Premium
Reply to “A note on evaluating VAN earthquake predictions,” by G‐Akis Tselentis and Nicos S. Melis
Author(s) -
Varotsos P.,
Lazaridou M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
geophysical research letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.007
H-Index - 273
eISSN - 1944-8007
pISSN - 0094-8276
DOI - 10.1029/96gl01446
Subject(s) - ideal (ethics) , seismology , poisson distribution , geology , statistics , physics , mathematics , law , political science
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 M s ≥ 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.