Literature DB >> 22184228

Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased.

Peter M Shearer1, Philip B Stark.   

Abstract

The recent elevated rate of large earthquakes has fueled concern that the underlying global rate of earthquake activity has increased, which would have important implications for assessments of seismic hazard and our understanding of how faults interact. We examine the timing of large (magnitude M≥7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks. The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004, but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences--if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events. Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22184228      PMCID: PMC3271898          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118525109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  5 in total

1.  Earthquake nucleation by transient deformations caused by the M = 7.9 Denali, Alaska, earthquake.

Authors:  J Gomberg; P Bodin; K Larson; H Dragert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-02-12       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Spatiotemporal patterns in the energy release of great earthquakes.

Authors:  B Romanowicz
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-06-25       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 landers, california, earthquake.

Authors:  D P Hill; P A Reasenberg; A Michael; W J Arabaz; G Beroza; D Brumbaugh; J N Brune; R Castro; S Davis; D Depolo; W L Ellsworth; J Gomberg; S Harmsen; L House; S M Jackson; M J Johnston; L Jones; R Keller; S Malone; L Munguia; S Nava; J C Pechmann; A Sanford; R W Simpson; R B Smith; M Stark; M Stickney; A Vidal; S Walter; V Wong; J Zollweg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-06-11       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Remote triggering of fault-strength changes on the San Andreas fault at Parkfield.

Authors:  Taka'aki Taira; Paul G Silver; Fenglin Niu; Robert M Nadeau
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Viscosity of oceanic asthenosphere inferred from remote triggering of earthquakes

Authors: 
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

  5 in total
  2 in total

1.  How many great earthquakes should we expect?

Authors:  Gregory C Beroza
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Evidence of Systematic Triggering at Teleseismic Distances Following Large Earthquakes.

Authors:  Robert T O'Malley; Debashis Mondal; Chris Goldfinger; Michael J Behrenfeld
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.