Meteorolojik Veriler Kullanılarak Deprem Tahmin Edilebilir mi?

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 452 - 470

Erdinç Uslan , Emin Ulugergerli

https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1472833

Öz

Depremler ile meteorolojik veriler arasında bir ilişkinin bulunup bulunmadığı araştırmak için Ege Denizi özelinde büyüklüğü 4.0≤Mw≤7.0 depremler ile günlük ortalama sıcaklık, ortalama rüzgâr hızı, toplam yağış miktarı ve deniz suyu sıcaklığı değerleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Hava sıcaklığında ve deniz suyundaki değişimlerin depremin habercisi olduğu yönündeki haberler sosyal medyada ve ulusal basında sıklıkla görülse de depremlerin öncesini ve sonrasını kapsayan veriler ile yapılan incelemeler bu tür ilişkilendirmenin sadece rastlantılar ile açıklanabileceğini göstermektedir. Ege denizi özelinde büyüklüğü 4.0≤Mw≤7.0aralığındaki depremlerle meteorolojik verilerin arasında herhangi bir ilişkinin olmadığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deprem, Ege, Deniz, Meteoroloji, Sıcaklık

Can an Earthquake be Predicted Using Meteorological Data?

Öz

To investigate whether there is a relationship between earthquakes and meteorological data, earthquakes with magnitudes 4.0≤Mw≤7.0 were compared with daily average temperature, average wind speed, total rainfall and sea water temperature values in the Aegean Sea. On the contrary the news about changes in air temperature and sea water being precursors of earthquakes is frequently seen on both social media and in the national press, our study conducted with data covering the pre- and post-earthquakes has shown that such associations can only be explained by coincidences. It was observed that there is no relationship between 4.0≤Mw≤7.0 earthquakes and meteorological data in the Aegean Sea.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Earthquake, Aegean, Sea, Meteorology, Temperature

Kaynakça

• Acar Deniz Z., Uslan E., 2018. Ekstrem Soğuk Hava Dalgası:Ocak 2017, Gaziantep University Journal of Social Scienses, 17(3),761-773, https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.384518.
• AFAD, 2024. Aletsel Dönem Deprem Kataloğu (1900-Günümüz M>=4.0), Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Erişim adresi: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/event-instrumental.
• Akhoondzadeh M., Parrot M., Saradjian M.R., 2010. Electron and ion density variations before strong earthquakes (M> 6.0) using DEMETER and GPS data, Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 10(1), 7-18.
• Aksoy E., Akgun E., Softa M., Kocbulut F., Sozbilir H., Tatar O., Erol S.C., 2023. Effect on the Eastern Anatolian Fault Zone Erkenek and Pazarcik Segments of the 6 February 2023 Pazarcik (Kahramanmaras) Earthquake: Observations from Celikhan-Golbasi (Adiyaman), Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi, 5(1), 85-104, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1280408.
• Biagi P.F., Ermini A., Cozzi E., Khatkevich Y.M., Gordeev E.I., 2000. Hydrogeochemical precursors in Kamchatka (Russia) related to the strongest earthquakes in 1988–1997, Nat Hazards, 21(2-3), 263-276.
• Cui Y.J., Ouzounov D., Hatzopoulos N., Sun K., Zou Z., Du J.G., 2017. Satellite observation of CH4 and CO anomalies associated with the Wenchuan MS 8.0 and Lushan MS 7.0 earthquakes in China, Chem Geol, 469, 185-191.
• Inazu D., Ito Y., Hino R., Tanikawa W., 2023. Abrupt water temperature increases near seafloor during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 10(1), 24.
• Jing F., Singh R.P., Sun K., Shen X.H., 2018. Passive microwave response associated with two main earthquakes in Tibetan Plateau, China. Adv Space Res., 62(7), 1675-1689.
• Kämpf J., Chapman P., 2016. Upwelling systems of the world (pp. 31-42), Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
• King C.Y., 1978. Radon emanation on SAN-ANDREAS fault, Nature, 271(5645), 516-519.
• King C.Y., Azuma S., Ohno M., Asai Y., He P., Kitagawa Y., Igarashi G., Wakita H., 2000. In search of earthquake precursors in the water-level data of 16 closely clustered wells at Tono, Japan, Geophys J Int., 143(2), 469-477.
• Leary P.C., Malin P.E., 1984. Ground deformation events preceding the homestead valley earthquakes, Bull Seismol Soc Am., 74(5), 1799-1817.
• MGM 2024. Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, Meteorolojik Veri İşlem Dairesi Başkanlığı, Erişim adresi: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/kurumsal/birimler.aspx.
• Mogi K., Mochizuki H., Kurokawa Y., 1989. Temperature-changes in an srtesian spring at Usami in the Izu Peninsula (Janpan) and their relation of earthquakes, Tectonophysics, 159(1-2), 95-108.
• Ouzounov D., Pulinets S., Romanov A., Romanov A., Tsybulya K., Davidenko D., Kafatos M.,Taylor P., 2011. Atmosphere-ionosphere response to the M9 Tohoku earthquake revealed byMmulti-instrument space-borne and ground observations: preliminary results, Earthq Sci., 24(6), 557-564.
• Pavlopoulos K., Kapsimalis V., Theodorakopoulou K., PanagiotopoulosIoannis I., 2012. Vertical displacement trends in the Aegean coastal zone (NE Mediterranean) during the Holocene assessed by geo-archaeological data, The Holocene, 22(6), 717-728.
• Pierce E.T., 1976. Atmospheric electricity and earthquake prediction, Geophys Res Lett., 3(3), 185-188.
• Pulinets S.A., Ouzounov D., Ciraolo L., Singh R., Cervone G., Leyva A., Dunajecka M., Karelin A.V., Boyarchuk K.A., Kotsarenko A., 2006. Thermal, atmospheric and ionospheric anomalies around the time of the Colima M7.8 earthquake of 21 January 2003, Ann Geophys., 24(3), 835-849.
• Qin K., Wu L.X., De Santis A., Wang H., 2011. Surface latent heat flux anomalies before the M-S 7.1 New Zealand earthquake 2010, Chin Sci Bull., 56(31), 3273-3280.
• Singh R.P., Bhoi S., Sahoo A.K., 2002. Changes observed in land and ocean after Gujarat earthquake of 26 January 2001 using IRS data, Int J Remote Sens., 23(16),3123-3128.
• Uslan E., Usta A., 2023. Trakya’nın Unutulmuş Depremi 1752 Havsa, Trakya Üniversiteler Birliği 7. Lisansüstü Öğrenci Kongresi 7-8 Aralık 2023 Edirne, Türkiye.
• Uyeda S., Nagao T., Kamogawa M., 2009. Short-term earthquake prediction: current status of seismo-electromagnetics, Tectonophysics, 470(3-4), 205-213.
• Zhang L., Jiang M., Jing F., 2022. Sea temperature variation associated with the 2021 Haiti Mw 7.2 earthquake and possible mechanism, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 13(1), 2840-2863.