2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.pepi.2020.106484
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering

Abstract: Electromagnetic phenomena are sometimes associated with seismic events, but earthquake prediction using seismic electric signals (SES) has not been seriously considered since the early 1990s. There are several causes: (1) false alarms that have created panics in Greece, and (2) a strong critique of the Varotsos-Alexopoulos-Nomicos (VAN) method used there. An updated VAN method that includes time series analysis has made successful medium-range predictions, and short-range predictions when coupled with seismic … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 119 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This rules out mechanisms that rely on abrupt changes to the local stress field that match the stress drop that occurs with seismicity. Likewise, the magnitudes of the observed electric signals at the surface are high (with fields of about 2 x 10 -5 V m -1 ), and events at earthquake-focus depth might need to produce immense signals (10 5 A • m or more) to match observation (Honkura and Kuwata, 1993). Thus mechanisms that occur close to the surface are to be favored (Johnston, 1997;Park et al, 1993;Park, 1996), for example, fluctuations in groudnwater (Varotsos et al, 2019).…”
Section: Criticism Of the Van Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This rules out mechanisms that rely on abrupt changes to the local stress field that match the stress drop that occurs with seismicity. Likewise, the magnitudes of the observed electric signals at the surface are high (with fields of about 2 x 10 -5 V m -1 ), and events at earthquake-focus depth might need to produce immense signals (10 5 A • m or more) to match observation (Honkura and Kuwata, 1993). Thus mechanisms that occur close to the surface are to be favored (Johnston, 1997;Park et al, 1993;Park, 1996), for example, fluctuations in groudnwater (Varotsos et al, 2019).…”
Section: Criticism Of the Van Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite several attempts through theoretical and numerical studies (Mizutani et al 1976;Huang & Ikeya 1998;Huang 2002Huang , 2011aFreund 2010;Huang & Lin 2010a, b;Wang 2020;Hu et al 2023a), as well as laboratory measurements (Jouniaux & Pozzi 1995Lacidogna et al 2011), our understanding of these geoelectric precursors remains inadequate at the present stage (Huang et al 2015). For reviews including pre-earthquake geoelectric anomalies, we recommend readers consult the publications by Lighthill (1996), Uyeda et al (2009), Huang (2011c), Helman (2020), Chen et al (2022), and Zhao et al (2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During these last decades, several thousands of scientific publications on various lithospheric, atmospheric and ionospheric parameters, proposed as potential seismic precursors, have also been produced. Here is a selection of the main reviews on the subject: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], the last five, whose first authors are respectively Helman, Sokorin, Picozza, Conti and Chen are the most recent (after 2020) and therefore contain the most complete and updated information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%