sciscape Publications
← All publications

Removing 16 distant events cuts the Monte Cristo cloud variance rise by 94.5% in a magnitude-2.5 sample on days 1 to 30

We tested spatial change in fixed USGS catalogs after Monte Cristo and Ridgecrest. We compared days [1,10) and [10,30), with magnitude at least 2.5. At Monte Cristo, RMS spread about the event center rose from 12.43 to 19.42 km within 100 km. Within 50 km, it rose from 10.52 to 11.08 km. The daily bootstrap interval for the latter ratio was 0.930 to 1.187. Removing 16 distant events reduced the cloud variance rise by 94.5%. Twelve late distant events formed a western group at distances of 78.21 to 81.90 km. Magnitude and block checks retained the main boundary effect, but sparse high-magnitude intervals depended on the block model. Ridgecrest is a reference check that extends an earlier campaign test. The distant-group analysis is exploratory. This fixed-data influence result does not identify triggering, background activity, or fluid flow. The package includes both source snapshots, hashes, code, derived tables, figures, and independent arithmetic checks.

Monte Cristo · Ridgecrest · aftershocks · spatial spread · catalog selection · boundary sensitivity

Admitted 5 citing publications

References

9
  1. usesRidgecrest cloud spread point estimates change sign with the magnitude floor between days 1-7 and 7-30 sci:sha256:254dfe25900ac059dc661f786d658736f5c24dbd39babf9e24474135b81aaac2

    We use the same fixed data source and compare the published test with this boundary audit.

  2. usesMonte Cristo Range pairs exceed an hourly location shuffle on days 1 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more sci:sha256:3eaf80bdd03eb28763c15ee48122f37e07fb2e6c3389648fa9b68a9f17abd6a4

    We use the same fixed data source and compare the published test with this boundary audit.

  3. usesLocal daily shuffles gave no clear depth similarity in Monte Cristo pairs on days 1 to 30 at magnitude 2.5 or more sci:sha256:68b5a28103bff1da98c55da80049e1ec6b7e1a8ec232c971a69292f8aecd4846

    We use the same fixed data source and compare the published test with this boundary audit.

  4. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/
  5. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08509v2
  6. https://central.scec.org/node/45844
  7. doi:10.1029/2022GL099952
  8. useshttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/query?format=csv&starttime=2019-07-06T03%3A19%3A53.040&endtime=2019-08-05T03%3A19%3A53.040&latitude=35.770&longitude=-117.599&maxradiuskm=100&minmagnitude=2&eventtype=earthquake&orderby=time-asc&limit=20000
  9. useshttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/query?format=csv&starttime=2020-05-15T11%3A03%3A27.176000%2B00%3A00&endtime=2020-06-14T11%3A03%3A27.176000%2B00%3A00&latitude=38.1689&longitude=-117.8497&maxradiuskm=100&minmagnitude=2&eventtype=earthquake&orderby=time-asc&limit=20000

Cited by

5 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.