论文部分内容阅读
只有预报震级(M_(pred))和实际震级(M_(EQ))两个值都用相同尺度时,预报震级和实际震级的直接比较才是允许的。由事实来看,雅典国家观测台地震研究所(SI-NOA)公开发布M_(EQ)=M_L+0.5(这里M_L是地震震级),VAN很早就清楚地表示,预报值M_(pred)(在适当检验后)是指M_L+0.5,因此,VAN预报的本身一致性评估值应当包括M_(pred)和实际的M_L+0.5直接比较。不幸的是,Wyss通过M_(pred)和M_S(PDE)的直接比较混淆了这个讨论,这是不允许的,因为M_L+0.5从平均的意义上被超出了,M_S(PDE)是1.0级为单位的另一个附加的混淆来源。Hamada(1993)建议的关系式M_L+0.5=m_b+0.3,这个关系式被Wyss错误地解释成M_S(PDE)=m_b+0.3,Wyss在他的图1和图2中的两个变更是错误的。 Wyss还批评VAN,因为(在早期出版物)Varotsos等(1981b)用了SI-NOA的原始公报,而不是最终的。首先,VAN在那时不能用到最终公报,因为它出现在Varotsos等(1986)的论文后(一年以上)。第二、当我们始终如一地采用,不论是原始的还是最终的公报时SESs和EQs的关联是很明显的。而另一方面,Wyss宣布他没能找到EQs和SESs的任何关联。在我们看来这归因于Wyss计算的小地震事件是发生在VAN观测台的几百公里以外的地方(即在阿尔巴尼亚,土耳其西部等,但他同时却删除了距VAN观测台很邻近的地点发生的小地震。Wyss的处理当然是不可接受的,因此他的附录B也是错的。而且,Wyss宣称VAN在表中加了25％的事件,也是不真实的。 Wyss引述的“VAN的论述”从来没有被VAN发表,除这个不正常的事实之外,也请注意下面,虽然Wyss(1996)用引号(为了表明他在引述原文),又给VAN原文加了批判的语言,因此Varotsos等的真实意思就被严重地改交了。例如:Wyss说:“Varotsos等(1981a)最初表述了SESs“发生在每个地震前的几分钟(与SES有关),(Varasos等(1981a)”。这样,Wyss引导读者得到错误的结论,即VAN最初认为SES具有一个几分钟的超前时间,而且VAN后来改变了。然而,我们指出这个超前时间(VAN出版的)是指另一种类型的前兆,不是SES,但括号中的话(Wyss所加的)改变了我们话的真实意义。
The direct comparison between the predicted magnitude and the actual magnitude is only permitted if both the predicted magnitude (M_pred) and the actual magnitude (M_ (EQ)) are of the same scale. As a matter of fact, SI (National Institute of Atomic Emission Observatories) published M_ (EQ) = M_L + 0.5 (where M_L is the magnitude of the earthquake). The VAN clearly stated earlier that the forecast value M_pred After proper testing) refers to M_L + 0.5, therefore, the assessment of the consistency of the VAN forecasts themselves should include a direct comparison of M_ (pred) with the actual M_L + 0.5. Unfortunately, Wyss confused this discussion with a direct comparison of M_ (pred) and M_S (PDE), which is not allowed because M_L + 0.5 is exceeded in the mean sense and M_S (PDE) is 1.0 Another additional source of confusion for the unit. The relationship M_L + 0.5 = m_b + 0.3 suggested by Hamada (1993) is incorrectly interpreted by Wyss as M_S (PDE) = m_b + 0.3. Wyss’s two changes in his graphs 1 and 2 are incorrect of. Wyss also criticized VAN because (in earlier publications) Varotsos et al. (1981b) used the original Gazette of SI-NOA instead of the final one. First, VAN was unable to use the final communique at that time because it appeared in the papers by Varotsos et al. (1986) (more than a year). Second, the association of SESs with EQs is evident when we apply consistently, both in the original and in the final bulletins. On the other hand, Wyss announced he could not find any connection between EQs and SESs. It seems to us that the small earthquake event attributed to Wyss was occurring hundreds of kilometers away from the VAN observatory (ie in Albania, western Turkey, etc.), but at the same time he also deleted sites very close to the VAN observatory The small earthquake that took place was certainly not acceptable for Wyss, so his Appendix B was also wrong, and it was also not true for Wyss to claim that VAN added 25% of the events in the table. Beyond this unusual fact, note also below that although Wyss (1996) quotes the text (in order to show that he is quoting the text) and adds a critical language to the VAN original, Varotsos et al. For example, Wyss said: “Varotsos et al. (1981a) originally stated that SESs” occurred a few minutes before each earthquake (related to SES) (Varasos et al. (1981a) ". Thus, Wyss leads the reader to the erroneous conclusion that VAN initially thought SES had a few minutes of lead time and that VAN changed later.However, we pointed out that this lead time (published by VAN) refers to another type of precursor, Not SES, but parentheses The words (added by Wyss) change the real meaning of our words.