An official website of the United States government
Abstract We report on the mountain top observation of three terrestrial gamma‐ray flashes (TGFs) that occurred during the summer storm season of 2021. To our knowledge, these are the first TGFs observed in a mountaintop environment and the first published European TGFs observed from the ground. A gamma‐ray sensitive detector was located at the base of the Säntis Tower in Switzerland and observed three unique TGF events with coincident radio sferic data characteristic of TGFs seen from space. We will show an example of a “slow pulse” radio signature (Cummer et al., 2011,https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048099; Lu et al., 2011,https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016141; Pu et al., 2019,https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082743; Pu et al., 2020,https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089427), a −EIP (Lyu et al., 2016,https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070154; Lyu et al., 2021,https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093627; Wada et al., 2020,https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031730), and a double peak TGF associated with an extraordinarily powerful and complicated positive‐polarity sferic, where each TGF peak is possibly preceded by a short burst of stepped leader emission.
more »
« less
False Positives in the Identification of Dynamic Earthquake Triggering
Abstract Dynamic earthquake triggering is commonly identified through the temporal correlation between increased seismicity rates and global earthquakes that are possible triggering events. However, correlation does not imply causation. False positives may occur when unrelated seismicity rate changes coincidently occur at around the time of candidate triggers. We investigate the expected false positive rate in Southern California with globalM ≥ 6 earthquakes as candidate triggers. We compute the false positive rate by applying the statistical tests used by DeSalvio and Fan (2023),https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487to synthetic earthquake catalogs with no real dynamic triggering. We find a false positive rate of ∼3.5%–8.5% when realistic earthquake clustering is present, consistent with the 95% confidence typically used in seismology. However, when this false positive rate is applied to the tens of thousands of spatial‐temporal windows in Southern California tested in DeSalvio and Fan (2023),https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487, thousands of false positives are expected. The expected false positive occurrence is large enough to explain the observed apparent triggering following 70% of large global earthquakes (DeSalvio & Fan, 2023,https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jb026487), without requiring any true dynamic triggering. Aside from the known triggering from the nearby El Mayor‐Cucapah, Mexico, earthquake, the spatial and temporal characteristics of the reported triggering are indistinguishable from random false positives. This implies that best practice for dynamic triggering studies that depend on temporal correlation is to estimate the false positive rate and investigate whether the observed apparent triggering is distinguishable from the correlations that may occur by chance.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2022441
- PAR ID:
- 10648617
- Publisher / Repository:
- AGU
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
- Volume:
- 130
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 2169-9313
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Terrestrial gamma ray flashes (TGFs) are high‐energy photon bursts that have been linked to short bursts of electromagnetic radiation associated with lightning activity. The most puzzling unexplained aspect of these events is that gamma rays originate from very compact regions of space while the source regions often seem to be optically dim and radio silent when compared to processes in ordinary lightning discharges. In this work, we report a mechanism that allows precise quantitative explanation of these peculiar features of TGFs and their relationships to the observed waveform characteristics of associated radio emissions. The mechanism represents an extension of earlier ideas on feedback processes in growth of relativistic runaway electron avalanches (Dwyer, 2003,https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017781), and is based on a recent demonstration of the dominant role of the photoelectric feedback on compact spatial scales (Pasko, Celestin, et al., 2023,https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102710). Since discussed events often occur in isolation or precede formation of lightning discharges, the reported findings propose a straightforward solution for the long‐standing problem of lightning initiation.more » « less
-
Abstract We analyze nearest‐neighbor proximities of earthquakes in California based on the joint distribution (T,R) of rescaled timeTand rescaled distanceRbetween pairs of earthquakes (Zaliapin & Ben‐Zion, 2013a,https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50179), using seismic catalogs from several regions and several catalogs for the San Jacinto Fault Zone (SJFZ). The study aims to identify informative modes in nearest‐neighbor diagrams beyond the general background and clustered modes, and to assess seismic catalogs derived by different methods. The results show that earthquake clusters with large and small‐to‐medium mainshocks have approximately diagonal and horizontal (T,R) distributions of the clustered mode, respectively, reflecting different triggering distances of mainshocks. Earthquakes in the creeping section of San Andreas Fault have a distinct “repeaters mode” characterized by very large rescaled timesTand very small rescaled distancesR, due to nearly identical locations of repeating events. Induced seismicity in the Geysers and Coso geothermal fields follow mostly the background mode, but with larger rescaled timesTand smaller rescaled distancesRcompared to tectonic background seismicity. We also document differences in (T,R) distributions of catalogs constructed by different techniques (analyst‐picks, template‐matching and deep‐learning) for the SJFZ, and detect a mode with very largeRand smallTin the template‐matching and deep‐learning based catalogs. This mode may reflect dynamic triggering by passing waves and/or catalog artifacts.more » « less
-
Abstract Jiang et al. (2023),https://doi.org/10.1029/2023gl103777argue that the apparent impact of the equatorial Atlantic on El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a statistical artifact, and that the 6‐month lead correlation reported in previous studies stems from early developing ENSO events driving the equatorial Atlantic zonal mode (AZM) in boreal summer and maturing in winter. Closer examination, however, reveals that most AZM events develop too early to be driven by developing ENSO, and that the influence of decaying ENSO events has to be considered too. Thus, while early developing ENSO events may play a role, they do not fully explain observed AZM behavior. Our aim is not to argue for or against an AZM influence on ENSO, but rather to show that Jiang et al.’s analysis is insufficient to resolve this issue. More analysis will be needed for a deeper understanding of Atlantic‐Pacific interaction.more » « less
-
Abstract Liu et al. (2022,https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093691) used Rayleigh waves extracted from the cross‐correlation of ambient noise recorded by two stations to monitor the seismic velocity variations associated with the 2018 Kı̄lauea eruption. However, their study ignored the fact that the tremors on the Island of Hawai'i were dominated by a source at the Kı̄lauea summit before the eruption. Close inspection of the waveforms of the station pair PAUD‐STCD shows a simple, mistakenly identified wave traveling direction in Liu et al. (2022,https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093691). A correct wave traveling direction agrees with the noise source model, where the dominant tremor source should be at the Kı̄lauea summit. Because of the drastic change in the tremor source after the eruption, the cross‐correlation of the tremor records may reflect predominantly changes in the source rather than in the medium properties between the two stations.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JB031566
