Options
Gerstenberger, M. C.
Loading...
5 results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- PublicationOpen AccessCollaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability(2007-05-31)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Jordan, T. H.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Gerstenberger, M.; GNS Science Lower Hutt, New Zealand ;Liukis, M.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Maechling, P. J.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Schorlemmer, D.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland ;Zechar, J. D.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;CSEP Collaboration; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Cocco, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Console, R.; INGV, Rome, Italy ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland; ; Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability595 356 - PublicationOpen AccessForecasting Seismicity on Local to Regional Scale(2007-05-31)
; ; ; ; ;Woessner, J.; ETH, Zurich,Switzerland ;Gerstenberger, M.; GNS Science Lower Hutt, New Zealand ;Werner, M. J.; Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Department of Eart and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Cocco, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Console, R. ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland; Forecasting Seismicity on Local to Regional Scale134 422 - PublicationRestrictedA retrospective comparative forecast test on the 1992 Landers sequence(2011)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Woessner, J.; ETH, Zurich ;Hainzl, S.; GFZ, Potsdam ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Werner, M. J.; ETH, Zurich ;Lombardi, A. M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Catalli, F.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Enescu, B.; GFZ, Potsdam ;Cocco, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Gerstenberger, M.; GNS, New Zealand ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; We perform a retrospective forecast experiment on the 1992 Landers sequence comparing the predictive power of commonly used model frameworks for short‐term earthquake forecasting. We compare a modified short‐term earthquake probability (STEP) model, six realizations of the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model, and four models that combine Coulomb stress changes calculations and rate‐and‐state theory to generate seismicity rates (CRS models). We perform the experiment under the premise of a controlled environment with predefined conditions for the testing region and data for all modelers. We evaluate the forecasts with likelihood tests to analyze spatial consistency and the total amount of forecasted events versus observed data. We find that (1) 9 of the 11 models perform superior compared to a simple reference model, (2) ETAS models forecast the spatial evolution of seismicity best and perform best in the entire test suite, (3) the modified STEP model matches best the total number of events, (4) CRS models can only compete with empirical statistical models by introducing stochasticity in these models considering uncertainties in the finite‐fault source model, and (5) resolving Coulomb stress changes on 3‐D optimally oriented planes is more adequate for forecasting purposes than using the specified receiver fault concept. We conclude that statistical models perform generally better than the tested physics‐based models and parameter value updates using the occurrence of aftershocks generally improve the predictive power in particular for the purely statistical models in space and time.199 16 - PublicationOpen AccessThe New Zealand Earthquake Forecast Testing Centre(2007-05-31)
; ; ;Gerstenberger, M.; GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand ;Rhoades, D; GNS Science Lower Hutt, New Zealand; ; ; ;Cocco, Massimo; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, ItaliaThe New Zealand Earthquake Forecast Testing Centre136 451 - PublicationRestrictedOperational earthquake forecasting can enhance earthquake preparedness(2014)
; ; ; ; ;Jordan, T. H.; Univ Southern California ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Michael, A.; USGS ;Gerstenberger, M. C.; GNS; ; ; We cannot yet predict large earthquakes in the short term with much reliability and skill, but the strong clustering exhibited in seismic sequences tells us that earthquake probabilities are not constant in time; they generally rise and fall over periods of days to years in correlation with nearby seismic activity. Opera- tional earthquake forecasting (OEF) is the dissemination of authoritative information about these time-dependent proba- bilities to help communities prepare for potentially destructive earthquakes. The goal of OEF is to inform the decisions that people and organizations must continually make to mitigate seismic risk and prepare for potentially destructive earthquakes on time scales from days to decades. To fulfill this role, OEF must provide a complete description of the seismic hazard—ground-motion exceedance probabilities as well as short-term rupture probabilities—in concert with the long-term forecasts of probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA).298 30