the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Sep 2022
Screening and rooting the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with DTS criterion and homologous LCAI-coupling physics
Abstract. The continuously increasing of earth observations benefits geosciences and seismicity study, but increases greatly the difficulties in understanding and discriminating multiple source data. Although the Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere (LCAI) coupling paradigm and the Deviation-Time-Space (DTS) criterion were presented for better searching for and understanding the potential seismic anomalies from multiple observations, the strict consistency of spatio-temporal characteristics and homologous physics of multiple-parameter seismic anomalies has not been investigated sufficiently. With the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence being a typical case, the reported multi-parameter anomalies were systematically reviewed, and their space-time characteristics were summarized thoroughly in this study. Numerical simulation with refined geological structures in three-dimensional space revealed the inhomogeneous crustal stress field alternation (CSFA) along the faults and around the hypocentres of 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence, which is expected to be the root of the seismic anomalies. The stress-activated positive charge carriers would have given rise to different responses near the ground surface (coversphere), including the microwave dielectric reduction, the additional infrared radiation, and the atmospheric ionization, which subsequently affected the physical properties of atmosphere and ionosphere and resulted in abnormal phenomena therein. Based on the DTS criterion and LCAI coupling paradigm, the seismic anomalies of 2015 Nepal earthquakes were screened strictly, and the screened-out anomalies were rooted carefully to the regional CSFA as well as its local blocking. Therefore, an integrated LCAI coupling framework with strict space-time correspondence and homologous physics in CSFA was proposed for the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence. This research provides a definite philosophy as well as a practical solution for screening out the rootable seismic anomalies from multi-parameter observations of earthquake, which is of scientific meanings for searching earthquake precursor and reaching earthquake prediction.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1485 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1485 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-926', Angelo De Santis, 19 Oct 2022
This paper represents a novelty in the earthquake precursor literature: it intends to scrutinize the series of anomalies preceding the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence in order to establish the correct chain of processes of the Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling (LCAI-coupling) physics. The chosen case study is interesting because it is one the most recent studied earthquakes, so it represents a good example to apply the approach these authors propose. The paper can be published after some minor revision is undertaken, following the suggestions below, that are indicated in the order they appear in the text.
The title: I would avoid acronyms in the title. In addition, perhaps “Scrutinizing” could replace “Screening and rooting”. So better: “Scrutinizing the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics”
Line 14. Please replace “alternation” with “alteration” (as correctly CSFA defined after in the main text)
Line 78. I would insert “(Nepal)” after “Gorkha”, in order to be clear that you are speaking about the same Nepal earthquake, i.e. the mainshock that will be dealt with this paper.
Line 85. I would insert “with a” after “behaved”.
Figure 1. It is not clear from which catalogue the earthquake data depicted in the figure have been downloaded. USGS (as indicated in Figure 6; but see also my associated question to that figure)?
Figure 3. A referring table with each abbreviation together with its corresponding literature would be welcome. By the way, the abbreviation “Santis 2017” should be replaced by the complete surname of the first author, i.e. “De Santis 2017”. (see also Figure 7 and Line 741)
Line 250. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”
Figure 6. In the caption you mention that the seismic activities is taken from USGS with earthquakes Mw equal to or larger than 2.5. The latter fact is dubious since USGS has, outside USA, a typical magnitude of completeness of 4-4.5. Could you please check is it is true that there are earthquakes with magnitude from 2.5 to 4?
Line 386. Please replace “attribute” with “attributed”.
Figure 7. Please replace “Santis 2017” with “De Santis 2017”.
Line 404. “eruption”? Probably you meant “rupture”.
Line 467. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”
Line 529. In the list of references, there are two citations with the journal “Techno” that I think are actually “Tectonophysics”. (see also in Line 630)
Line 611. Please write correctly “Lavé”.
Line 619. Please replace “teh ionosphere” with “the ionosphere”.
Line 707. Please replace “Modication” with “Modification”.
Line 741. Please replace “Santis, and A.D.” with “De Santis A.”
Line 745. Please replace “2009Mw 7.3” with “2009 Mw 7.3”
Lines 746-757. Please remove the “ before and after the title of the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-926-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuan Qi, 26 Oct 2022
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lixin Wu, 26 Oct 2022
Dear Prof. Angelo De Santis,
Thank you very much for your comments and nice suggestions for this manuscript. Although my Ph.D student Qi Y, himself, has replied to you via Copernicus, I would like to provide a new formal reply in representing of all the coauthors of the manuscript.
The title: I would avoid acronyms in the title. In addition, perhaps “Scrutinizing” could replace “Screening and rooting”. So better: “Scrutinizing the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics”
Response: We agree with you that the full names of key terms should be written in the title. Thanks very much. On the gerunds used in the beginning of the title, we would like to discuss with you as in the following:
“Scrutinizing” is really a nice and professional word, which embodies a scientific attitude towards things and contains the meaning of scrutiny. In the study of seismic multi-parameter anomalies, we really need a scientific attitude to examine possible anomalies in the face of complex information, and then judge their authenticity and reliability. However, in this manuscript, in addition to the sorting out and preliminary judgment of the existing research results, we aim to establish the relationship between the multi-parameter anomalies in view of geophysics and mechanism, so that a variety of anomalies occurred in coversphere, atmosphere and ionosphere could be rooted to the lithosphere. In other words, after obtaining the multi-parameter anomalies in these geospheres, we use the DTS criterion and homologous physics to do further rigorous screening. This process is top-down, which is different from the previous bottom-up LCAI coupling analysis.
In this way, the abnormal parameters of the geospheres above and far from the hypocenter could be traced downward step by step to the potential seismogenic area or the crust stress lock-in area. This particular logic in geophysics is the main contribution of this manuscript, which is expected to serve for earthquake prediction in the future. Actually, the scrutinizing of the series of anomalies in this manuscript contains two parts. One is the preliminary screening and judgment of the existing multi-parameter results, the other is the further analysis and verification of the sources of these anomalies based on the screened results, that is, to find their downward correlations and even the common root in the zone of crust stress lock-in. Therefore, we would think that the ‘Scrutinizing and rooting’ could be better than ‘Screening and rooting’ and ‘Scrutinizing’ to reflect the logic and procedure of this manuscript.
Accordingly, we are willing to change the title as follows: Scrutinizing and rooting the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics
Hope you are satisfied with these changes.
Thanks very much.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-926-CC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Wenfei Mao, 14 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-926', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Oct 2022
This paper collected all the anomalies around the Nepal earthquake in 2015 occurring in lithosphere, atmosphere and ionosphere, and try to establish their physical relationship according their spatial and temporal characteristics. It provides a new idea for comprehensive analysis for multi parameters from different layers. It is interesting and shows some significances in earthquake research and prediction. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions. Main questions: 1. How do the authors estimate the reliability of the anomalies, especially the studies on the same parameter but with the different anomaly occurring time? 2. About the published papers, their studied time scale are not the same, for some with much longer time than years, for some only a few days before the earthquakes that did not mean without long time anomaly in that parameter. According to the statistical study of De Santis, the ionospheric disturbances were also occurred in a quite longer time during the earthquake preparation phase. How do the authors consider them in a same time scale when their studied time period is not same, is it suitable? 3. Most anomalies were not detected in the same day, even after the selection of Figure 7, which illustrate indirect relationship between them? Or the coupling process among the lithosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere all needs a few days? Minor revisions: Line 165: about the figure 3, why only exhibited -20d anomalies around the earthquakes? As described in the text, most parameters exhibited anomalies before that, especially for those in lithosphere? I’d like to suggest a much longer time scale, at least 2-3 months before for a M7 earthquake. Line 265: for figure 5, please add the unit for the parameters used in the model. Line 310-315: This paragraph discussed the P-pole links, but unfortunately there is no direct evidence or observations to prove it. The authors just list its products in atmosphere, not the real detection on the P-pole effects from geoelectric field, geomagnetic field, underground fluid or something like them in that region. The laboratory results cannot replace the field observations. So it is not so convincing here. Line 360: through the ionosphere? Line 352: About the section 5.1, I cannot agree with the point to firstly retain the negative anomalies in ionosphere. (1) The ionospheric perturbations are always modulated, they cannot be easily defined as increase or decrease; the number of positive anomalies in TEC is almost the same as the negative ones, why the authors remove the positive ones so easily? (2) The disturbances in VLF radio waves are always considered with close relationship of acoustic gravity waves, why the authors connect them to electric field?
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Wenfei Mao, 11 Nov 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-926', Angelo De Santis, 19 Oct 2022
This paper represents a novelty in the earthquake precursor literature: it intends to scrutinize the series of anomalies preceding the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence in order to establish the correct chain of processes of the Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling (LCAI-coupling) physics. The chosen case study is interesting because it is one the most recent studied earthquakes, so it represents a good example to apply the approach these authors propose. The paper can be published after some minor revision is undertaken, following the suggestions below, that are indicated in the order they appear in the text.
The title: I would avoid acronyms in the title. In addition, perhaps “Scrutinizing” could replace “Screening and rooting”. So better: “Scrutinizing the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics”
Line 14. Please replace “alternation” with “alteration” (as correctly CSFA defined after in the main text)
Line 78. I would insert “(Nepal)” after “Gorkha”, in order to be clear that you are speaking about the same Nepal earthquake, i.e. the mainshock that will be dealt with this paper.
Line 85. I would insert “with a” after “behaved”.
Figure 1. It is not clear from which catalogue the earthquake data depicted in the figure have been downloaded. USGS (as indicated in Figure 6; but see also my associated question to that figure)?
Figure 3. A referring table with each abbreviation together with its corresponding literature would be welcome. By the way, the abbreviation “Santis 2017” should be replaced by the complete surname of the first author, i.e. “De Santis 2017”. (see also Figure 7 and Line 741)
Line 250. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”
Figure 6. In the caption you mention that the seismic activities is taken from USGS with earthquakes Mw equal to or larger than 2.5. The latter fact is dubious since USGS has, outside USA, a typical magnitude of completeness of 4-4.5. Could you please check is it is true that there are earthquakes with magnitude from 2.5 to 4?
Line 386. Please replace “attribute” with “attributed”.
Figure 7. Please replace “Santis 2017” with “De Santis 2017”.
Line 404. “eruption”? Probably you meant “rupture”.
Line 467. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”
Line 529. In the list of references, there are two citations with the journal “Techno” that I think are actually “Tectonophysics”. (see also in Line 630)
Line 611. Please write correctly “Lavé”.
Line 619. Please replace “teh ionosphere” with “the ionosphere”.
Line 707. Please replace “Modication” with “Modification”.
Line 741. Please replace “Santis, and A.D.” with “De Santis A.”
Line 745. Please replace “2009Mw 7.3” with “2009 Mw 7.3”
Lines 746-757. Please remove the “ before and after the title of the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-926-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuan Qi, 26 Oct 2022
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lixin Wu, 26 Oct 2022
Dear Prof. Angelo De Santis,
Thank you very much for your comments and nice suggestions for this manuscript. Although my Ph.D student Qi Y, himself, has replied to you via Copernicus, I would like to provide a new formal reply in representing of all the coauthors of the manuscript.
The title: I would avoid acronyms in the title. In addition, perhaps “Scrutinizing” could replace “Screening and rooting”. So better: “Scrutinizing the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics”
Response: We agree with you that the full names of key terms should be written in the title. Thanks very much. On the gerunds used in the beginning of the title, we would like to discuss with you as in the following:
“Scrutinizing” is really a nice and professional word, which embodies a scientific attitude towards things and contains the meaning of scrutiny. In the study of seismic multi-parameter anomalies, we really need a scientific attitude to examine possible anomalies in the face of complex information, and then judge their authenticity and reliability. However, in this manuscript, in addition to the sorting out and preliminary judgment of the existing research results, we aim to establish the relationship between the multi-parameter anomalies in view of geophysics and mechanism, so that a variety of anomalies occurred in coversphere, atmosphere and ionosphere could be rooted to the lithosphere. In other words, after obtaining the multi-parameter anomalies in these geospheres, we use the DTS criterion and homologous physics to do further rigorous screening. This process is top-down, which is different from the previous bottom-up LCAI coupling analysis.
In this way, the abnormal parameters of the geospheres above and far from the hypocenter could be traced downward step by step to the potential seismogenic area or the crust stress lock-in area. This particular logic in geophysics is the main contribution of this manuscript, which is expected to serve for earthquake prediction in the future. Actually, the scrutinizing of the series of anomalies in this manuscript contains two parts. One is the preliminary screening and judgment of the existing multi-parameter results, the other is the further analysis and verification of the sources of these anomalies based on the screened results, that is, to find their downward correlations and even the common root in the zone of crust stress lock-in. Therefore, we would think that the ‘Scrutinizing and rooting’ could be better than ‘Screening and rooting’ and ‘Scrutinizing’ to reflect the logic and procedure of this manuscript.
Accordingly, we are willing to change the title as follows: Scrutinizing and rooting the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics
Hope you are satisfied with these changes.
Thanks very much.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-926-CC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Wenfei Mao, 14 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-926', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Oct 2022
This paper collected all the anomalies around the Nepal earthquake in 2015 occurring in lithosphere, atmosphere and ionosphere, and try to establish their physical relationship according their spatial and temporal characteristics. It provides a new idea for comprehensive analysis for multi parameters from different layers. It is interesting and shows some significances in earthquake research and prediction. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions. Main questions: 1. How do the authors estimate the reliability of the anomalies, especially the studies on the same parameter but with the different anomaly occurring time? 2. About the published papers, their studied time scale are not the same, for some with much longer time than years, for some only a few days before the earthquakes that did not mean without long time anomaly in that parameter. According to the statistical study of De Santis, the ionospheric disturbances were also occurred in a quite longer time during the earthquake preparation phase. How do the authors consider them in a same time scale when their studied time period is not same, is it suitable? 3. Most anomalies were not detected in the same day, even after the selection of Figure 7, which illustrate indirect relationship between them? Or the coupling process among the lithosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere all needs a few days? Minor revisions: Line 165: about the figure 3, why only exhibited -20d anomalies around the earthquakes? As described in the text, most parameters exhibited anomalies before that, especially for those in lithosphere? I’d like to suggest a much longer time scale, at least 2-3 months before for a M7 earthquake. Line 265: for figure 5, please add the unit for the parameters used in the model. Line 310-315: This paragraph discussed the P-pole links, but unfortunately there is no direct evidence or observations to prove it. The authors just list its products in atmosphere, not the real detection on the P-pole effects from geoelectric field, geomagnetic field, underground fluid or something like them in that region. The laboratory results cannot replace the field observations. So it is not so convincing here. Line 360: through the ionosphere? Line 352: About the section 5.1, I cannot agree with the point to firstly retain the negative anomalies in ionosphere. (1) The ionospheric perturbations are always modulated, they cannot be easily defined as increase or decrease; the number of positive anomalies in TEC is almost the same as the negative ones, why the authors remove the positive ones so easily? (2) The disturbances in VLF radio waves are always considered with close relationship of acoustic gravity waves, why the authors connect them to electric field?
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Wenfei Mao, 11 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 229 | 66 | 18 | 313 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 229
- PDF: 66
- XML: 18
- Total: 313
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lixin Wu
Yuan Qi
Jingchen Lu
Yifan Ding
Boqi Peng
Busheng Xie
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1485 KB) - Metadata XML