<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">NHESS</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">NHESS</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1684-9981</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/nhess-15-2697-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Comment on “Ultra low frequency (ULF) electromagnetic anomalies associated with large earthquakes in Java Island, Indonesia by using wavelet transform and detrended fluctuation analysis” by Febriani et al. (2014)</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Comment on Febriani et al.~(2014)}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{F.~Masci and J.~N.~Thomas}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Masci</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name>
          <email>fabrizio.masci@ingv.it</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2314-3023</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Thomas</surname><given-names>J. N.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, L'Aquila, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>NorthWest Research Associates, Redmond, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, DigiPen Institute of Technology, Redmond, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">F. Masci (fabrizio.masci@ingv.it)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>18</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>2697</fpage><lpage>2701</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>31</day><month>March</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>23</day><month>September</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>9</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/15/2697/2015/nhess-15-2697-2015.html">This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/15/2697/2015/nhess-15-2697-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/15/2697/2015/nhess-15-2697-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/15/2697/2015/nhess-15-2697-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>We examine the recent report of Febriani et al. (2014) in which the authors
show changes in ULF magnetic field data prior to the M7.5 Tasikmalaya
earthquake that occurred south of Java, Indonesia, on 2 September 2009. Febriani
et al. (2014) state that the magnetic changes they found may be related to
the impending earthquake. We do not agree that the pre-earthquake magnetic
changes shown in Febriani et al. (2014) are seismogenic. These magnetic
changes, indeed, are too closely related to global geomagnetic disturbances
to be regarded as being of seismic origin.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Febriani et al. (2014) report changes in ultra low frequency (ULF:
0.001–5 Hz) geomagnetic field data a few weeks before the 2 September 2009
Tasikmalaya earthquake (M7.5, hypocentral depth 57 km) from a ground-based
sensor at Pelabuhan Ratu, West Java, Indonesia, 135 km from the epicentre.
This was the largest and, according to the authors, the only earthquake
preceded by anomalous magnetic changes of 12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5
earthquakes that occurred offshore south of Java from 1 September 2008 to 31 October 2010.</p>
      <p>Febriani et al. (2014) suggest that the magnetic changes they reported may
have been induced by an alleged preparatory phase of the earthquake. The
idea that electromagnetic precursors may appear before earthquakes is based
on the hypothesis that earthquakes have a preparatory phase. That is, the
earthquake initiates in a preparation zone (whose size depends on the
magnitude of the earthquake) where physical phenomena lead to the subsequent
shock and to the possible appearance of precursory signals (see,
e.g. Dobrovolsky et al., 1979). However, many researchers disagree that
earthquakes have a preparatory phase (see, e.g. Geller, 1997; Kagan, 1997).
According to them earthquakes appear to be chaotic, scale-invariant
phenomena controlled by the local physical properties of the fault whose
geometry and frictional characteristics determine the starting and stopping
of the rupture. Therefore, any small shock may grow into a stronger
earthquake, and how big the quake will become is determined by how it is
stopped, and not by how it starts (Johnston, 2015). Therefore, the notion of
a preparatory phase of earthquakes appears to have no physical basis.</p>
      <p>There are many papers (see the references section in Masci, 2010, 2011a,
2013) in which the authors report pre-earthquake changes in ULF magnetic field
data suggesting a possible relationship between the changes they identified
and the impending earthquake. Conversely, recent reports (see e.g. Campbell,
2009; Thomas et al., 2009a, b; Masci, 2010, 2011a, b, 2012, 2013; Masci and
De Luca, 2013; Masci and Thomas, 2013a, b, 2015) have shown that many of
these pre-earthquake changes are, indeed, global-scale variations driven by
the frequent disturbances in the geomagnetic field, or they are generated by
instrumental malfunction. These papers have cast serious doubt on the idea
that ULF magnetic anomalies are convincing and always recurring phenomena
preceding large earthquakes. Therefore, at present ULF magnetic disturbances
cannot be considered a promising candidate for developing earthquake
prediction capabilities. We note that Febriani et al. (2014) ignore the
findings of the recent reports in which it has been shown that many ULF
magnetic changes reported to occur before earthquakes are not precursors.
They, in fact, refer to these invalid precursors as support of the search
for precursory signatures of earthquake in ULF magnetic data (see Table S1
in the Supplement). In support of their findings, they also
refer to the Hattori's empirical relationship between the earthquake
magnitude and the distance from the earthquake epicentre of the ULF station
where the pre-earthquake anomaly has been detected (see Febriani et al. (2014),
Fig. 10). In Fig. S1 of the Supplement, we show this
relationship where we have highlighted with red dots alleged ULF magnetic
precursory changes that have been proven invalid. In Table S2
we report the papers in which these alleged
precursors have been denied. Note that the empirical relationship shown in
Fig. S1 is taken from Febriani et al. (2014) and is not derived from
undisputed precursors. Thus, we conclude that Febriani et al. (2014) were
motivated to search for precursory signals in magnetic data by reports of
false precursors of earthquake.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Comments</title>
      <p>Febriani et al. (2014) analyse nighttime (16:00–21:00 UT) geomagnetic
field data in the frequency range 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 mHz. They calculate the ratio
between the spectral intensity of the vertical and each horizontal magnetic
field components, i.e. the so-called spectral density ratio. According to
Febriani et al. (2014), the magnetic data analysed are very disturbed by
artificial noise even during nighttime. Thus, before performing the spectral
analysis based on wavelet transform, they remove the intense transient
signals. Then, they use the minimum energy method in an attempt to further
reduce the noise. More precisely, for each day, they divide 4 h
(16:30–20:30 UT) of magnetic data in eight 30 min intervals. Data before
16:30 UT and after 20:30 UT are excluded due to the edge effect of the
wavelet transform. Then, the energy of the geomagnetic field vertical
component <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (the component usually more disturbed by artificial noise) is
calculated in each 30 min interval. Finally, the spectral density ratio is
calculated in the interval where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> shows the minimum energy. Febriani et al. (2014)
investigate the scaling proprieties of the geomagnetic field
components by means of detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) as well. DFA is
a well-established method to extract quantitative time dynamic in time
series. The DFA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent can be considered as an indicator of the
roughness of the time series: the higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is, the smoother the time
series (Peng et al., 1995). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> may be related to the fractal
dimension <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by the relationship <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>ULF analysis (10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 mHz) at the time of the 2 September 2009
Tasikmalaya earthquake as reported by Febriani et al. (2014, Fig. 9). Day <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0
is the day of the earthquake. <bold>(a)</bold> DFA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent of the magnetic
field vertical <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component. The horizontal blue line refers to
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). <bold>(b, c)</bold> Spectral
density ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated without and with the
minimum energy method. The horizontal blue line refers to (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
Shaded areas refer to the anomalies stated to be precursors of
the 2 September Tasikmalaya earthquake by Febriani et al. (2014). <bold>(d)</bold> Dst
index. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp index time series has been superimposed onto the original
views. See text for details.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/15/2697/2015/nhess-15-2697-2015-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>In Fig. 1 we show the spectral density ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the east–west component of the geomagnetic field) and the DFA
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component, as reported by Febriani et al. (2014,
Fig. 9) 30 days before and after 2 September 2009. According to them,
a magnetic anomaly is identified when the exponent <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the ratio
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceed the threshold value of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Mean values and the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are
calculated over the 2-month period in Fig. 1. Based on their definition of
an anomaly, Febriani et al. (2014) report to have found anomalous changes
prior to the Tasikmalaya earthquake. More specifically, a few weeks before
the earthquake, they note a decrease of the exponent <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which
corresponds to an increase of ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see
shaded areas in Fig. 1). Febriani et al. (2014) maintain that the decrease
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in correspondence with the increase of the spectral density
ratio identifies a precursory signature of the Tasikmalaya earthquake in
magnetic data. No changes in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are
shown coincident with the earthquake when the primary energy is released.</p>
      <p>We disagree with Febriani et al. (2014). First, there is no physical reason
that magnetic anomalies, whatever their origin might be, are identified when
the exponent <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the spectral <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
exceed the threshold values they assumed. Then, their method for checking
the geomagnetic conditions by means of the Dst index is not rigorous. We
agree that geomagnetic activity should be a key parameter in interpreting
observed pre-earthquake ULF magnetic changes (see Balasis and Mandea, 2007).
ULF disturbances from the ionosphere and magnetosphere, indeed, may lead
researchers to interpret erroneously the origin of magnetic anomalies they
identified (see, e.g. Masci, 2010, 2011a). The 3 h global geomagnetic index
Kp and the daily sum <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp are usually used as representative of the
geomagnetic activity over planetary scales (Menvielle and Berthelier, 1991).
Conversely, the Dst index that Febriani et al. (2014) use for checking the
geomagnetic conditions is designed to monitor the strength of the
equatorial electrojet, and it is usually used as indicator of the
geomagnetic storm level and ring current intensification (Mayaud, 1980).</p>
      <p>As expected, in Fig. 1 we note many decreases of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in correspondence
with increases in the spectral density ratio. This inverse correspondence may
be explained by taking into account that the spectral density ratio, the DFA
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent, and the fractal dimension <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the ULF geomagnetic field
are sensitive to global trends in geomagnetic activity (see Masci, 2010,
2011a; Wanliss et al., 2014). Namely, when the geomagnetic activity
decreases, the reduction of the geomagnetic field horizontal component is
usually larger than the reduction of the vertical component. Therefore the
spectral density ratio increases. At the same time, the decrease of the
geomagnetic activity indicates that the magnetosphere evolves toward a lower
degree of organization (see, e.g. Balasis et al., 2009). Thus, the fractal
dimension of the geomagnetic field increases, while the DFA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent
decreases. On the contrary, an increase of the geomagnetic activity
induces a decrease of the spectral density ratio (because the increase in
the geomagnetic field horizontal components is larger than the increase of
the vertical component) and a decrease of the fractal dimension and an
increase of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (because the magnetosphere evolves towards a higher
degree of organization). Thus, we expect to find an inverse correspondence
between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp and the spectral density ratio and the fractal dimension
of the geomagnetic field, and a direct correspondence between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp
and the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent. However, due to global averaging used to
calculate Kp, this correspondence is not expected always or everywhere. In
this perspective, recent papers (see Masci, 2010, 2011a, 2013, and other
papers reported in Tables S1 and S2) have
demonstrated that many pre-earthquake ULF magnetic changes hypothesized to be
seismogenic are, instead, part of global geomagnetic activity changes. In
Fig. 1 we have used the same approach adopted in these papers by comparing
the exponent <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reported by
Febriani et al. (2014) with the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp index. In Fig. 1a, as expected,
we note a close correspondence between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp, both
before and after the earthquake. A close inverse correspondence can be also
seen in Fig. 1b between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp and the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
calculated without the minimum energy method. However, we would like to
point out that we should not expect to always find this correspondence,
since (i) as stated by Febriani et al. (2014) the high environmental noise
in the geomagnetic field components was not attenuated enough after removing
intense transient signals; (ii) several gaps are present in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> time series; (iii) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shows many inexplicable zero values;
(iv) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are calculated from local
magnetic data, whereas, as already mentioned above, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp is
representative of daily averaged geomagnetic disturbances on a planetary
scale. Contrary to Fig. 1b, however, in Fig. 1c we see a lower correspondence
between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated applying the minimum energy
method and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp. The lower correspondence may be explained
considering that for each day Febriani et al. (2014) calculate the spectral
density ratio, using the minimum energy method, in one of the eight 30 min
intervals between 16:30 and 20:30 UT. Since <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp is representative
of global daily averaged geomagnetic disturbance, by reducing the period of
analysis, it is likely that the correspondence between geomagnetic data and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp becomes less noticeable. Thus, the high dispersion of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
values in Fig. 1c may be due to the short time interval (30 min) used in the spectral analysis, as well as
because the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> time series consists of values that are calculated
in different 30 min intervals.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>We have reviewed the findings of Febriani et al. (2014) that show
pre-earthquake changes in magnetic field record before the M7.5 Tasikmalaya
earthquake occurred on 2 September 2009 south of Java. We have shown that
the changes they reported in the DFA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exponent of the geomagnetic
field vertical component and the spectral density ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are closely related to the geomagnetic
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp index and are unlikely to be of seismogenic origin. Thus, we
conclude that the pre-earthquake magnetic changes reported by Febriani et al. (2014)
are an effect of the global geomagnetic activity.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-2697-2015-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/nhess-15-2697-2015-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{-6mm}}?></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was supported by Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia,
Italy, Sez. Roma 2, and by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program through
external research grants G11AP20177 and G15AP00071 to J. N. Thomas. The authors wish
to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments and suggestions. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Kp index was provided by Kyoto World
Data Center for Geomagnetism (<uri>http:// swdcwww.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/</uri>). <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: B. D. Malamud <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Balasis, G., Daglis, I. A., Papadimitriou, C., Kalimeri, M., Anastasiadis,
A., and Eftaxias, K.: Investigating dynamical complexity in the
magnetosphere using various entropy measures, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A00D06,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JA014035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JA014035</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Balasis, G. and Mandea, M.: Can electromagnetic disturbances related to the
recent great earthquakes be detected by satellite magnetometers?,
Tectonophysics, 431, 173–195, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.038</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Campbell, W. H.: Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors,
preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A05307,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JA013932</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Dobrovolsky, I. P., Zubkov, S. I., and V. I. Miachkin: Estimation of the
size of earthquake preparation zones, Pure Appl. Geophys., 117, 1025–1044,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00876083" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00876083</ext-link>, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Febriani, F., Han, P., Yoshino, C., Hattori, K., Nurdiyanto, B., Effendi, N.,
Maulana, I., and Gaffar, E.: Ultra low frequency (ULF) electromagnetic anomalies
associated with large earthquakes in Java Island, Indonesia by using wavelet
transform and detrended fluctuation analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
14, 789–798, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-789-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-14-789-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Geller, R. J.: Earthquake prediction: A critical review, Geophys. J. Int.,
131, 425–450, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Johnston, M. J. S.: On earthquake fault failure, 26th IUGG General Assembly,
P121, IUGG-1001, 22 June–2 July 2015, Prague, Czech Republic, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Kagan, Y.Y.: Are erathquake predictable?, Geophys. J. Int., 131, 505–525,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F.: On claimed ULF seismogenic fractal signatures in the geomagnetic
field, J. Geophys. Res.-Space Phys., 115, A10236, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015311" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JA015311</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F.: On the seismogenic increase of the ratio of the ULF geomagnetic
field components, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 187, 19–32, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.001</ext-link>, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F.: Brief communication “On the recent reaffirmation of ULF magnetic
earthquakes precursors”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2193–2198,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2193-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-11-2193-2011</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F.: On the ULF magnetic ratio increase before the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi
Nairiku earthquake by Hirano and Hattori (2011), J. Asian Earth Sci., 56,
258–262, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.05.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.05.020</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F.: On the multi-fractal characteristics of the ULF geomagnetic field
before the 1993 Guam earthquake, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 187–191,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-187-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-13-187-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F. and De Luca, G.: Some comments on the potential seismogenic origin of
magnetic disturbances observed by Di Lorenzo et al. (2011) close to the time
of the 6 April 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13,
1313–1319, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1313-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-13-1313-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Comment on “Fractal analysis of ULF electromagnetic
emissions in possible association with earthquakes in China” by Ida et al. (2012),
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 20, 417–421, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/npg-20-417-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/npg-20-417-2013</ext-link>, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Review Article: On the relation between the seismic
activity and the Hurst exponent of the geomagnetic field at the time of the
2000 Izu swarm, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2189–2194, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-2189-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-13-2189-2013</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Are there new findings in the search for ULF
magnetic precursors to earthquakes?, J. Geophys. Res.-Space Phys., <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021336" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JA021336</ext-link>, in press, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Mayaud, P. N.: Derivation, Meaning, and Use of Geomagnetic Indices,
Geophysical Monograph 22, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Menvielle, M. and Bertelier, A.: The K-derived planetary indices:
description and availability, Rev. Geophys., 29, 415–432, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/91RG00994" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/91RG00994</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Peng, C. K., Havlin, S., Stanley, H. E., and Goldberger, A. L.: Quantification
of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time
series, Chaos, 5, 82–87, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.166141" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.166141</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Thomas, J. N., Love, J. J., and Johnston, M. J. S.: On the reported magnetic
precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Int.,
173, 207–215, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014</ext-link>, 2009a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Thomas, J. N., Love, J. J., Johnston, M. J. S., and Yumoto, K.: On the
reported magnetic precursor of the 1993 Guam earthquake, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 36, L16301, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL039020</ext-link>, 2009b.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Wanliss, J. A., Shiokawa, K., and Yumoto, K.: Latitudinal variation of stochastic
properties of the geomagnetic field, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 21, 347–356,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/npg-21-347-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/npg-21-347-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Comment on “Ultra low frequency (ULF) electromagnetic anomalies associated with large earthquakes in Java Island, Indonesia by using wavelet transform and detrended fluctuation analysis” by Febriani et al. (2014)</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><h6 xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">Abstract. </h6><p xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" class="p">We examine the recent report of Febriani et al. (2014) in which the authors
show changes in ULF magnetic field data prior to the M7.5 Tasikmalaya
earthquake that occurred south of Java, Indonesia, on 2 September 2009. Febriani
et al. (2014) state that the magnetic changes they found may be related to
the impending earthquake. We do not agree that the pre-earthquake magnetic
changes shown in Febriani et al. (2014) are seismogenic. These magnetic
changes, indeed, are too closely related to global geomagnetic disturbances
to be regarded as being of seismic origin.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Balasis, G., Daglis, I. A., Papadimitriou, C., Kalimeri, M., Anastasiadis,
A., and Eftaxias, K.: Investigating dynamical complexity in the
magnetosphere using various entropy measures, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A00D06,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JA014035" title="" class="ref">10.1029/2008JA014035</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Balasis, G. and Mandea, M.: Can electromagnetic disturbances related to the
recent great earthquakes be detected by satellite magnetometers?,
Tectonophysics, 431, 173–195, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.038" title="" class="ref">10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.038</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Campbell, W. H.: Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors,
preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A05307,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013932" title="" class="ref">10.1029/2008JA013932</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Dobrovolsky, I. P., Zubkov, S. I., and V. I. Miachkin: Estimation of the
size of earthquake preparation zones, Pure Appl. Geophys., 117, 1025–1044,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00876083" title="" class="ref">10.1007/BF00876083</a>, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Febriani, F., Han, P., Yoshino, C., Hattori, K., Nurdiyanto, B., Effendi, N.,
Maulana, I., and Gaffar, E.: Ultra low frequency (ULF) electromagnetic anomalies
associated with large earthquakes in Java Island, Indonesia by using wavelet
transform and detrended fluctuation analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
14, 789–798, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-789-2014" title="" class="ref">10.5194/nhess-14-789-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Geller, R. J.: Earthquake prediction: A critical review, Geophys. J. Int.,
131, 425–450, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x" title="" class="ref">10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Johnston, M. J. S.: On earthquake fault failure, 26th IUGG General Assembly,
P121, IUGG-1001, 22 June–2 July 2015, Prague, Czech Republic, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Kagan, Y.Y.: Are erathquake predictable?, Geophys. J. Int., 131, 505–525,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x" title="" class="ref">10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F.: On claimed ULF seismogenic fractal signatures in the geomagnetic
field, J. Geophys. Res.-Space Phys., 115, A10236, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015311" title="" class="ref">10.1029/2010JA015311</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F.: On the seismogenic increase of the ratio of the ULF geomagnetic
field components, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 187, 19–32, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.001" title="" class="ref">10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.001</a>, 2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F.: Brief communication “On the recent reaffirmation of ULF magnetic
earthquakes precursors”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2193–2198,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2193-2011" title="" class="ref">10.5194/nhess-11-2193-2011</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F.: On the ULF magnetic ratio increase before the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi
Nairiku earthquake by Hirano and Hattori (2011), J. Asian Earth Sci., 56,
258–262, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.05.020" title="" class="ref">10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.05.020</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F.: On the multi-fractal characteristics of the ULF geomagnetic field
before the 1993 Guam earthquake, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 187–191,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-187-2013" title="" class="ref">10.5194/nhess-13-187-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F. and De Luca, G.: Some comments on the potential seismogenic origin of
magnetic disturbances observed by Di Lorenzo et al. (2011) close to the time
of the 6 April 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13,
1313–1319, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1313-2013" title="" class="ref">10.5194/nhess-13-1313-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Comment on “Fractal analysis of ULF electromagnetic
emissions in possible association with earthquakes in China” by Ida et al. (2012),
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 20, 417–421, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/npg-20-417-2013" title="" class="ref">10.5194/npg-20-417-2013</a>, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Review Article: On the relation between the seismic
activity and the Hurst exponent of the geomagnetic field at the time of the
2000 Izu swarm, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2189–2194, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-2189-2013" title="" class="ref">10.5194/nhess-13-2189-2013</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Masci, F. and Thomas, J. N.: Are there new findings in the search for ULF
magnetic precursors to earthquakes?, J. Geophys. Res.-Space Phys., <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021336" title="" class="ref">10.1002/2015JA021336</a>, in press, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Mayaud, P. N.: Derivation, Meaning, and Use of Geomagnetic Indices,
Geophysical Monograph 22, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Menvielle, M. and Bertelier, A.: The K-derived planetary indices:
description and availability, Rev. Geophys., 29, 415–432, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/91RG00994" title="" class="ref">10.1029/91RG00994</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Peng, C. K., Havlin, S., Stanley, H. E., and Goldberger, A. L.: Quantification
of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time
series, Chaos, 5, 82–87, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.166141" title="" class="ref">10.1063/1.166141</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Thomas, J. N., Love, J. J., and Johnston, M. J. S.: On the reported magnetic
precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Int.,
173, 207–215, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014" title="" class="ref">10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014</a>, 2009a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Thomas, J. N., Love, J. J., Johnston, M. J. S., and Yumoto, K.: On the
reported magnetic precursor of the 1993 Guam earthquake, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 36, L16301, <a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039020" title="" class="ref">10.1029/2009GL039020</a>, 2009b.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Wanliss, J. A., Shiokawa, K., and Yumoto, K.: Latitudinal variation of stochastic
properties of the geomagnetic field, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 21, 347–356,
<a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/npg-21-347-2014" title="" class="ref">10.5194/npg-21-347-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
