 |
Detailed Reference Information |
Varotsos, P. and Lazaridou, M. (1996). Reply to “A note on evaluating VAN earthquake predictions,” by G-Akis Tselentis and Nicos S. Melis. Geophysical Research Letters 23: doi: 10.1029/96GL01446. issn: 0094-8276. |
|
The intriguing suggestion by Tselentis and Melis [1996>, that the tolerance limit in predicting the epicentral location should depend on earthquake magnitude, is discussed. Tselentis and Melis applied the procedure of Mulargia and Gasperini [1992> to an ideally perfect earthquake prediction method, which achieved to predict successfully all the seventeen earthquakes with Ms≥5.3 that occurred within the area 36--41 ¿N, 19--25 ¿E during the three years period 1983--1985, and found that these ideal predictions can be ascribed to chance. Their application clearly demonstrates that the procedure of Mulargia and Gasperini [1992> is questionable. In this Reply we also give a precise example of statistics, which indicates how Mulargia and Gasperini's [1992> procedure strongly violates Poisson restrictions, and hence leads to unacceptable results. |
|
 |
 |
BACKGROUND DATA FILES |
|
 |
Abstract |
|
 |
|
|
|
Keywords
Seismology, Seismic hazard assessment and prediction, History of Geophysics, Seismology, Seismology, General or miscellaneous |
|
Publisher
American Geophysical Union 2000 Florida Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009-1277 USA 1-202-462-6900 1-202-328-0566 service@agu.org |
|
|
 |