Long-range Earthquake Forecasting with Every Earthquake a Precursor According to Scale

Scaling relations previously derived from examples of the precursory scale increase before major earthquakes show that the precursor is a long-term predictor of the time, magnitude, and location of the major earthquake. These relations are here taken as the basis of a stochastic forecasting model in which every earthquake is regarded as a precursor. The problem of identifying those earthquakes that are actually precursory is thus set aside, at the cost of limiting the strength of the resulting forecast. The contribution of an individual earthquake to the future distribution of hazard in time, magnitude and location is on a scale determined, through the scaling relations, by its magnitude. Provision is made for a contribution to be affected by other earthquakes close in time and location, e.g., an aftershock may be given low weight. Using the New Zealand catalogue, the model has been fitted to the forecasting of shallow earthquakes exceeding magnitude 5.75 over the period 1965–2000. It fits the data much better than a baseline Poisson model with a location distribution based on proximity to the epicenters of past earthquakes. Further, the model has been applied, with unchanged parameters, to the California region over the period 1975–2001. There also, it performs much better than the baseline model fitted to the same region over the period 1951–1974; the likelihood ratio is 1015 in favor of the present model. These results lend credence to the precursory scale increase phenomenon, and show that the scaling relations are pervasive in earthquake catalogues. The forecasting model provides a new baseline model against which future refinements, and other proposed models, can be tested. It may also prove to be useful in practice. Its applicability to other regions has still to be established.

[1]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  D. Rhoades,et al.  Long-term seismogenic process for major earthquakes in subduction zones , 1998 .

[3]  K. Hudnut,et al.  Slip Triggered on Southern California Faults by the 1992 Joshua Tree, Landers, and Big Bear Earthquakes , 1994 .

[4]  D. Rhoades,et al.  Model of long-term seismogenesis , 2001 .

[5]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Testable Earthquake Forecasts for 1999 , 1999 .

[6]  The precursory earthquake swarm and the inferred precursory quarm , 1999 .

[7]  David A. Rhoades,et al.  Demarcation and Scaling of Long-term Seismogenesis , 2004 .

[8]  T. Utsu A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks. , 1961 .

[9]  Y. Kagan,et al.  Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted , 1997, Science.

[10]  Rodolfo Console,et al.  A simple and testable model for earthquake clustering , 2001 .

[11]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[12]  Statistical modelling of seismicity patterns before and after the 1990 Oct 5 Cape Palliser earthquake, New Zealand , 2000 .

[13]  David A. Rhoades,et al.  The precursory earthquake swarm in New Zealand: Hypothesis tests , 1993 .

[14]  D. A. Rhoades,et al.  Time-variable factors in earthquake hazard , 1989 .

[15]  Lucile M. Jones,et al.  Prediction Probabilities From Foreshocks , 1991 .

[16]  F. F. Evison,et al.  The precursory earthquake swarm , 1977 .

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

[18]  Yosihiko Ogata,et al.  Statistical model for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis , 1989 .

[19]  Y. Ogata Space-Time Point-Process Models for Earthquake Occurrences , 1998 .