Random variability explains apparent global clustering of large earthquakes

[1] The occurrence of 5 Mw ≥ 8.5 earthquakes since 2004 has created a debate over whether or not we are in a global cluster of large earthquakes, temporarily raising risks above long-term levels. I use three classes of statistical tests to determine if the record of M ≥ 7 earthquakes since 1900 can reject a null hypothesis of independent random events with a constant rate plus localized aftershock sequences. The data cannot reject this null hypothesis. Thus, the temporal distribution of large global earthquakes is well-described by a random process, plus localized aftershocks, and apparent clustering is due to random variability. Therefore the risk of future events has not increased, except within ongoing aftershock sequences, and should be estimated from the longest possible record of events.

[1]  Thorne Lay,et al.  Great Earthquakes and Global Seismic Networks , 2010 .

[2]  David J. Wald,et al.  PAGER-CAT: A Composite Earthquake Catalog for Calibrating Global Fatality Models , 2009 .

[3]  T. Parsons,et al.  Absence of remotely triggered large earthquakes beyond the mainshock region , 2011 .

[4]  Javier F. Pacheco,et al.  Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes, 1900 to 1989 , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[5]  B. Romanowicz.  Spatiotemporal Patterns in the Energy Release of Great Earthquakes , 1993, Science.

[6]  Tom Parsons,et al.  Global Omori law decay of triggered earthquakes: Large aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone , 2002 .

[7]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Implications of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake on tsunami forecast and assessment models for great subduction-zone earthquakes , 2007 .

[8]  W. Ellsworth,et al.  Seismicity Remotely Triggered by the Magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake , 1993, Science.

[9]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  Andrew J. Michael,et al.  Testing prediction methods: Earthquake clustering versus the Poisson Model , 1997 .

[11]  H. Benioff.  Earthquakes and rock creep(Part I: Creep characteristics of rocks and the origin of aftershocks) , 1951 .

[12]  R. Kerr.  Seismology. More megaquakes on the way? That depends on your statistics. , 2011, Science.

[13]  Markus Båth,et al.  Lateral inhomogeneities of the upper mantle , 1965 .

[14]  Warner Marzocchi,et al.  A double branching model for earthquake occurrence , 2008 .

[15]  Francesco Mulargia,et al.  Retrospective validation of the time association of precursors , 1997 .

[16]  H. Kanamori,et al.  A moment magnitude scale , 1979 .

[17]  H. Lilliefors.  On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for the Exponential Distribution with Mean Unknown , 1969 .

[18]  Kenji Satake,et al.  Time and size of a giant earthquake in Cascadia inferred from Japanese tsunami records of January 1700 , 1996, Nature.

[19]  E. Brodsky.  The 2004-2008 Worldwide Superswarm , 2009 .

[20]  Warner Marzocchi,et al.  Evidence of clustering and nonstationarity in the time distribution of large worldwide earthquakes , 2007 .

[21]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  3-D inhomogeneities in the upper mantle , 1981 .

[22]  D. Perkins,et al.  Evidence for a global seismic-moment release sequence , 2005 .

[23]  E. R. Engdahl,et al.  41 - Global Seismicity: 1900–1999 , 2002 .

[24]  L. Knopoff,et al.  Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? , 1974, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[25]  Aaron A. Velasco,et al.  Global ubiquity of dynamic earthquake triggering , 2008 .