Summary of the five principles suggested by Varotsos et al. [1996] and the additional questions raised in this debate

Abstract

The present paper cannot be considered, either as a rebuttal to any participant, or our overview of the debate. Its publication became necessary due to the fact that various participants raised additional questions, i.e., beyond the points suggested by Varotsos et al. [1996]. We clarify these questions that concern the noise discrimination from our electrical recordings, the recent laboratory experiments which support the emission of electrical precursors, and the question on whether, or not, a retroactive adjustment of the VAN prediction parameters was made, after the period 1987–1989 discussed in this debate. We draw attention to the fact that a continuous 9 year (i.e., 1987–1995) sample of VAN predictions is now available. For the benefit of the reader, the present paper also summarizes the essence of the five Principles suggested by Varotsos et al. [1996] (as a consequence, attention is drawn to a correct definition of the success rate). This essence remains exactly the same as it was initially suggested, because we do not feel, after the debate, that the various contributions cast a sound doubt on the correctness of any of these Principles. The calculations which claim that VAN predictions can be ascribed to chance strongly violate these Principles; the incorrectness of these calculations is beyond any doubt, because they “reject” even an ideal earthquake prediction method. On the other hand, several well founded calculations convince that the VAN's success (and alarm) rate is very far beyond chance. The study of this paper is highly recommended to the reader before going through the details of each of our individual Replies.

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Greece – Part 2: Acceleration response spectra and elastic input energy spectra

“…Therefore, assuming that the temporal occurrence of the earthquake follows a Poisson process, for any given level of ground shaking over a specified exposure period, the probabilistic method gives the chances of experiencing or exceeding that level of ground shaking over a specified exposure period. This assumption of Poisson process cannot be adopted in other type of studies, e.g., when calculating the probability of a prediction based for example on seismic electric signals to become successful by chance (Varotsos et al, 1996). The standard PSHA output is the seismic hazard curve, which is defined as:…”

Testing the critical exponent in the relation between stress drop of earthquake and lead time of seismic electric signal

“…Another characteristic of the SES is the selectivity effect which states that a SES station can be sensitive to specific seismic regions while remains inactive for others even at shorter distances (Varotsos and Lazaridou, 1991;Varotsos et al, 1996). Here, by using recent new data, we test whether the very sensitive exponent of a power law relation previously obtained (Dologlou, 2009(Dologlou, , 2010(Dologlou, , 2012 between the stress drop of the earthquake (stress state difference at a point on a fault before and after the occurrence of the earthquake) and the lead time (time lag between SES emission and earthquake occurrence) of the precursory SES remains stable and within the range of critical values.…”

A new modeling tool for the diffusion of gases in ice or amorphous binary mixture in the polar stratosphere and the upper troposphere

“…are responsible for the emission of electric pulses observed upon pressurizing a solid, which may explain the electric signals detected before major earthquakes (Varotsos and Alexopoulos, 1984b;Varotsos et al, 1996Varotsos et al, , 2003Varotsos et al, , 2005aVarotsos et al, , b, 2006a. On the basis of Eq.…”