1 / 10

Ionosphere Precursors to the Dec 30, 2010 Mexical i Earthquake

Ionosphere Precursors to the Dec 30, 2010 Mexical i Earthquake. Rachel Thessin, CSI 763, May 11, 2010. Question. Can ionosphere precursors to the Mexicali Earthquake can be detected in TEC data?

josh
Download Presentation

Ionosphere Precursors to the Dec 30, 2010 Mexical i Earthquake

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ionosphere Precursors to the Dec 30, 2010 Mexicali Earthquake Rachel Thessin, CSI 763, May 11, 2010

  2. Question • Can ionosphere precursors to the Mexicali Earthquake can be detected in TEC data? • Test 1: Does the periodogram taken over 1 day of data (at the earthquake location) vary significantly from normal in the days preceding the earthquake? • Test 2: Does the correlation between the earthquake grid cell and grid cells near and far to the earthquake vary significantly from normal in the days preceding the earthquake?

  3. Data Overview • Earthquake: • December 30, 2009 (1848 UT), magnitude 5.8 • 32.464N 115.189W • Ionosphere Data • US TEC data from the National Geophysical Data Center • Aggregated in time and space from GPS ground data • 1 deg x 1 deg • 15 min resolution • March 2006 – December 2009 • TEC: total electron content (integral of electron density) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/USTEC/

  4. Test 1, 1 of 3 • Does the periodogram taken over 1 day of data (at the earthquake location) vary significantly from normal in the days preceding the earthquake? • Look for excursions outside 95% bounds

  5. Test 1, 2 of 3 • Near-field defined as <311 km due to earthquake influence

  6. Test 1, 3 of 3 • At earthquake site • Number of excursions per day is ~normal • Fewer number of excursions than typical • All excursions are in lower 2.5% tail of distribution • P(4 lower excursions in 1 day) = 3% (3 days before EQ) • P(no upper tail excursions over 10 days) = 0.0004% • At other sites • Also had mostly lower excursions • Most upward: 6 • 1.6% chance of six or fewer upward excursions in the ten days • Conclusion: “Signal” is indicating extremely low solar activity during earthquake period, not the earthquake

  7. Test 2, 1 of 2 • Does the correlation between the earthquake grid cell and grid cells near and far to the earthquake vary significantly from normal in the days preceding the earthquake? • Nearby locations should normally be correlated, and lose correlation before the earthquake • Far locations should be less correlated, and thus less affected by any precursor signal

  8. Test 2, 2 of 2 • Low correlation values (statistically speaking) at all locations except Flagstaff • Confirmed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test: the data are not consistent with being drawn from the same continuous distribution as a uniformly distributed data set • Conclusion: Because far-field results and near-field results are both anomalous, we are unable to conclusively link the change in correlation to the earthquake.

  9. Conclusion • Precursor signals cannot be conclusively found in this data set • Future tests: • Higher solar activity • One GPS station per test location • Avoid problems with aggregate data • Better spatial and temporal resolution • More test locations further from earthquake but in same time zone

  10. Back-up: K-S Test

More Related