Warner Marzocchi | Geology Reports

USGS2024

Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions

While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision-making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near-real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF-related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non-representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user-dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.

Reviews of Geophysics↗

USGS2014

The global aftershock zone

The aftershock zone of each large (M ≥ 7) earthquake extends throughout the shallows of planet Earth. Most aftershocks cluster near the mainshock rupture, but earthquakes send out shivers in the form of seismic waves, and these temporary distortions are large enough to trigger other earthquakes at global range. The aftershocks that happen at great distance from their mainshock are often superposed onto already seismically active regions, making them difficult to detect and understand. From a hazard perspective we are concerned that this dynamic process might encourage other high magnitude earthquakes, and wonder if a global alarm state is warranted after every large mainshock. From an earthquake process perspective we are curious about the physics of earthquake triggering across the magnitude spectrum. In this review we build upon past studies that examined the combined global response to mainshocks. Such compilations demonstrate significant rate increases during, and immediately after (~ 45 min) M > 7.0 mainshocks in all tectonic settings and ranges. However, it is difficult to find strong evidence for M > 5 rate increases during the passage of surface waves in combined global catalogs. On the other hand, recently published studies of individual large mainshocks associate M > 5 triggering at global range that is delayed by hours to days after surface wave arrivals. The longer the delay between mainshock and global aftershock, the more difficult it is to establish causation. To address these questions, we review the response to 260 M ≥ 7.0 shallow (Z ≤ 50 km) mainshocks in 21 global regions with local seismograph networks. In this way we can examine the detailed temporal and spatial response, or lack thereof, during passing seismic waves, and over the 24 h period after their passing. We see an array of responses that can involve immediate and widespread seismicity outbreaks, delayed and localized earthquake clusters, to no response at all. About 50% of the catalogs that we studied showed possible (localized delayed) remote triggering, and ~ 20% showed probable (instantaneous broadly distributed) remote triggering. However, in any given region, at most only about 2–3% of global mainshocks caused significant local earthquake rate increases. These rate increases are mostly composed of small magnitude events, and we do not find significant evidence of dynamically triggered M > 5 earthquakes. If we assume that the few observed M > 5 events are triggered, we find that they are not directly associated with surface wave passage, with first incidences being 9–10 h later. We note that mainshock magnitude, relative proximity, amplitude spectra, peak ground motion, and mainshock focal mechanisms are not reliable determining factors as to whether a mainshock will cause remote triggering. By elimination, azimuth, and polarization of surface waves with respect to receiver faults may be more important factors.

Tectonophysics↗