## 5 Discussion: Comprehensive Analysis of Turkey EQ  
In this section, we discuss our findings with a multidisciplinary glance, also in the light of analogous analyses published in literature (e.g., [13; 14; 79]) and aiming to disclose anomalies during the preparation phase of the 2023 Turkish seismic sequence. Each analysis that we conducted evidenced what we can call an event (e.g., a time marker) or, more generally, an anomaly, according to its nature and characteristics. The purpose of the multidisciplinary approach, applied to the early stages of the preparation of a large EQ, is to collect the diverse pieces of the puzzle to relate them, and thus identify some patterns that are recognizable in other case studies: Table 3 lists the cumulative anomalies, ordering them according to the lead time (or delay) compared to the occurrence time of the first of the two mainshocks on 6 February; each is labelled with the sources from which they have their origin. Plotting the cumulative number of all anomalies identified in the different geolayers (i.e., lithosphere, atmosphere, and ionosphere) in their chronological order, as occurred in the 700 days before the mainshock, we find the behaviour as shown in Figure 24. Both  
Figure 23: A significant and extensive electron loss phenomenon was observed by MetOp-01 on 7 February 2023. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Days to Mainshock** & **Cumulative Number** & **Source** \\ \hline \(-630\) & \(1\) & \(b\)-value descent \\ \(-180\) & \(2\) & change slope RAMR \\ \(-\)**88** & \(\mathbf{3}\) & **Swarm-A Y mag. field** \\ \(-\)**85** & \(\mathbf{4}\) & **Swarm-A Y mag. field** \\ \(-\)**78** & \(\mathbf{5}\) & **Ionosonde** \\ \(-\)**53** & \(\mathbf{6}\) & **Swarm-A Y mag. field** \\ \(-\)**26** & \(\mathbf{7}\) & **Swarm-A Y mag. field** \\ \(-\)**17** & \(\mathbf{8}\) & **Swarm-A Y mag. field** \\ \(-15\) & \(9\) & \(\mathrm{OLR}\) \\ \(-13\) & \(10\) & \(\mathrm{SO}_{2}\) \\ \(-12\) & \(11\) & \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) \\ \(-11\) & \(12\) & \(\mathrm{Swarm-A Y mag. field}\) \\ \(-9\) & \(13\) & \(\mathrm{Swarm-A}\) Ne \\ \(-9\) & \(14\) & \(\mathrm{EBs}\) \\ \(-8\) & \(15\) & \(\mathrm{Swarm-A Y mag. field}\) \\ \(-3\) & \(16\) & \(\mathrm{CO}\) \\ \(-3\) & \(17\) & \(\mathrm{Swarm-A Y mag. field}\) \\ \(1\) & \(18\) & \(\mathrm{EBs}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cumulative number of anomalies ordered according to their lead time (or delay) with respect to the mainshock. Each is associated with the sources from which they were extracted. The bold is used to distinguish the group of anomalies which deviate (accelerate) around 100 days before the mainshock. an exponential or power-law fit represent well the overall trend related to the anomalies preceding the Turkey EQ. Very interestingly, we notice that the anomalies appear in time mostly from below (seismic data in the lithosphere) to above (atmosphere and ionosphere), although some anomalies are mixed (i.e., some satellite anomalies appear before the atmospheric ones; these satellite anomalies are so evidenced in bold in Table 3), confirming a possible two-way model of lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere coupling [14]: a direct coupling, likely electromagnetic, and a secondary diffusive one, likely thermodynamic. Actually, what we believe is worth pointing out is the remarkable similarity between the cumulative number found here (Figure 24) and that obtained by [80], where, in a similar way, both an exponential (red curve in Figure 24) or power-law (black curve in Figure 24) trend and the oscillation in the acceleration phase are found, although in a different seismological context and for the EQ magnitude (2022 Luding Ms6.8 EQ, China). This notable similarity can only encourage us to continue further along this path of the multiparametric approach that we have followed.