Abstract
The objective of this paper is to analyze the temporal clustering of large global earthquakes with respect to natural time, or interevent count, as opposed to regular clock time. To do this, we use two techniques: (1) nowcasting, a new method of statistically classifying seismicity and seismic risk, and (2) time series analysis of interevent counts. We chose the sequences of \(M_{\lambda } \ge 7.0\) and \(M_{\lambda } \ge 8.0\) earthquakes from the global centroid moment tensor (CMT) catalog from 2004 to 2016 for analysis. A significant number of these earthquakes will be aftershocks of the largest events, but no satisfactory method of declustering the aftershocks in clock time is available. A major advantage of using natural time is that it eliminates the need for declustering aftershocks. The event count we utilize is the number of small earthquakes that occur between large earthquakes. The small earthquake magnitude is chosen to be as small as possible, such that the catalog is still complete based on the Gutenberg-Richter statistics. For the CMT catalog, starting in 2004, we found the completeness magnitude to be \(M_{\sigma } \ge 5.1\). For the nowcasting method, the cumulative probability distribution of these interevent counts is obtained. We quantify the distribution using the exponent, \(\beta\), of the best fitting Weibull distribution; \(\beta = 1\) for a random (exponential) distribution. We considered 197 earthquakes with \(M_{\lambda } \ge 7.0\) and found \(\beta = 0.83 \pm 0.08\). We considered 15 earthquakes with \(M_{\lambda } \ge 8.0,\) but this number was considered too small to generate a meaningful distribution. For comparison, we generated synthetic catalogs of earthquakes that occur randomly with the Gutenberg–Richter frequency–magnitude statistics. We considered a synthetic catalog of \(1.97 \times 10^5\) \(M_{\lambda } \ge 7.0\) earthquakes and found \(\beta = 0.99 \pm 0.01\). The random catalog converted to natural time was also random. We then generated \(1.5 \times 10^4\) synthetic catalogs with 197 \(M_{\lambda } \ge 7.0\) in each catalog and found the statistical range of \(\beta\) values. The observed value of \(\beta = 0.83\) for the CMT catalog corresponds to a p value of \(p=0.004\) leading us to conclude that the interevent natural times in the CMT catalog are not random. For the time series analysis, we calculated the autocorrelation function for the sequence of natural time intervals between large global earthquakes and again compared with data from \(1.5 \times 10^4\) synthetic catalogs of random data. In this case, the spread of autocorrelation values was much larger, so we concluded that this approach is insensitive to deviations from random behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ben-Naim, E., Daub, E., & Johnson, P. (2013). Recurrence statistics of great earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(12), 3021–3025.
Bevington, P. R., & Robinson, D. K. (2003). Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bufe, C., & Perkins, D. (2011). The 2011 Tohoku earthquake: Resumption of temporal clustering of earths megaquakes. Seismological Research Letters, 82, 455.
Bufe, C. G., & Perkins, D. M. (2005). Evidence for a global seismic-moment release sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(3), 833–843.
Daub, E. G., Ben-Naim, E., Guyer, R. A., & Johnson, P. A. (2012). Are megaquakes clustered? Geophysical Research Letters, 39(6), L06308.
Daub, E. G., Trugman, D. T., & Johnson, P. A. (2015). Statistical tests on clustered global earthquake synthetic data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120(8), 5693–5716.
Dziewonski, A., Chou, T.-A., & Woodhouse, J. (1981). Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 86(B4), 2825–2852.
Ekström, G., Nettles, M., & Dziewoński, A. (2012). The global cmt project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 200, 1–9.
Field, E. H. (2007). Overview of the working group for the development of regional earthquake likelihood models (relm). Seismological Research Letters, 78(1), 7–16.
Helmstetter, A., & Sornette, D. (2002). Subcritical and supercritical regimes in epidemic models of earthquake aftershocks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B10), 2237.
Holliday, J. R., Graves, W. R., Rundle, J. B., & Turcotte, D. L. (2016). Computing earthquake probabilities on global scales. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173(3), 739–748.
Holliday, J. R., Nanjo, K. Z., Tiampo, K. F., Rundle, J. B., & Turcotte, D. L. (2005). Earthquake forecasting and its verification. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 12, 965–977.
Kagan, Y. Y., & Jackson, D. D. (2016). Earthquake rate and magnitude distributions of great earthquakes for use in global forecasts. Geophysical Journal International, 206(1), 630–643.
Luen, B., & Stark, P. B. (2012). Poisson tests of declustered catalogues. Geophysical Journal International, 189(1), 691–700.
Luginbuhl, M., Rundle, J. B., Hawkins, A., & Turcotte, D. L. (2017). Nowcasting earthquakes: A comparison of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and at The Geysers, California. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175, 49–65.
Michael, A. J. (1997). Testing prediction methods: Earthquake clustering versus the poisson model. Geophysical Research Letters, 24(15), 1891–1894.
Michael, A. J. (2011). Random variability explains apparent global clustering of large earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(21), L21301.
Parsons, T., & Geist, E. L. (2012). Were global m 8.3 earthquake time intervals random between 1900 and 2011? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1583–1592.
Parsons, T., & Geist, E. L. (2014). The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(13), 4479–4485.
Rundle, J. B., Holliday, J. R., Graves, W. R., Turcotte, D. L., Tiampo, K. F., & Klein, W. (2012). Probabilities for large events in driven threshold systems. Physical Review E, 86(2), 021106.
Rundle, J. B., Turcotte, D. L., Donnellan, A., Grant Ludwig, L., Luginbuhl, M., & Gong, G. (2016). Nowcasting earthquakes. Earth and Space. Science, 3(11), 480–486.
Shearer, P. M., & Stark, P. B. (2012). Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 109(3), 717–721.
Touati, S., Naylor, M., & Main, I. (2016). Detection of change points in underlying earthquake rates, with application to global mega-earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International, 204(2), 753–767.
Turcotte, D. L. (1997). Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varotsos, P., Sarlis, N., & Skordas, E. (2002). Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture. Physical Review E, 66(1), 011902.
Varotsos, P., Sarlis, N., Tanaka, H., & Skordas, E. (2005). Some properties of the entropy in the natural time. Physical Review E, 71(3), 032102.
Varotsos, P., Sarlis, N. V., & Skordas, E. S. (2011). Natural time analysis: The new view of time: Precursory seismic electric signals, earthquakes and other complex time series. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Weibull, W., et al. (1951). A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18(3), 293–297.
Zaliapin, I. and Kreemer, C. (2017). Systematic fluctuations in the global seismic moment release. Geophysical Research Letters.
Acknowledgements
Research by ML and JBR were supported under National Aeronautics and Space administration (NASA) grant NNX12AM22G to the University of California, Davis. All data used came from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor catalog, available at http://www.globalcmt.org/. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who helped us to significantly improve our paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luginbuhl, M., Rundle, J.B. & Turcotte, D.L. Natural Time and Nowcasting Earthquakes: Are Large Global Earthquakes Temporally Clustered?. Pure Appl. Geophys. 175, 661–670 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-1778-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-1778-0