Geology topics

Adam T. Ringler

Publications and source records attributed to Adam T. Ringler.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Evaluation of seismological evidence for decadal changes in Earth’s lowermost mantle and outer core

Recent reports of decadal-scale structural changes in the lowermost mantle and transport of strong heterogeneity in the outer core may offer important insights into core-mantle structure and dynamics. These reports are derived from waveform comparisons of earthquake pairs or repeating earthquakes, particularly using differential travel-time measurements made with cross-correlation techniques. Here we show that the interpretation can contain several overlooked traps, particularly imperfect source repeatability and station-related issues. We systematically examine the earthquake-pair waveforms reported by two recent studies, and provide independent investigations on the source repeatability, along with its associated travel time shifts. We also examine the quality of related stations, using comparisons between co-located sensors. We demonstrate that the reported temporal changes in Earth’s deep interior can be largely explained by artifacts from imperfect source repeatability and station-related issues. Our findings caution that the outer core or lowermost mantle should not be considered as a likely source of detectable temporal variability unless alternative explanations have been exhaustively excluded.

Communications Earth & Environment↗

USGS2026

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory strategic vision

This circular presents a strategic outlook for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) for the next 10 years (2026–36). The ASL is a USGS field office in the Geological Hazards Science Center that operates portions of the Advanced National Seismic System and the Global Seismographic Network and focuses on fundamental research for instrumentation testing and data quality. The strategic outlook is categorized into two types of tasks: “Foundational Tasks” and “Aspirational Tasks.” Foundational Tasks are those that maintain the laboratory’s basic operations and services, including regional and global seismic monitoring, improving data quality, and providing instrument testing and support. A suite of Aspirational Tasks is also articulated; these can be considered priority targets of ASL that could improve ASL’s seismic monitoring capabilities and mission. Such tasks include improvements to remote stations, testing capabilities of nonseismic geophysical instruments, detection threshold monitoring, rapid aftershock deployments, and expanding seismic monitoring networks. This report was written with input from the USGS Geological Hazards Science Center, the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP), and colleagues with an interest in the work done by the ASL. Although the details of these tasks may change, this document can provide guidance on the overarching tasks at the ASL from 2026 to 2036 and an overview of the various components of the ASL and how they fit into the EHP and the Global Seismographic Network Program.

Circular↗

USGS2026

Global primary and secondary microseism multi-decade geographic variation, secular intensification, and period lengthening

Earth's long-period background seismic wavefield is dominated by two distinct processes that couple ocean wave energy to a global microseism wavefield. We assess global microseism intensity in the secondary (4–10 s) and primary (14–20 s) bands, and across eight 2 s-wide period bands between 4 and 20 s. Robustly estimated primary and secondary secular amplitude trends are estimated at 73 globally distributed seismic station sites with continuous recording spanning at least 20 years, from as early as the late 1980s through October 2025. These trends are positive at 3⁢𝜎 significance for 61 (84%) and 46 (63%) stations with global average rates for vertical-component acceleration of 0.17 ± 0.04 and 0.11 ± 0.05%/yr, for the primary and secondary bands, respectively, with corresponding rates of energy increase of 0.27 ± 0.08 and 0.15 ± 0.09%/yr. Secular intensification is also observed within all 2 s period bands between 4 and 20 s. Amplitude histories for the longest primary microseism periods (18–20 s) correlate to near-antipodal distances, reflecting long-range teleconnections attributed to large-fetch storm systems, long-range swell and Rayleigh wave propagation, and geographically correlated El Niño Southern Oscillation and other geographically extensive atmospheric influences on storms and waves. The lower average rates of intensification for the secondary microseism suggest that crossing wave systems in remote regions are either under-observed or are intensifying more slowly than the primary microseism, possibly due to increasing swell unidirectionality. Secular intensification is greatest at the longest primary microseism periods. This is consistent with a broadening of the global ocean wave spectrum by approximately 0.01%/yr which may reflect an increasing occurrence of large storm systems.

JGR Solid Earth↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Fiber-optic sensing for earthquake hazards research, monitoring and early warning

The use of fiber‐optic sensing systems in seismology has exploded in the past decade. Despite an ever‐growing library of ground‐breaking studies, questions remain about the potential of fiber‐optic sensing technologies as tools for advancing if not revolutionizing earthquake‐hazards‐related research, monitoring, and early warning systems. A working group convened to explore these topics; we comprehensively examined the application of fiber optics in various aspects of earthquake hazards, encompassing earthquake source processes, crustal imaging, data archiving, and technological challenges. There is great potential for fiber‐optic systems to advance earthquake monitoring and understanding, but to fully unlock their capabilities requires continued progress in key areas of research and development, including instrument testing and validation, increased dynamic range for applications focused on larger earthquakes, and continued improvement in subsurface and source imaging methods. A key current stumbling block results from the lack of clear data archiving requirements, and we propose an initial strategy that balances data volume requirements with preserving key data for a broad range of future studies. In addition, we demonstrate the potential for fiber‐optic sensing to impact monitoring efforts by documenting the data completeness in a number of long‐term experiments. Finally, we outline the features of a instrument testing facility that would enable progress toward reliable and standardized distributed acoustic sensing data. Overcoming these current obstacles would facilitate progress in fiber‐optic sensing and unlock its potential application to a broad range of earthquake hazard problems.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey geomagnetic variometer data: Capitalizing on seismic infrastructure

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Geomagnetism Program is collaborating with the Earthquake Hazards Program and Global Seismographic Network Program to densify magnetic field observations. This collaboration focuses on the installation of magnetometers, or magnetic variometers, at existing seismic stations. Along with improving the density of space weather observations for hazard monitoring, these data can be used to correct colocated magnetic field induced noise in seismic data. Such corrections are especially useful during time periods of large magnetic storms where the magnetic field‐induced instrument noise can be of similar amplitude to earthquake ground‐motion records.

contiguous United States↗

USGS2025

Revisiting seismological discoveries of the inner core

Seismology has been used as a tool for understanding the current physical properties of the interior of the Earth and its dynamic evolution with remarkable success over the last century. Much of this progress is due to the ever‐expanding set of high‐quality quantitative observations of teleseismic waveforms recorded at seismographic stations worldwide. In this work, we revisit historical seismological studies that helped first identify a core distinct in physical properties from the overlying mantle, followed by the detection of an inner core that was eventually verified to be solid based on normal‐mode eigenperiods. Along with a brief overview of past studies of the Earth’s inner core, we examine the reproducibility of these results and discuss how historical data compare against modern observations. After accounting for past normal‐mode misidentifications, we confirm that introducing a solid inner core is required to afford significant improvements in fits to both radial modes and core‐sensitive spheroidal overtones. Strong shear dissipation in the inner core of the radial reference Earth model, REM1D ( ⁠⁠ Q u = 89.54 ), fits the reference datasets of both normal‐mode eigenperiods and quality factors accounting for physical dispersion. Because a liquid region would only have bulk dissipation, a narrow range of low Q u values that are preferred by the reference datasets affords additional evidence of a solid inner core. In addition, we find that there is little systematic bias in the timing accuracy of historical data, although large variances exist. Investigations into the temperature, composition, and evolution of the inner core, as well as the reproducibility of past studies, can benefit from the reconciliation of historical and modern seismological datasets.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

Perspectives on transportable array Alaska background noise levels

Background seismic noise fundamentally sets a lower bound on our ability to record signals arising from earthquakes. The background noise spectrum at a station is a combination of cultural noise, ocean-generated microseism noise, intrinsic instrument self-noise, and the sensitivity of the instrument to nonseismic noise sources. The USArray-Transportable Array Alaska deployed 195 stations across Alaska and parts of Canada (Yukon, British Columbia, and Northwest Territories). These stations were all installed using similar techniques and made use of instruments with similar self-noise levels. As such, this network provides an opportunity to look at how geographic location influences seismic background. Using these broadband stations, we report background noise levels from 0.2 to 75 s period in six discrete bands. By constructing “noise maps,” we depict both spatial and temporal changes in the background noise field. Using these maps, combined with targeted analysis, we infer sources and contributing factors to noise levels in these different period bands. These include cultural noise, the formation of sea ice, seasonal changes in permafrost and wave activity in the Gulf of Alaska, and magnetic field variability. We use this study as an opportunity to review several previous studies examining seismic noise in Arctic regions.

Book chapter↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗

USGS2024

Evaluation of an open earthquake early warning system in Mexico, and laboratory tests of their sensors

Microelectromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers are useful for seismological and engineering applications because of their ability to record unsaturated large seismic signals. Recent advances in MEMS technologies enable the design of instruments with improved capabilities that also allow the recording of small signals. As a result, MEMS can be useful across a broad dynamic range and for both major earthquakes and smaller magnitude events. Here, we analyze the performance of a MEMS‐based accelerometer with the capability of real‐time data transmission. We discuss the self‐noise level, dynamic range, and sensitivity, along with the timing precision and data transmission latency, and compare these parameters to other MEMS‐based instruments. We also summarize observations from a regional network deployed in southern Mexico over a period of 3+ yr for the purpose of earthquake early warning. In addition to the sensor evaluation, we present a large, openly available data set of strong motion data from the Mexican network that comprises continuous ground‐motion records from 24 accelerometers in the period between 2017 and 2022.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

Reply to “comment on ‘an evaluation of the timing accuracy of global and regional seismic stations and networks’ by Yang et al. (2021)” by Xin Zhang and Lianxing Wen

The finding of Yang et al. (2021 ; hereafter, YSR21) casts fundamental doubts on all the previous studies on the temporal changes of the inner core (IC) surface that are based on absolute arrival times, including Wen (2006 ; hereafter, WEN06) and its follow‐up studies. The reports of small time shifts of the IC‐reflected phase ( PKiKP ) likely misinterpreted station‐related issues (clock errors and instrument changes) as evidence for rapid localized deformation at the IC surface. The comment by Zhang and Wen (2024 ; hereafter, ZW24) aims at defending the results and conclusions of WEN06 by questioning a tiny portion of the results (2 out of over 400 doublets and 3 out of over 400 problematic stations) in YSR21. In response, we acknowledge an accidental error in table S1 of YSR21, which is corrected in an erratum ( Yang et al. , 2023 ), although this does not affect the results or interpretations of YSR21. However, we strongly disagree with the criticisms in ZW24 due to many problems therein, especially the issue of irreproducibility due to its inconsistent procedures with YSR21. While the problems are related to the use of absolute arrivals in the previous studies by Wen’s group, key problems in this new comment are related to questionable data selection and inconsistent processing. We further caution the metadata updates, particularly when involving small temporal change signals. We focus on the main points in ZW24 and demonstrate that its arguments are problematic in many aspects and do not diminish the credibility of YSR21 or other related works by Yang and Song in support of the IC differential rotation.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

Uncertainty and spatial correlation in station measurements for mb magnitude estimation

The body‐wave magnitude (⁠⁠) is a long‐standing network‐averaged, amplitude‐based magnitude used to estimate the magnitude of seismic sources from teleseismic observations. The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) relies on in its global real‐time earthquake monitoring mission. Although waveform modeling‐based moment magnitudes are the modern standard to characterize earthquake size, is important because (1) in many cases, waveform modeling is not possible (e.g., low signal‐to‐noise events), (2) is applicable over a broad range of magnitudes, ∼M 4–7, and (3) there is a many decades‐long history of estimating magnitudes. We use the NEIC Preliminary Determination of Epicenters earthquake catalog to investigate the uncertainty in NEIC station measurements. We show that measurements are spatially correlated, which can bias event ⁠, and we describe an empirical relation between this spatial correlation and station‐to‐station distance. We further describe an approach to mitigate bias from the spatial correlation. Accounting for the spatial covariance of observations can change the event from −0.15 to 0.07 units (10th to 90th percentile) for smaller events (⁠⁠). These smaller events have the largest standard deviations ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 units (10th to 90th percentile).

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2024

Apparent non-double-couple components as artifacts of moment tensor inversion

Compilations of earthquake moment tensors from global and regional catalogs find pervasive non-double-couple (NDC) components with a mean deviation from a double-couple (DC) source of around 20%. Their distributions vary only slightly with magnitude, faulting mechanism, or geologic environments. This consistency suggests that for most earthquakes, especially smaller ones whose rupture processes are expected to be simpler, the NDC components are largely artifacts of the moment tensor inversion procedure. This possibility is also supported by the fact that NDC components for individual earthquakes with Mw<6.5 are only weakly correlated between catalogs. We explore this possibility by generating synthetic seismograms for the double-couple components of earthquakes around the world using one Earth model and inverting them with a different Earth model. To match the waveforms with a different Earth model, the inversion changes the mechanisms to include a substantial NDC component while largely preserving the fault geometry (DC component). The resulting NDC components have a size and distribution similar to those reported for the earthquakes in the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) catalog. The fact that numerical experiments replicate general features of the pervasive NDC components reported in moment tensor catalogs implies that these components are largely artifacts of the inversions not adequately accounting for the effects of laterally varying Earth structure.

Seismica↗

USGS2024

Preface to focus section on new frontiers and advances in global seismology

Over the last century, many of the fundamental advances in our understanding of the solid Earth have been underpinned by seismic observations recorded on long‐running networks of globally distributed seismic instruments (e.g., Agnew et al. , 1976; Romanowicz et al. , 1984; Hanka and Kind, 1994; Peterson and Hutt, 2014; Ringler et al. , 2022a). During this time, seismic data quality and the speed of dissemination have improved substantially from early analog paper records to digital, very broadband data transmitted in near‐real time (Steim, 2015) and rapidly archived in online data repositories with...

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

Noise constraints on global body‐wave measurement thresholds

Intermediate sized earthquakes (≈ M 4–6.5) are often measured using the teleseismic body‐wave magnitude ( ⁠𝑚b⁠ ). 𝑚b measurements are especially critical at the lower end of this range when teleseismic waveform modeling techniques (i.e., moment tensor analysis) are difficult. The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) determines the location and magnitude of all M 5 and greater earthquakes worldwide within 20 min of the rupture time, and therefore accurate 𝑚b magnitude estimates are essential to fulfill its mission. To better understand how network geometry and noise levels affect the global response capabilities, we developed a method to spatially estimate the minimum measurable 𝑚b⁠ . To do this, we compare expected 𝑚b amplitudes at every station to the station’s background noise level. We find that using NEIC’s current network geometry and these idealized thresholds, NEIC can potentially estimate 𝑚b magnitudes down to M 4.5 globally. Low‐latitude regions in the Southern Hemisphere present the biggest opportunity to improve monitoring capabilities. However, logistically they also present the biggest hurdles for network operators. Finally, to test the resiliency of the network we removed the 20 most important stations and found the 𝑚b threshold remains 𝑚b 4.5. However, the region where only 𝑚b 4.5 and greater can be estimated increases and is again restricted to the Southern Hemisphere.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2024

Background seismic noise levels among the Caribbean network and the role of station proximity to coastline

The amplitude and frequency content of background seismic noise is highly variable with geographic location. Understanding the characteristics and behavior of background seismic noise as a function of location can inform approaches to improve network performance and in turn increase earthquake detection capabilities. Here, we calculate power spectral density estimates in one‐hour windows for over 15 yr of vertical‐component data from the nine‐station Caribbean network (CU) and look at background noise within the 0.05–300 s period range. We describe the most visually apparent features observed at the CU stations. One of the most prominent features occurs in the 0.75–3 s band for which power levels are systematically elevated and decay as a function of proximity to the coastline. Further examination of this band on 1679 contiguous USArray Transportable Array stations reveals the same relationship. Such a relationship with coastal distance is not observed in the 4–8 s range more typical of globally observed secondary microseisms. A simple surface‐wave amplitude decay model fits the observed decay well with geometric spreading as the most important factor for stations near the coast (<∼50 km). The model indicates that power levels are strongly influenced by proximity to coastline at 0.75–3 s. This may be because power from nearshore wave action at 0.75–3 s overwhelms more distant and spatially distributed secondary microseism generation. Application of this basic model indicates that a power reduction of ∼25 dB can be achieved by simply installing the seismometer 25 km away from the coastline. This finding may help to inform future site locations and array design thereby improving network performance and data quality, and subsequently earthquake detection capabilities.

Seismological Research Letters↗