2018
DOI: 10.31905/1m97csyl
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic Monitoring and Data Processing at the Norwegian National Seismic Network

Abstract: Lars Ottemöller, Marte Louise Strømme and Berit Marie Storheim report on Seismic Monitoring and Data Processing at the Norwegian National Seismic Network for the Summary of the Bulletin of the International Seismological Centre.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This includes the detection of additional events based on the OBSs, combining the OBS arrival times with the regional catalog, single event location and magnitude estimation. All processing is done with the Seisan software (Havskov et al, 2020) and we considered the NNSN catalog (Ottemöller et al, 2018) as baseline information. Note that data from the Danish database DNK, here the Greenland events, is routinely incorporated into NNSN.…”
Section: Earthquake Catalog Improvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes the detection of additional events based on the OBSs, combining the OBS arrival times with the regional catalog, single event location and magnitude estimation. All processing is done with the Seisan software (Havskov et al, 2020) and we considered the NNSN catalog (Ottemöller et al, 2018) as baseline information. Note that data from the Danish database DNK, here the Greenland events, is routinely incorporated into NNSN.…”
Section: Earthquake Catalog Improvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we point out that further investigations on the difference between M w from GCMT and regional agencies are desirable, although several papers (e.g. Patton, 1998;Patton and Randall, 2002;Hjörleifsdóttir and Ekström, 2010;Konstantinou and Rontogianni, 2011) considered this aspect. Addressing such discrepancies may have significant impacts in different types of studies (e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…We have seen in previous sections that M w GCMT and several regional M w providers fit well for strong and major earthquakes, whereas for moderate and smaller earthquakes the variability of the differences between GCMT and regional M w values is higher, with GCMT nearly always larger than regional M w values. This observation is not new as, for example, Patton (1998) and Patton and Randall (2002) showed the tendency of GCMT to overestimate seismic moments (hence of M w ) in central Asia, particularly for lowermagnitude earthquakes. It is not the scope of this work to further investigate the reasons for such differences (Hjörleifsdóttir and Ekström, 2010), as our main aim is to highlight some features of the M w from the ISC Bulletin as an instrumental resource for further research into M w .…”
Section: Comparisons Of M S and M B From The Isc With M Wmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…3) was downloaded from the Norwegian National Seismic Network webpage http://nnsn.geo.uib.no/nnsn/#/, which belongs to the University of Bergen. More details about location and processing can be found in its 2018 annual report (Ottemöller et al, 2018;Norwegian National Seismic Network, 2018). The original catalogue consists of 27,477 regional seismic events, for which local magnitude was previously calculated through the scale proposed by Alsaker et al (1991).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%