Find in Library

Space-time TIR anomalies, observed from months to weeks before earthquake occurrence, have been suggested by several authors as pre-seismic signals. Up to now, such a claimed connection of TIR emission with seismic activity has been considered with some caution by scientific community mainly for the insufficiency of the validation data-sets and the scarce importance attached by those authors to other causes (e.g. meteorological) that, rather than seismic activity, could be responsible for the observed TIR signal fluctuations. A robust satellite data analysis technique (RAT) has been recently proposed which, thanks to a well-founded definition of TIR anomaly, seems to be able to identify anomalous space-time TIR signal transients even in very variable observational (satellite view angle, land topography and coverage, etc.) and natural (e.g. meteorological) conditions. <P style='line-height: 20px;'> Its possible application to satellite TIR surveys in seismically active regions has been already tested in the case of several earthquakes (Irpinia: 23 November 1980, Athens: 7 September 1999, Izmit: 17 August 1999) of magnitude higher than 5.5 by using a validation/confutation approach, devoted to verify the presence/absence of anomalous space-time TIR transients in the presence/absence of seismic activity. In these cases, a magnitude threshold (generally M<5) was arbitrarily chosen in order to identify seismically unperturbed periods for confutation purposes. <P style='line-height: 20px;'> In this work, 9 medium-low magnitude (4<M_b<5.5) earthquakes which occurred in Greece and Turkey have been analyzed in order to verify if, even in these cases, anomalous TIR transients can be observed. <P style='line-height: 20px;'> The analysis, which was performed using 8 years of Meteosat TIR observations, demonstrated that anomalous TIR transients can be observed even in the presence of medium-low magnitude earthquakes (4<M_b<5.5). As far as the research (just started) of possible correlation among TIR anomalies and earthquake occurrence is concerned, such a result suggests that: a) in order to identify seismically unperturbed periods for confutation purposes, a magnitude threshold (at least) lower than 4 should be used; b) the proposed validation/confutation approach should be applied in low-seismicity areas in order to find suitably long seismically quiescent periods.