1valerio.tramutoli@unibas.it

On the potential of satellite TIR surveys for a Dynamic Assessment of (short-term) Seismic Risk: some examples from the EU-FP7 PRE-EARTHQUAKES Project

Valerio Tramutoli1,2

1 University of Basilicata, Potenza – Italy (valerio.tramutoli@unibas.it)

2 Institute of Methodologies of Environmental Analysis, CNR, Tito Scalo – Potenza – Italy

SCEC CSEP Workshop on Testing External Forecasts and PredictionsLos Angeles 7-8 May 2013

TIR SIGNAL

valerio.tramutoli@unibas.it

...

)(

0

dhh

hhTBTBR

sath

s

surfaceTS: surface temperature eDl: spectral emissivity

NOAA-16 July, 22, 2001 01GMTAVHRR Channel 4

total atmospheric transmittance and profile which depends on physical (mainly T(h) temperature profile) and chemical (mainly H2O, CO2, NH4) properties of the atmosphere

atmosphere

valerio.tramutoli@unibas.it

Data Analysis: the noise ! (natural/observational)

surface

atmospere

Atm

ospheric

transmittance

Surface

temperature

Spec

tral

emiss

ivity

orog

raph

y

Atmospheric

temperature

profile

Atmospheric humidity

profile

Time o

f day

Season

Satellite view angleSatellite

spatial

resolution

Satellite TIR

signalTIR signal is strongly variable depending on the observation time t and place r.

TIR Anomaly Monitoring by RST (Robust Satellite Technique):

the RETIRA (Robust Estimator of TIR Anomalies) index

(Tramutoli et al., RSE, 2005)

t 12

5

17

y x reducing site effects

Signal time-average µΔT(x,y) and standard deviation ΔT(x,y)

are computed at the pixel level in similar observational conditions (same month of the year, same time slot, etc.)

reducing year-to-year variability and seasonal-drift effects

The local signal excess T(x,y,τ) = T(x,y,τ) - <T(τ)> (compared with the spatial average on the scene) is the considered signal instead of its absolute local value T(x,y,τ)

• Validation/confutation approach always applied

∆T(x,y,τ) ),(

),(),,(

yx

yxyxT

T

T

V(x,y,τ) = T(x,y,τ); T(x,y,τ) = T(x,y,τ) - < T(τ)>

space-time persistence requiredknown spurious effects discarded ( Filizzola et al., 2004, Aliano et al., 2008, Genzano et al., 2009)

RST derives from RAT (Robust AVHRR Approach)

(Tramutoli , 1998)

A posteriori Validation/Confutation Analyses

(5.7 – 9.0) MAGNITUDE EQs EVENT TECHNIQUE

23 November 1980, Irpinia-Basilicata-Italy, Ms=6.9

AVHRR -DTIR (Tramutoli et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2001)

23 November 1980, Irpinia-Basilicata-Italy, Ms=6.9

AVHRR - DLST (Di Bello et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2004)

26 September 1997, Umbria, Italy Ms=5.9 to 6.4

METEOSAT - DTIR(Aliano et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2008)

3-7-12-14 October 1997, Umbria, Italy Ms=5.7 max

METEOSAT - DTIR(Aliano et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2008)

17 August 1999, Kocaeli-Izmit, Turkey, Ms=7,4 METEOSAT - TIR(Aliano et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2008)

17 August 1999, Kocaeli-Izmit, Turkey, Ms=7,4 METEOSAT - DTIR (Tramutoli et al., Rem. Sens. Env. 2005)

7 September 1999 Athens Ms=5.9 AVHRR - DLST (Filizzola et al., Phys. Chem. Earth, 2004)

7 September 1999 Athens Ms=5.9 METEOSAT - DTIR (Filizzola et al., Phys. Chem. Earth, 2004)

16 October 1999, Hector Mine, CA, Ms=7,4 GOES - DTIR (Aliano et al., Annals of Geophysics, 2008)

26 January 2001 Gujarat, India Ms=7.7 METEOSAT - DTIR (Genzano et al., Tectonophysics, 2006)

21 May 2003 Zemmouri, Algery Ms=6.9 METEOSAT - DTIR (Aliano et al., IEEE, Multi-Temp, 2007)

6 April 2009, Abruzzo, Italy M=6.3 AVHRR - DTIR, MODIS - DTIR, METEOSAT - DTIR (NHESS,Genzano et al., 2009, Pergola et al., 2010, Lisi et

al., 2010)

11 March, 2011 Tohoku, Japan M=9 MTG - DTIR (Genzano et al., AGU, 2011)

The method has been independently evaluated by two projects funded by two National Space Agencies (NASA and DLR)

Greece-Turkey 1998-2004

AVHRR 6 YEARS California 2000-2006MODIS 7 YEARS

7

V.Tramutoli__ EMSEV 2010 ___Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA ___(valerio.tramutoli@unibas.it)

Moving to multiparametric observations (Abruzzo-L’Aquila April 6th 2009 EQ)

TIR anomaliesMODIS-AVHRR-SEVIRI 30/3/09Number of EQ

January 1 up to April 6, 2009

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-5

0

5

4

2

resi

dual

days since march 31, 2009

Mag

nitu

de

CO2 fluxesMartinelli, 2009

30/3/09

Uranium groundwaterPlastino et al 2010

Genzano et al; NHESS; 2009Lisi et al; NHESS; 2010

Pergola et al; NHESS; 2010Vp/Vs anomalies

Lucente et al, (Geology, 2010)

G. Papadopoulos et al., 2010

VLF radio anomalies

VLF radio anomaliesRozhnoi et al 2009

De Santis et al., 2010

30/3/09

TEC anomalies Akhoondzadehet al., 2010

8

Laboratoire the Physique et de Chimie de l’Environment and de l’Espace - CNRS

Partners

WD IZMIRAN FIAG

UNIBAS

DLR

TUBITAK MAM

RSS

GSI

LPC2/CNRS

CHAPNOA

(increasing through Networking Membership)

National Observatory of Athens

ChapmanUniversity

Strategy

inde

pend

ent

o

bser

vatio

ns

Integration tool:Pre-Earthquakes Geoportal

(PEG)

1. Learning

Off-line integration on

past events over 3 main

testing areas/events

2. Apply in Real Time: PRIME (Pre-earthquakes Real-time Integration and Monitoring Exercise)

Real time integration

over 2 selected wide areas

Jul– Nov 2012

and tools

From “a posteriori” to real time validation/confutation

PRIME The Pre-earthquakes Real-time Integration

and Monitoring Experiment(July-November 2012)

18-JUL-2012

DECISION: To locally look to the data, Blue (Only Local) Alert Level

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

19-JUL-2012

DECISION:, REQUEST OF ATTENTION BY

PARTNERS !Yellow Alert Level

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

20-JUL-2012

DECISION:, MOVE TO RED ALERT

20-JUL-2012

22 July 2012 09:26:02 UTCM=5

ANDIRIN – KHARANMANMARA event occurred(4 days after the first anomaly observed on July 18)

PRIME results

Example 2K.Maras-Pazarcik event

(16/10/2012 M 4.6)

The game of responsibility a real time experimentPresented at the EMSEV 2012 Conference

Gotemba Japan 3 October 10:45 LT

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

28-SEPTEMBER-2012non persistent anomalies

DECISION: To Locally look to the data, Blue (Only Local) Alert Level

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

29-SEPTEMBER-2012 2 persistences close to faults

DECISION:, REQUEST OF ATTENTION BY

PARTNERS !Yellow Alert Level

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

DECISION:, MOVE TO RED ALERT

30-SEPTEMBER-20121 persistent high intensity close to the fault

01-OCTOBER-2012no anomalies (but the alert status should be

mantained for the next 6-7 days)

OCTOBER 1, 2012 (18:17 Rome time)

Why ?Color code

Total score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

DECISION:, MOVE TO RED ALERT

WHY ?

20 July 2012 (2 days before the M5 EQ)

Same shape, same place than in the previously predicted event (22 July 2012, M=5)

22 July 2012 09:26:02 UTCM=5

29 September 2012 30 September 2012

WHY ?

29 September 2012 30 September 2012Anomalies (again) following the main fault systems

OCTOBER 1, 2012 (19:43 Moscow time)PRE-EARTHQUAKES collaboration

(FIAG, Sergey Pulinets)

PRE-EARTHQUAKES final review meeting - Brussels - 15 March 2013

OTHER AVAILABLE INFOMedium term forecast (e.g. M8+, Kossobokov)

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

Color codeTotal score

Actions

Look to the data (local)

1

Look to your data (all network)

2Triggering the attention of

all partners to carefully control their data

Alert: EQ Possible 3

All partners are requested to provide their data until

green light is given.

End-Users are informed by the Local Reference

Partner

Alert: EQ Very Likely

≥4

All partners are requested to continue to provide their

data until green light is given. End-users are solicited by the Local Reference Partner to carefully consider the

general situation

(asking for other independent information)

End of Alert ≤1Come back to the original

activity status

OCTOBER 2, 2012 (13:29 Berlin time)

PRE-EARTHQUAKES collaboration (DLR, Norbert Jakowski)

28 09 2012 14:25:00 UT

28 09 2012 16:25:00 UT 28 09 2012 17:05:00 UT

29 09 2012 14:05:00 UT 29 09 2012 16:45:00 UT

More than 10 hours/day of anomaly on Sept 28-29

(see Tiger Lee speach)continuing 30 sept and Oct 1 but with

geomagnetic storms

VIOLET ALERT

Participants to the EMSEV 2012 Conference Gotemba (Japan) 3 October 2012

2 weeks later EMSEV presentation 16 October 2012

2012-10-16 10:25:05 UTC

ML 4,5Depth 39.4 Km

2012-10-16 01:16:02 UTC

ML 4,6Depth 9.2 Km

Conclusions (? only 4 months of test )

During PRIME experiment significantly persistent TIR anomalies were observed only in few cases (very often in apparent relation with earthquakes occurred within 2 weeks later).

Integration with ancillary information and/or observations allowed to increase the number of pre-alerted events

Very few earthquakes with M>4 (not necessarily the most important) have been pre-alerted compared with their total number (>60, clouds coverage playing the major preventing role).

The repetition of pre-seismic TIR anomalies with similar characteristic in the same place strongly increases reliability of the alerts (shared with the EMSEV community 2 weeks before)

The italian (DPC-INGV-S3) project on short-term earthquakes prediction

(Coord. Prof. Dario Albarello)

32

1. Describe a typical forecast: Space-time persistent TIR anomalies (not associated to known and verifiable spurious effects) can contribute to increase the alert level in the framework of a DASR System. In association with other information quality of the forecast strongly increase (no apparent relations with magnitude).

2. What area do they cover? variable from 106 up to 106 km2

a. What is the magnitude range? >4 (possible relationships among affected area and M still under study)b. How long is the time period? from 30 to few days before the EQ, co-seismic and after-seismic (until few

days after the EQ) observed (and expected)c. Do you include a probability of an event during the forecast? only Low, High, Very High alert levels are

given always in conjunction with other independent observations. Relative intensity of RETIRA index can offer (if time series are sufficiently long to justify a Gaussian-like distribution) an indication on the rarity of the anomalies. Space-time persistence, shapes, spatial relations with other static (e.g. fault system) or dynamic (e.g. seismicity) factors are also considered.

d. Do you include a confidence level in the forecast? see before

3. Describe the process for making a forecast:a. Is it automatic or manual? Automatic for TIR anomalies generation. Partly automatic for the analysis of

spurious effect and space-time persistence.b. What data are used? Thermal Infrared Radiances (10-12 micron) from different satellite sensors onboard

geostationary platforms (like MSG, GOES, MTSAT, etc.) is today preferred. Passive MWs sensors (not yet available) on geostationary satellite should significantly improve negative effects due to cloud presence and distribution (spurious effects)

4. Do you have a preference for which earthquake data should be used to test your forecasts?No

5. Do you have a preferred testing method? Real-time release of (different level of) alerts in the framework of a PRE-EARTHQUAKES like collaboration.

6. What physical hypotheses about earthquake predictability have motivated your research? Like all physical processes earthquakes (and their preparation phases) can be studied, modeled and then predicted (as it is already done at least on the long terms). No scientific proofs exists demonstrating an intrinsic EQ unpredictability. Main problem is, presently the accuracy of predictions and the poorness of the observation systems. .

Forecast Summary QuestionsTIR anomalies by RST approach and RETIRA index (Tramutoli et al., 2005)

33

RAT/RST people

Thanks