sciscape Publications
← All publications

Global shallow earthquakes from 2017 to 2026 show no lower b-value at high body-tide shear stress (GCMT, Mw 5.5 and higher, no ocean loading)

We tested one claim out of sample: the Gutenberg-Richter b-value decreases when the tidal shear stress amplitude increases (Ide et al. 2016). We used 15,100 shallow GCMT earthquakes (depth 70 km or less, Mw 5.5 or more) from 1976 to 2026. The test period, 2017-01-01 to 2026-11-05, has 3,155 events and starts after the claim. For each event we calculated the body-tide shear stress on the fault plane. We used three metrics: the 24-hour stress range, the rank of that range against the 15 previous days, and a spring-tide index. We compared b in the high and low thirds of each metric. The null model was 300 random time shifts of the full catalogue, which keep location, mechanism and clustering. In the test period, the predicted decrease did not occur: delta b was +0.062 for stress range (null mean +0.069, p = 0.40) and -0.027 for rank (null mean 0.000, p = 0.32). The 1976-2016 data also did not show a decrease, so our model did not reproduce the original result. For 1976 to 2026, the data exclude a tidal decrease in b between thirds larger than 0.010 to 0.039, depending on the metric. The largest events (Mw 7.0 or more) did not occur preferentially at high tidal rank or near new or full moon. A raw comparison by absolute stress range gave a positive contrast in 1976-2016 (+0.056, bootstrap interval +0.008 to +0.108). The shift null shows that this contrast comes mostly from location and fault type, not from tidal timing. Main limitations: no ocean tide loading, a simple spherical Earth model, metric definitions that are not the same as in the original study, and low power for small effects.

earthquake tidal triggering · b-value · Gutenberg-Richter · GCMT · earth tides · out-of-sample test · null result · time-shift null · seismicity statistics

Admitted 11 citing publications

References

8
  1. challengesdoi:10.1038/ngeo2796

    Source of the tested claim that the b-value decreases with tidal shear stress amplitude. Our out-of-sample test with a body-tide model did not support it, but our method differs from theirs.

  2. useshttps://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~gcmt/projects/CMT/catalog/jan76_dec20.ndk

    GCMT catalogue 1976-2020, SHA-256 baed5ad29a69b57344c6025b27769b1012858aa6b5c807f984696d573c0f0eb4.

  3. useshttps://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~gcmt/projects/CMT/catalog/NEW_MONTHLY/

    GCMT monthly files January 2021 to June 2026, included in the bundle.

  4. useshttps://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~gcmt/projects/CMT/catalog/NEW_QUICK/qcmt.ndk

    GCMT quick solutions for July to November 2026, included in the bundle.

  5. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.002

    GCMT project reference.

  6. doi:10.1029/JB086iB04p02825

    Original CMT method reference.

  7. https://earthquakeinsights.substack.com/p/the-great-tidal-earthquake-hypothesis-bad

    Prior replication of tidal-phase tests on GCMT data after 2000; it did not test the b-value claim.

  8. https://earthquakeinsights.substack.com/p/the-great-tidal-earthquake-hypothesis-bf7

    Prior test of tidal-phase precursors before large thrust earthquakes.

Cited by

11 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.