the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Aug 2023
Characteristics and mechanisms of near-surface atmospheric electric field negative anomalies preceding the 5 September, 2022, Ms6.8 Luding earthquake, China
Abstract. A Ms6.8 strike-slip earthquake (EQ) occurred in Luding, Sichuan province, China, on 5 September, 2022, causing great losses to the surrounding Ganzi Prefecture and Ya’an City. In this research, the near-surface atmospheric electric field (AEF), recorded at four discretely distributed sites 15d before the Luding EQ, were analyzed and discriminated by using multi-source auxiliary data including precipitation, cloud base height and low cloud cover, and nine possible seismic AEF anomalies at four sites were obtained preliminarily. Accordingly, surface microwave brightness temperature (MBT), which is very sensitive to the surface dielectrics and closely related to the air ionization, together with surface soil moisture, lithology, and 3D-simulated crustal stress field, was jointly analyzed for confirming the seismic relations of the obtained negative AEF anomalies. The geophysical environment for crustal high-stress concentration, positive charge carriers transfer and surface accumulation was demonstrated to exist and satisfy the conditions of generating locally the negative AEF anomalies. Furthermore, to deal with the spatial disparities in sites and regions with potential atmospheric ionization, the data of near-surface wind field was employed to scrutinize the reliability of the AEF anomalies by comprehensively considering the spatial relationships among surface charges accumulation areas, wind direction and speed, as well as the AEF site. Finally, four negative AEF anomalies were deemed to be closely related to the Luding EQ, and the remaining five anomalies were ruled out. The mechanism of negative AEF anomalies before the Luding EQ were believed to be: positive charge carriers were generated from the underground high stress concentration areas, and then transferred to and accumulated on the ground surface and to ionize the surface air, thus disturbing the aground AEF. This study offers an approach to identify and analyze the seismic AEF anomalies, and is also helpful to study the pre-shocking coupling process between coversphere and atmosphere.
-
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
(6147 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6147 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', J. Liu, 06 Sep 2023
The authors analyzed AEF data before Luding earthquake, and further confirmed the anomalies with surface P-hole aggregation. I think the data analysis can support the conclusion of this manuscript. I just have some minor comments as follows.
- For the criteria of FW-AEF, the last one is “no long period of negative AEF anomalies”. Why? What is the time range of this period?
- The time in Figure 3 is local time or universal time? Usually, the time of satellite data is universal time. Is there the jet-lagged between the AEF and MBT?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Xiao Wang, 06 Sep 2023
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript, and our responses are listed below.
Question 1:For the criteria of FW-AEF, the last one is “no long period of negative AEF anomalies”. Why? What is the time range of this period?
Answer：
Firstly, except for excluding the effects of precipitation and low clouds, other factors being able to affect AEF, such as changes in aerosol concentration due to human activities, cannot be judged clearly due to data limitation. Secondly, and most critically, previous studies have proved that FW-AEF is usually positive, and the current acceptable theory also holds that this is the case. Obtaining a more realistic AEF curve as the FW-AEF background of GEC is crucial for the identification and extraction of AEF anomalies. So, the time periods with negative values from the curve of AEF need to be excluded in advance, so as to characterize the changes of AEF in the natural state only.This time period is chosen as one day in that FW-AEF shows one-day periodic changes, which are affected by temperature, humidity and sunshine.
Question 2:
The time in Figure 3 is local time or universal time? Usually, the time of satellite data is universal time. Is there the jet-lagged between the AEF and MBT?
Answer：
The time of all data used in this paper has been adjusted to be local time, including the AEF data itself. The MBT data recorded originally in UTC has also been converted to local time based on the satellite transit time. However, due to the different data accessibility, it is inevitable that there is a small difference in time between multiple sources of data, but we chose the data with the closest time to suppress this inconsistency.All above will be amended and noted in the final submitted version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC2 -
RC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2023
The work is undoubtedly of great interest. A thorough study of negative anomalies in the atmospheric electric field was complemented by analysis of surface microwave brightness temperature (MBT). This complements the arguments in favor of the reliability of earthquake harbingers.
Observation points are located in the earthquake preparation zone according to the Dobrovolsky formula R=exp(M) [1].
The distance between the observation point and the time between the anomaly and the earthquake is very close to Sidorin’s formula log(∆T×R)=0.72M−0.72, where ∆T is the time in days, and R is the distance in kilometers [2].
1. Dobrovolsky I.R., Zubkov S.I., Myachkin V.I. Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones // Pageoph. 1979. N 117. P. 1025–1044.
2. Sidorin, A.Ya., Dependence of the Earthquake Precursor Occurrence Time on the Epicentral Distance, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1979, vol. 245, no. 4, pp. 825–828.
The work seems to be of very high quality and well-reasoned.
There are only small notes:
line 34
to clarify that the upper atmosphere is positively charged.
line 61
Smirnov et al. (2019)
replaced by
Smirnov (2019)
line 155
to clarify approximately what time the sun rises and sets in this area according to UTC for the specified period of research.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Oct 2023
On 5 September 2022, an Ms6.8 earthquake struck Luding, China, causing extensive damage. This study analyzed near-surface atmospheric electric field (AEF) data collected 15 days before the earthquake, along with various other data sources. The authors identified nine possible AEF anomalies related to the earthquake. They confirmed four of these anomalies to be closely linked to the earthquake, while ruling out the other five. The mechanism behind these anomalies involves the transfer of positive charge carriers from underground high-stress areas to the surface, ionizing the air and disrupting the atmospheric electric field. This research is interesting and provides insights into identifying seismic AEF anomalies and understanding the pre-earthquake processes between the Earth's crust and the atmosphere.
My opinion is that the work must be published after some points are clarified.
Figure 2. It is not clear if the figure represents a typical day of FW-AEF or a daily mean curve.
Lines 172-175. Among magnetic indices, only Dst is used. However, some penetrating field currents can appear in middle latitudes on occasion of some auroral activity. It would be more conservative to consider also AE index: when it is lower than 100, it is practice to neglect the presence of that kind of currents. Could you please check if AE is lower than 100 in the period of interest?
Figure 3. It shows at its top panel the daily mean values of Dst and SSN. However, this value for Dst is not appropriate and cannot well characterize the level of magnetic activity. It would be more appropriate its hourly value.
Figure 3. How did you define the 0 value of AEF?
Minor correction
Line 344. Please change “were” with “was”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC1 - CC3: 'Reply on RC1', Xiao Wang, 08 Oct 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
-
CC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Li Lei, 18 Oct 2023
Based on atmospheric electric field data around the epicenter before September 5th, 2022 Luding Ms=6.8 walk-slip earthquake, the authors rigorously excluded meteorological and solar activities, then they got nine possible seismic AEF anomalies at four sites. Combining the negative atmospheric electric field anomalies with surface microwave brightness temperature, surface soil moisture, lithology, 3D-simulated crustal stress field and near-surface wind field, they summarized that negative atmospheric electric field anomalies can be attributed to the stress. The method used in the paper are effective and feasible.
Minor comments:
- On line 33, “atmospheric field”should be replaced by “atmospheric electric field”;
- On line 33, “non-thunderstorm or sunny areas”is not correct. Even in the absence of thunderstorms but the presence of charged clouds or haze, the atmospheric electric field may be negative. This statement could be considered to be changed to "undisturbed fair areas".
- On lines 101-103, the detailed differences between these two types of instruments should be elaborated in more detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC4 - CC5: 'Reply on CC4', Xiao Wang, 19 Oct 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Dedalo Marchetti, 28 Nov 2023
The investigation of Wu Lixin et al. proposes a very interesting work on the analysis of atmospheric electric field with 4 ground stations in China before Ms6.8 Luding earthquake occurred on 5 September 2022. The observations of atmospheric electric field before the earthquake are rare in literature especially for lack of specific instrumentation on active seismic sites. So, this paper is a crucial contribution to the research field of the understanding of the lithosphere - coversphere - atmosphere and ionosphere coupling (LCAIC). Overall the authors extracted several anomalous variations of electric field from the stations and scrutinise among the weather conditions which anomalies are likely due to weather (e.g., low clouds in atmosphere) ruling out such anomalies and considering the remanent ones for possible seismic source. The authors integrated the investigation also with Microwave Brightness Temperature of the area discussing how the P-holes can explain the detected anomalies in the light also of the stress field of the area. Finally the authors depicted 4 anomalies as likely induced by the p-hole and air ionization due to seismic activity. Considering all of this I recommend the paper for publication in NHESS after some minor revision and few clarifications.
Specific questions/minor points:
- Line 9. I think that “four discretely distributed sites” can be simplified in “four sites” as intrinsically “discrete”
- Line 21. The expression “were believed to be” is not so scientific, so I suggest to delete and introduce the sentence in this way: “A possible mechanism of negative AEF anomalies before Luding EQ is supposed that positive charges carriers [...]”
- Line 23 and several occurrences in the manuscript. I think the term “aground” is not proper and I would suggest to change in “above the ground”.
- Line 30. Instead of “In the state of nature the operation of Global Electric Circuit” you can simply write: “In nature, the Global Electric Circuit”
- Line 36. Instead of “detected” I suggest to use “claimed” to provide some caution.
- Line 37. Please replace “the field mill electric field instrument” by “the field mill instrument” otherwise there are too much repetition of electric field in the same sentence.
- Lines 38-44. Please insert some cautions when report the previous studies, for example at line 43 instead of a typical AEF I suggest to write a possible AEF.
- Line 78. Please, revise the sentence, while you say humidity speaking of atmospheric particles? Maybe some concepts are missing...
- Line 93. Could be worth to mention that Longmenshan fault was the source of two majior earthquakes in last decades, Lushan 2013 and Wenchuan 2008, the last one with catastrophic impact of lives.
- Line 94. I suppose that “observations” stays for “observatories”
- Line 94. You need to introduce the stations/observatories. You can introduce a sentence like: “The atmospheric electric field has been analysed using four stations called GAR, GUZ, SWG and LES.
- Table 1. I would suggest to add a column with the altitude of the station after the latitude, even though you reported this information in the text.
- Line 128. “including but not only”, or “among them”
- Line 131. Please, improve the introduction of ERA-5, saying for example that is reanalysis of atmospheric observations from multiple sources (ground, satellite, etc...) produced for climatological investigations...
- Lines 148-149. I think that these two sentences can be rephase better even though mostly right for scientific concept. If I understand the meaning I would suggest: “Characterizing the FW-AEF background is an important, in order to determine the periodic variation of natural AEF in the region under investigation. Consequently, it is necessary [or crucial] to study the characteristics of the FW-AEF to better identify seismic AEF anomalies.”
- Line 154. I suggest t change “aground” in “above the ground”
- Line 174. The signs of Dst are inverted and it is better insert unit of measurement (nT). A simpler notation would be: “-50 nT < Dst < -30 nT”
- Line 179 (and 180). I think it’s more proper to call these data “climatological data” instead of “remote sensing data” even though they are retrieved especially from remote sensing satellite.
- Line 187. I warmly suggest some caution to the authors. Please, change “it had been influenced by seismic activity” in “it had been influenced by seismic activity”
- Line 236. I suggest to substitute “geological preference of” with “geological influence on”
- Line 292 (and 297). Peroxy-defects (not “deficient”)
- Line 299. I think “accumulation” would be more proper term than “aggregation”
- Lines 311-315. I think that also other hypotheses based on difference of electrical propertied of electron with higher mobility than P-holes (separated at source as stated by authors) are possible according to Freund, et al. 2021). Can the authors comments?
- Freund, F.; Ouillon, G.; Scoville, J.; Sornette, D. Earthquake precursors in the light of peroxy defects theory: Critical review of systematic observations. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2021, 230, 7–46. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2020-000243-x
- Figure 7. Please insert the vertical scale with unit of measurements and preferable also horizontal one.
- Figure 8 / lines 348-349. Why did you plot the wind field from 3:00 UT on 22 August 2022 and not from 1:00 UT, i.e., before the MBT map at 2:00 UT? Can you add this information, please?
- Line 365. As suggested before please use some caution: “likely had been influenced by seismic activity” .
- Line 377. “considered to be possibly associated”
Suggested literature that may be integrated:
- Freund, F.T., Takeuchi, A., Lau, B.W.S., Al-Manaseer, A., Fu, C.C., Bryant, N.A., Ouzounov, D. Stimulated infrared emission from rocks: assessing a stress indicator (2007) eEarth, 2, pp. 7-16.
- Liu, Shanjun; Cui, Yi; Wei, Lianhuan; Liu, Wenfang Ji, Meiyi. Pre-earthquake MBT anomalies in the Central and Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and their association to earthquakes. Remote Sensing of Environment, 298, 113815, 2023. Doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113815
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', J. Liu, 06 Sep 2023
The authors analyzed AEF data before Luding earthquake, and further confirmed the anomalies with surface P-hole aggregation. I think the data analysis can support the conclusion of this manuscript. I just have some minor comments as follows.
- For the criteria of FW-AEF, the last one is “no long period of negative AEF anomalies”. Why? What is the time range of this period?
- The time in Figure 3 is local time or universal time? Usually, the time of satellite data is universal time. Is there the jet-lagged between the AEF and MBT?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Xiao Wang, 06 Sep 2023
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript, and our responses are listed below.
Question 1:For the criteria of FW-AEF, the last one is “no long period of negative AEF anomalies”. Why? What is the time range of this period?
Answer：
Firstly, except for excluding the effects of precipitation and low clouds, other factors being able to affect AEF, such as changes in aerosol concentration due to human activities, cannot be judged clearly due to data limitation. Secondly, and most critically, previous studies have proved that FW-AEF is usually positive, and the current acceptable theory also holds that this is the case. Obtaining a more realistic AEF curve as the FW-AEF background of GEC is crucial for the identification and extraction of AEF anomalies. So, the time periods with negative values from the curve of AEF need to be excluded in advance, so as to characterize the changes of AEF in the natural state only.This time period is chosen as one day in that FW-AEF shows one-day periodic changes, which are affected by temperature, humidity and sunshine.
Question 2:
The time in Figure 3 is local time or universal time? Usually, the time of satellite data is universal time. Is there the jet-lagged between the AEF and MBT?
Answer：
The time of all data used in this paper has been adjusted to be local time, including the AEF data itself. The MBT data recorded originally in UTC has also been converted to local time based on the satellite transit time. However, due to the different data accessibility, it is inevitable that there is a small difference in time between multiple sources of data, but we chose the data with the closest time to suppress this inconsistency.All above will be amended and noted in the final submitted version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC2 -
RC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2023
The work is undoubtedly of great interest. A thorough study of negative anomalies in the atmospheric electric field was complemented by analysis of surface microwave brightness temperature (MBT). This complements the arguments in favor of the reliability of earthquake harbingers.
Observation points are located in the earthquake preparation zone according to the Dobrovolsky formula R=exp(M) [1].
The distance between the observation point and the time between the anomaly and the earthquake is very close to Sidorin’s formula log(∆T×R)=0.72M−0.72, where ∆T is the time in days, and R is the distance in kilometers [2].
1. Dobrovolsky I.R., Zubkov S.I., Myachkin V.I. Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones // Pageoph. 1979. N 117. P. 1025–1044.
2. Sidorin, A.Ya., Dependence of the Earthquake Precursor Occurrence Time on the Epicentral Distance, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1979, vol. 245, no. 4, pp. 825–828.
The work seems to be of very high quality and well-reasoned.
There are only small notes:
line 34
to clarify that the upper atmosphere is positively charged.
line 61
Smirnov et al. (2019)
replaced by
Smirnov (2019)
line 155
to clarify approximately what time the sun rises and sets in this area according to UTC for the specified period of research.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Oct 2023
On 5 September 2022, an Ms6.8 earthquake struck Luding, China, causing extensive damage. This study analyzed near-surface atmospheric electric field (AEF) data collected 15 days before the earthquake, along with various other data sources. The authors identified nine possible AEF anomalies related to the earthquake. They confirmed four of these anomalies to be closely linked to the earthquake, while ruling out the other five. The mechanism behind these anomalies involves the transfer of positive charge carriers from underground high-stress areas to the surface, ionizing the air and disrupting the atmospheric electric field. This research is interesting and provides insights into identifying seismic AEF anomalies and understanding the pre-earthquake processes between the Earth's crust and the atmosphere.
My opinion is that the work must be published after some points are clarified.
Figure 2. It is not clear if the figure represents a typical day of FW-AEF or a daily mean curve.
Lines 172-175. Among magnetic indices, only Dst is used. However, some penetrating field currents can appear in middle latitudes on occasion of some auroral activity. It would be more conservative to consider also AE index: when it is lower than 100, it is practice to neglect the presence of that kind of currents. Could you please check if AE is lower than 100 in the period of interest?
Figure 3. It shows at its top panel the daily mean values of Dst and SSN. However, this value for Dst is not appropriate and cannot well characterize the level of magnetic activity. It would be more appropriate its hourly value.
Figure 3. How did you define the 0 value of AEF?
Minor correction
Line 344. Please change “were” with “was”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC1 - CC3: 'Reply on RC1', Xiao Wang, 08 Oct 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
-
CC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Li Lei, 18 Oct 2023
Based on atmospheric electric field data around the epicenter before September 5th, 2022 Luding Ms=6.8 walk-slip earthquake, the authors rigorously excluded meteorological and solar activities, then they got nine possible seismic AEF anomalies at four sites. Combining the negative atmospheric electric field anomalies with surface microwave brightness temperature, surface soil moisture, lithology, 3D-simulated crustal stress field and near-surface wind field, they summarized that negative atmospheric electric field anomalies can be attributed to the stress. The method used in the paper are effective and feasible.
Minor comments:
- On line 33, “atmospheric field”should be replaced by “atmospheric electric field”;
- On line 33, “non-thunderstorm or sunny areas”is not correct. Even in the absence of thunderstorms but the presence of charged clouds or haze, the atmospheric electric field may be negative. This statement could be considered to be changed to "undisturbed fair areas".
- On lines 101-103, the detailed differences between these two types of instruments should be elaborated in more detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-CC4 - CC5: 'Reply on CC4', Xiao Wang, 19 Oct 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1761', Dedalo Marchetti, 28 Nov 2023
The investigation of Wu Lixin et al. proposes a very interesting work on the analysis of atmospheric electric field with 4 ground stations in China before Ms6.8 Luding earthquake occurred on 5 September 2022. The observations of atmospheric electric field before the earthquake are rare in literature especially for lack of specific instrumentation on active seismic sites. So, this paper is a crucial contribution to the research field of the understanding of the lithosphere - coversphere - atmosphere and ionosphere coupling (LCAIC). Overall the authors extracted several anomalous variations of electric field from the stations and scrutinise among the weather conditions which anomalies are likely due to weather (e.g., low clouds in atmosphere) ruling out such anomalies and considering the remanent ones for possible seismic source. The authors integrated the investigation also with Microwave Brightness Temperature of the area discussing how the P-holes can explain the detected anomalies in the light also of the stress field of the area. Finally the authors depicted 4 anomalies as likely induced by the p-hole and air ionization due to seismic activity. Considering all of this I recommend the paper for publication in NHESS after some minor revision and few clarifications.
Specific questions/minor points:
- Line 9. I think that “four discretely distributed sites” can be simplified in “four sites” as intrinsically “discrete”
- Line 21. The expression “were believed to be” is not so scientific, so I suggest to delete and introduce the sentence in this way: “A possible mechanism of negative AEF anomalies before Luding EQ is supposed that positive charges carriers [...]”
- Line 23 and several occurrences in the manuscript. I think the term “aground” is not proper and I would suggest to change in “above the ground”.
- Line 30. Instead of “In the state of nature the operation of Global Electric Circuit” you can simply write: “In nature, the Global Electric Circuit”
- Line 36. Instead of “detected” I suggest to use “claimed” to provide some caution.
- Line 37. Please replace “the field mill electric field instrument” by “the field mill instrument” otherwise there are too much repetition of electric field in the same sentence.
- Lines 38-44. Please insert some cautions when report the previous studies, for example at line 43 instead of a typical AEF I suggest to write a possible AEF.
- Line 78. Please, revise the sentence, while you say humidity speaking of atmospheric particles? Maybe some concepts are missing...
- Line 93. Could be worth to mention that Longmenshan fault was the source of two majior earthquakes in last decades, Lushan 2013 and Wenchuan 2008, the last one with catastrophic impact of lives.
- Line 94. I suppose that “observations” stays for “observatories”
- Line 94. You need to introduce the stations/observatories. You can introduce a sentence like: “The atmospheric electric field has been analysed using four stations called GAR, GUZ, SWG and LES.
- Table 1. I would suggest to add a column with the altitude of the station after the latitude, even though you reported this information in the text.
- Line 128. “including but not only”, or “among them”
- Line 131. Please, improve the introduction of ERA-5, saying for example that is reanalysis of atmospheric observations from multiple sources (ground, satellite, etc...) produced for climatological investigations...
- Lines 148-149. I think that these two sentences can be rephase better even though mostly right for scientific concept. If I understand the meaning I would suggest: “Characterizing the FW-AEF background is an important, in order to determine the periodic variation of natural AEF in the region under investigation. Consequently, it is necessary [or crucial] to study the characteristics of the FW-AEF to better identify seismic AEF anomalies.”
- Line 154. I suggest t change “aground” in “above the ground”
- Line 174. The signs of Dst are inverted and it is better insert unit of measurement (nT). A simpler notation would be: “-50 nT < Dst < -30 nT”
- Line 179 (and 180). I think it’s more proper to call these data “climatological data” instead of “remote sensing data” even though they are retrieved especially from remote sensing satellite.
- Line 187. I warmly suggest some caution to the authors. Please, change “it had been influenced by seismic activity” in “it had been influenced by seismic activity”
- Line 236. I suggest to substitute “geological preference of” with “geological influence on”
- Line 292 (and 297). Peroxy-defects (not “deficient”)
- Line 299. I think “accumulation” would be more proper term than “aggregation”
- Lines 311-315. I think that also other hypotheses based on difference of electrical propertied of electron with higher mobility than P-holes (separated at source as stated by authors) are possible according to Freund, et al. 2021). Can the authors comments?
- Freund, F.; Ouillon, G.; Scoville, J.; Sornette, D. Earthquake precursors in the light of peroxy defects theory: Critical review of systematic observations. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2021, 230, 7–46. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2020-000243-x
- Figure 7. Please insert the vertical scale with unit of measurements and preferable also horizontal one.
- Figure 8 / lines 348-349. Why did you plot the wind field from 3:00 UT on 22 August 2022 and not from 1:00 UT, i.e., before the MBT map at 2:00 UT? Can you add this information, please?
- Line 365. As suggested before please use some caution: “likely had been influenced by seismic activity” .
- Line 377. “considered to be possibly associated”
Suggested literature that may be integrated:
- Freund, F.T., Takeuchi, A., Lau, B.W.S., Al-Manaseer, A., Fu, C.C., Bryant, N.A., Ouzounov, D. Stimulated infrared emission from rocks: assessing a stress indicator (2007) eEarth, 2, pp. 7-16.
- Liu, Shanjun; Cui, Yi; Wei, Lianhuan; Liu, Wenfang Ji, Meiyi. Pre-earthquake MBT anomalies in the Central and Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and their association to earthquakes. Remote Sensing of Environment, 298, 113815, 2023. Doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113815
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1761-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yuan Qi, 02 Jan 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 339 | 101 | 29 | 469 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 339
- PDF: 101
- XML: 29
- Total: 469
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lixin Wu
Xiao Wang
Jingchen Lu
Wenfei Mao
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6147 KB) - Metadata XML