2011
DOI: 10.1029/2010ja016379
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comment on “Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake” by Wallace H. Campbell

Abstract: Key Points We measured large‐amplitude mag fields prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake Campbell argues that these fields were merely natural magnetic disturbance fields We show that his arguments are false

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fraser‐Smith et al . [] do not concur with the criticism of Campbell [] who argues that the magnetic changes preceding the Loma‐Prieta earthquake were natural disturbances coincidental to the geomagnetic solar‐terrestrial disturbance field. However, we agree with Fraser‐Smith et al .…”
Section: Many Papers and Many Ulf Precursorsmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fraser‐Smith et al . [] do not concur with the criticism of Campbell [] who argues that the magnetic changes preceding the Loma‐Prieta earthquake were natural disturbances coincidental to the geomagnetic solar‐terrestrial disturbance field. However, we agree with Fraser‐Smith et al .…”
Section: Many Papers and Many Ulf Precursorsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…However, we agree with Fraser‐Smith et al . [] that, according to the normal scientific process, further independent evidence is required before the magnetic field fluctuations prior to the Loma‐Prieta earthquake may be considered as a real precursor.…”
Section: Many Papers and Many Ulf Precursorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, one of the most frequently cited magnetic anomalies preceded the Loma Prieta earthquake (Fraser-Smith et al, 1990). Some authors dismiss this as normal geomagnetic activity enhanced by operator or amplifier malfunction (Campbell, 2009;Thomas et al, 2009), while counterarguments (Fraser-Smith et al, 2011) point out that continuous calibration tests should preclude this as a possibility, that the precursor lacks the diurnal behavior of typical geomagnetic activity, and that amplifier malfunction would not preferentially amplify low-frequency signals. (FraserSmith et al, 2011) states that ".…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, since previous studies do not show strong evidence of correlation between the presumed magnetic precursors and seismic events, many scientists do not agree that these signals are really related to the earthquake occurrence. As a consequence, these researchers seriously put into question previous observations of magnetic ULF earthquake precursors and have published their findings (see Campbell, 2009;Masci, 2010Masci, , 2011aMasci, , b, 2012aThomas et al, 2009a, b) giving rise to an intense re-examination process of controversial scientific claims (see also Fraser-Smith et al, 2011;Masci, 2012d;Thomas et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several reports (see e.g. Hayakawa et al, 1999Hayakawa et al, , 2000Smirnova et al, 2001;Smirnova and Hayakawa 2007;Gotoh et al, 2003Gotoh et al, , 2004Ida and Hayakawa, 2006) by means of mono-fractal analysis document the observation of precursory signatures in the ULF geomagnetic field before the occurrence of strong earthquakes. According to Masci (2010), these authors reach their conclusions in an oversimplified manner failing to examine the influence of other possible ULF sources as well as the geomagnetic activity which is the main source of ULF disturbances (McPherron et al, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%