heating (power density ∝ J² × resistivity). In principle, this might soften or even melt micro-contacts (“fusing”), reducing overall frictional resistance and allowing slip—similar to how electrical contacts can arc or weld. However, published models and experiments on this solar-flare scenario do not explicitly demonstrate bulk or widespread rock fusion/melting from these currents; the densities involved are generally too low globally for significant macroscopic heating.mdpi.com
Mind playing tricks again…
I read “rock concert”.
Somehow, that made sense.
GROK states that the work would need to be done by electrical flows deep underground, not by the potential difference.
Per your post, this from Grok:
“These disturbances then induce horizontal electric fields at the surface (typically ~0.01–0.1 mV/m during strong events) . . . Numerical models of the Sun–ionosphere–lithosphere coupling show that for X-class flares . . . telluric current densities in the crust can reach 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁶ A/m², with pulse durations of ~10–100 s. These values are 2–3 orders of magnitude above typical background telluric currents (~10⁻¹⁰ A/m²).”
IMHO, such incredibly low values of electric field strengths, electrical current densities, and pulse durations are not worth mention, let alone discussion.
Yes the current densities are very low and would require concentration of current from very large cross sections of rock into very small contact zones to create sufficient I^2R heating effect. The original Grok response included more discussion and comment on this speculation:
More commonly proposed mechanisms in the relevant literature for current-induced friction reduction or slip triggering include:
These act most effectively when a fault is already near-critical stress (e.g., shear stress at 0.98–0.99 of failure threshold).ui.adsabs.harvard.eduscispace.com
Experimental and observational evidence supporting electromagnetic triggering (including by solar-flare-induced currents) exists but is limited and controversial:
Counterpoints and mainstream view: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) states there is no demonstrated causal relationship between space weather (solar flares, geomagnetic storms) and earthquakes. Global earthquake rates lack the ~11-year solar-cycle modulation that would be expected if flares were a significant driver; quakes are fundamentally driven by tectonic stress accumulation. Any triggering effect would be minor, probabilistic, and only relevant for faults already on the verge of failure. Broader statistical studies often find weak or no correlations after correcting for multiple-testing biases.usgs.gov
Alternative solar influences (e.g., slight surface warming from solar maxima making shallow rocks more brittle or altering groundwater) have been proposed in other recent work, but these are distinct from telluric-current mechanisms.sciencealert.com
In summary, the core elements—X-class flares inducing telluric currents that can concentrate in conductive faults—are well-supported by physics and modeling. The full hypothesis (especially localized “fusion” at asperities causing friction drop and seismic slip) aligns with some experimental analogies and Joule-heating/pore-pressure ideas but lacks direct observational confirmation of rock fusion or widespread acceptance as a reliable earthquake trigger. It remains a niche, speculative mechanism that could at best provide a small, conditional nudge to already critically stressed faults. Short-term earthquake prediction via space-weather monitoring has been suggested by proponents but is not used operationally. For practical purposes, seismic hazard assessment continues to rely primarily on tectonic, geological, and geodetic data.
Well, what’s not to like about it? We always have Aurora in the polar skies…AND…we always have Earthquakes
I’m going put that next to the the claim that global warming causes enormous seabed shifts leading to tsunamis, in the round filing cabinet.
There are many earthly places where a mile or two of sedimentary rocks, plausibly formerly below sea level, have been lifted up against a gravitational force that we can measure accurately enough. Example, Colorado Grand Canyon. Typically, uplift is so slow and gradual that we do not notice it by eyeball, yet it has happened.
You are invited to mentally contrast this enormous uplift energy with an invisible pattern of an electromagnetic field that is proposed in this article. A field whose penetration to earthquake locations often another couple of miles deep is suggested in this article. I simply prefer the uplift mechanism as requiring events like quakes, without the need for more esoteric proposals.
Disclosure: I have been wrong before. Geoff S
Disclosure… But you ain’t wrong now!
.
It’s as simple as Pi R squared
Pie are square…everyone knows Pie are Round…Cornbread are square
That uplift ain’t necessarily so slow and gradual! The collisions between the North American Plate and various island arcs and Large Igneous Provinces in the North Pacific have been responsible for the jumbled mess that is the Pacific Coast from Mexico to Alaska! The NA Plate is like a runaway semi or locomotive plowing into various smaller vehicles and carrying them along on its bumper while it moves slowly to the west and rotates counterclockwise. Subduction, uplift, and exhumation are regular features of these collisions, along with the compression and tension that leads to the mountain orogenies we see in the Basin and Range, and Rockies. The fields of seismic tomography and tomotechtonics, while still in their infancy, are providing fascinating new tools for understanding the huge forces involved in shaping our planet.
Off hand, I wonder if this isn’t another example of what the late Scott Adams called backward science. If there is any causation might it not be as likely to be the lithosphere affecting the ionosphere?
Everyone knows that earthquakes never happened before HAARP went online. Everyone knows that hurricanes were non-existent when the CO2 concentration was below 400ppm.
You know what causes earthquakes? The dogs that do not bark in the night.
Electricity and Magnetism are the biggest forces in the plasma universe so why should they not play a role on our orange skin thick crust.
This proposed model piles a mountain of “ifs” atop one another in the attempt to connect a potential charge difference between the high atmosphere and rocks several tens of km deep in such a way that all the kinetics occurs deep underground. Whether we are discussing 2nm semiconductors or a potential charge difference between the high atmosphere and kms deep in the crust, charged capacitors do not perform work. Work occurs when electrons flow in a circuit. The authors seem to totally ignore the fact that such a massive flow of electrical energy would impact more than rocks deep in the crust.
I would expect that such an enormous flow of electricity would manifest itself via massive electrical discharges (lightning). These discharges would surely be detectable by systems which have been in operation for decades. Lacking indications of such electrical flows, their mountain of “ifs” is left with the assumption that a charged capacitor does work without releasing its charge.
The apparent misunderstanding of the physics of neutral plasmas exhibited by the “researchers” at Kyoto University is just incredible.
As much as solar-flare activity may “enhance ionospheric electron density” in layers of Earth’s ionosphere, it does so by simultaneously increasing the number of positive charged ions that are the source of those free electrons in the plasma that is the ionosphere. The net space charge throughout the ionosphere remains neutral, independent of electron density; therefore, the ionosphere simply cannot produce electrostatic attraction.
Here, this from Google’s AI bot:
“The major positively charged particles (positive ions) in the ionosphere are primarily ionized atmospheric gases, including atomic oxygen (O+), molecular nitrogen (N2+), nitric oxide (NO+), and molecular oxygen (O2+), with hydrogen ions (H+) becoming dominant at very high altitudes. These ions are created by solar radiation (X-rays and ultraviolet) that strips electrons from neutral atoms and molecules, with the dominant ion species changing based on altitude and time of day.”
Therefore, no matter what is being claimed about Earth’s crust being “assumed” to contain high-temperature, high-pressure water, potentially in a supercritical state in “zones” that behave like capacitors (IMHO, this bordering on an absurdity!), such could not be “capacitively coupled with both the ground surface and the lower ionosphere” to form “a large-scale electrostatic system”.
Please note that this situation does NOT involve Earth’s magnetosphere, which is much further distant from Earth’s surface than the ionosphere and which captures a small fraction of electrons and ions coming directly from the Sun, while diverting the majority of that flux around and away from Earth.
Finally if there was any real truth to the Kyoto University claim, then there should be clear empirical evidence that seismic activity is significantly higher during daylight hours (when solar radiation is creating electrons in the ionosphere) compared to nighttime hours (when the electron concentration in the atmosphere bleeds off due to natural recombination of electrons with ions). To the best of my knowledge this is NOT observed.
Again, here from Google’s AI bot:
“Ionospheric electron concentration is significantly higher during the day (up to 100 times more in E/F layers) due to solar UV/X-ray ionization, creating distinct D, E, and F layers. At night, lacking sunlight, recombination causes electron density to drop, the D region disappears, and the E region weakens.
“Key differences between day and night in the ionosphere include:
Daytime: Solar radiation causes intense ionization, producing high electron densities across the D, E, and F regions (specifically the F1 and F2 layers).
Nighttime: In the absence of solar radiation, electrons and ions recombine, drastically reducing the total concentration.”
I believe Corbyn attempted to produce a theory about space weather and earthquakes.
His website died and all attempts to revive it and the various theories failed.