2019
DOI: 10.3390/atmos10070371
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic Field and Electron Density Data Analysis from Swarm Satellites Searching for Ionospheric Effects by Great Earthquakes: 12 Case Studies from 2014 to 2016

Abstract: We analyse Swarm satellite magnetic field and electron density data one month before and one month after 12 strong earthquakes that have occurred in the first 2.5 years of Swarm satellite mission lifetime in the Mediterranean region (magnitude M6.1+) or in the rest of the world (M6.7+). The search for anomalies was limited to the area centred at each earthquake epicentre and bounded by a circle that scales with magnitude according to the Dobrovolsky’s radius. We define the magnetic and electron density anomali… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
25
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
3
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In all of the earthquakes was found a dramatic increase in the number of anomalies between 50 to 90 days before each earthquake. This long-term behavior is similar to those found in Nepal 2015 (De Santis et al, 2017), Mexico 2017 (Marchetti and Akhoondzadeh, 2018), Central Italy (Marchetti et al, 2019a), Indonesia 2018 (Marchetti et al, 2019b) or other big earthquakes worldwide (De Santis et al, 2019). Note that the abovementioned studies performed satellite data in contrast with this study that uses ground-based magnetometers and different methodology.…”
Section: -Discussion and Conclusionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…In all of the earthquakes was found a dramatic increase in the number of anomalies between 50 to 90 days before each earthquake. This long-term behavior is similar to those found in Nepal 2015 (De Santis et al, 2017), Mexico 2017 (Marchetti and Akhoondzadeh, 2018), Central Italy (Marchetti et al, 2019a), Indonesia 2018 (Marchetti et al, 2019b) or other big earthquakes worldwide (De Santis et al, 2019). Note that the abovementioned studies performed satellite data in contrast with this study that uses ground-based magnetometers and different methodology.…”
Section: -Discussion and Conclusionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Limited ground-based observations have been also incorporated. Such an approach demonstrated its powerful capability also in some previous case studies (e.g., Akhoondzadeh et al, 2018;Akhoondzadeh et al, 2019;Marchetti et al, 2019a;Marchetti et al, 2019b;Marchetti et al, 2020), when the view of the earthquake is wider (geosystemic view) and includes all the geolayers involved in the processes (De Santis et al, 2019a;De Santis et al, 2019b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A promising application of the geomagnetic field monitoring by the Swarm satellite mission to the 2015 Nepal earthquake (M7.8) showed a correlation between the magnetic anomalies and earthquakes temporal pattern 35 . A similar approach, applied to other earthquakes provided promising results 3641 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%