2022 Earthquake Report Summary

I present this summary of the Earthquake Reports and Interpretive Posters I prepared for earthquakes during the year 2021.
There are 6 Earthquake Reports and a number of Earthquake Report “Lites.” I also prepared a several rapid tweet maps.
There are some significant events I missed, but life is short and I have only so much available free time.
This is my 8th annual summary. I used to break out Cascadia.

  • Here is a table that lists the 2022 earthquakes with magnitudes M ≥ 6.5. I use these earthquakes to plot the cumulative energy release for earthquakes below.
  • I did not prepare a poster/report for all of these events and I prepared some reports/posters for events not on this table.


  • This is a plot showing the cumulative energy release (in Joules) for the earthquakes listed in the above table. Ask yourself if M 6.5 is a reasonable threshold to be able to visualize variations in seismic energy release during the year.
  • Note that the vertical axis is scaled differently on each plot, so the energy released in 2017 is about twice the energy released in 2022. Why do you think this is, is there a single earthquake in 2017 that controls this difference?


  • Because the vertical scale for energy release is different on each of the above plots and the energy release during 2022 was so different than 2021, I plot below the 2022 & 2021 data at the same vertical scale.


  • Here is another view of the cumulative energy release from earthquakes for the time period 2017-2022. All data are on the same vertical scale, in joules.


2022

Annual Summary Poster

  • I plot the earthquake mechanisms and epicenters for all earthquake events for which I have created interpretive posters below.
  • Click on this map, or any map or figure, to see a larger and higher resolution version of the map or figure. These files are larger in file size.
  • If anyone wants me to add their summary, just send me an email to quakejay at gmail.com


Other Annual Summaries

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Interpretive Poster Background

These Interpretive Posters all contain slightly different types and amounts of information. Below is a general guidance to what this information is. Earthquake Report pages can provide additional information about each individual interpretive interrogation.

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I may include historic earthquake epicenters with magnitudes M ≥ some magnitude threshold.
  • I include background information from published papers as inset figures on the interpretive posters. Learn more about these figures in their associated Earthquake Report.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

See all 2022 Earthquake Reports and Interpretive Posters sorted by time

Click on the name of the earthquake to go to the Earthquake Report.

E.g., click here >>> (2022.02.25 M 6.2 Sumatra) to go to the report for This earthquake.

  • 2022.02.25 M 6.2 Sumatra

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000gzyg/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper right corner is a map that shows the major plate boundaries with tectonic strain shown in red and blue. Areas that are red have a higher rate of tectonic deformation due to the motion of these plates and the orientation of the plate boundaries.
    • In the lower center is a low angle oblique view of the Sumatra subduction zone that forms the Sunda Trench. I placed a red circle in the location of the M 6.2 earthquake.
    • In the upper left center there is a map that shows the earthquake shaking intensity. Read more about this further down in this report.
    • In the upper right center is a plot showing earthquake shaking intensity (vertical axis) relative to distance from the earthquake (horizontal axis). This shows a comparison between the USGS shaking models as colored lines (also shown on the map to the left) relative to real reports from real people (the Did You Feel It? (dyfi) points).
    • Below the earthquake intensity map is a map that shows the mapped active faults, along with their slip rates from Natawidjaja (2018).
    • On the right margin are two maps that show models of earthquake triggered landslides and earthquake induced liquefaction. I describe these phenomena later in this report.
    • In the upper left corner are two maps from the Global Earthquake Model program: Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk. Read more about this later in this report.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.03.22 M 6.7 Taiwan POSTER

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000h6nr/executive

    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.05.19 M 6.9 Macquarie Islands (poster)

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000hm9j/executive

    I have not yet made a poster for this earthquake. Here is the base map for now.


  • 2022.07.27 M 7.0 Philippines (poster)

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000i5rd/executive

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.09.04 M 6.9 Mid Atlantic Ridge (Romannche fracture zone)

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i53f/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the lower right corner I include a map that shows the age of the oceanic crust in the Atlantic Ocean. Oceanic crust (or lithosphere) is created at mid ocean ridges, where there is extension that allows upward movement of magma, leading to the formation of oceanic crust. The Mid Atlantic Ridge system is one of these types of plate boundaries.
    • Above the crust age map is an illustration showing the how the crust moving away from the ocean ridges leaves behind oceanic crust. The Earth’s magnetic polarity changes at times and the oceanic crust records these changes in magnetic polarity. These changes are the main reason why we know that the crust is formed along these ridge systems. Read more here.
    • In the upper left corner is a small scale map that shows the historic seismicity, the plate boundary fault systems, and the magnetic anomalies. Places with crust formed when the magnetic field is like today, is colored red (a.k.a. normal polarity) and crust formed when the poles were reversed relative to today is blue (i.e., reversed polarity).
    • In the upper right corner is a map that shows the earthquake intensity from this earthquake (using the modified Mercalli Intensity Scale). Intensity is a measure of how strongly the shaking is felt, not a measure of the earthquake size. So, the intensity gets smaller with distance (see how the highest intensity is nearest the earthquake epicenter).
    • In the lower left center there is a map from Heezen et al. (1964). Heezen was an oceanographer that contributed greatly to our knowledge of the oceans. In this study, one of the things that they were studying is the flow of deep water (deep water flows largely because of changes in density of the seawater, controlled by salinity and temperature). Because of this, they were mapping the shape of the seafloor to see where this deep water could flow. Ths location of this map is outlined by a dashed rectangle in the main map.
    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.09.10 M 7.6 Papua New Guinea

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000iitd/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the earthquake intensity using the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Earthquake intensity is a measure of how strongly the Earth shakes during an earthquake, so gets smaller the further away one is from the earthquake epicenter. The map colors represent a model of what the intensity may be. The USGS has a system called “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) where people enter their observations from the earthquake and the USGS calculates what the intensity was for that person. The dots with yellow labels show what people actually felt in those different locations.
    • In the lower left center, there is a plate tectonic map showing the tectonic plates and their boundaries (Cloos et al., 2005). I place a yellow star in the general location of this M 7.6 earthquake.
    • On the right, above the intensity map, is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plate configuration from Cloos et al. (2005). This shows how the Australia plate may be oriented and I place a yellow star to show how the earthquake may be located within the plate (the “slab”).
    • In the upper left corner are two maps showing the probability of earthquake triggered landslides and possibility of earthquake induced liquefaction. I will describe these phenomena below.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


  • 2022.09.18 M 6.9 Taiwan

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i90q/executive

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
    • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include both the USGS epicenter and the Central Weather Bureau Seismological Center epicenter (which is probably more accurate). However, these ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
    • To the left of those two maps is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates and how they are oriented relative to each other.
    • Below that figure, in the center, is a map from Chen at al. (2020) that shows the earthquake fault mapping along eastern Taiwan. I place a yellow star in the location of the M 6.9 epicenter (the location of the earthquake on the ground surface).
    • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
    • To the left of the intensity map is a map that shows seismicity from the Central Weather Bureau Seismological Center. The locations of earthquakes from this center are better than those from the USGS since this organization runs a local seismic network (the USGS runs a global network). The local network uses more seismometers than the global network (so can detect more events, in this region).
    • To the left of this seismicity map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
    • In the upper left-center is a figure that shows the USGS earthquake slip model. This shows how much the fault slipped in different areas (based on their modeling, not observation). The model shows that there were places that may have slipped over 1.5 meters (5 feet).
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


  • 2022.09.19 M 7.6 Mexico

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i9bw/executive

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
    • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include the USGS epicenter as a red circle. However, these ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
    • On the center right is a map that shows the historic subduction zone earthquake history for the subduction zone offshore of Mexico (National Seismological Service of Mexico).
    • To the left of those two maps is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates and how they are oriented relative to each other (Manea et al., 2013).
    • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
    • On the left, below the tectonic setting map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
    • In the upper left-center is a figure that shows the USGS earthquake slip model. This shows how much the fault slipped in different areas (based on their modeling, not observation). The model shows that there were places that may have slipped over 1.25 meters (~4 feet).
    • In the lower left is a series of plots from the tide gages in the region. The location of these gages are shown on the main map. The tsunami wave height (vertical distance between the peak of the wave and the trough of the wave) ranged from 0.6m to 1.7m.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


    • Here are the plots from the tide gages operated in the region.
    • These tide gages are organized north to south, top to bottom.
    • The dark blue line is the tidal forecast. The medium blue line is the tide gage record. The light blue line is the tide gage record minus the tidal forecast (basically the tsunami plus any other influence (like atmospheric pressure influences, or storm surge, etc.).
    • The locations for these gages are labeled on the interpretive poster above.
    • The earthquake origin time is labeled in orange.
    • Time is presented in UTC.


      •

  • 2022.11.02 M 6.0 Pacific Ocean POSTER

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000ilwt/executive

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper left corner I include a large scale view of the magnetic anomaly data. These anomalies are formed at mid-ocean ridges, so are parallel to the ridges. When transform faults offset these anomalies, the anomalies get offset.
    • In the lower right corner is a map showing the USGS modeled intensity that uses the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) data.
    • In the upper left center and the lower right center I include maps from two papers that show the magnetic anomaly data for the Pacific Ocean.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.11.11 M 7.3 Tonga

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000ip0l/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
    • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
    • To the left is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
    • Further to the left is a diagram that shows the different types of earthquakes that can occur along a subduction zone.
    • In the upper right corner is a map that shows some of the historic earthquakes in the region, with the earthquake mechanisms. I labeled these events for the type of event that I interpret them to be.
    • In the upper left center is a map from Richards et al. (2011) that shows earthquake locations (epicenters) with color representing depth. I place a yellow star in the general location of today’s M 7.3 earthquake. These colors help us visualize how the Pacific plate dips deeper towards the left (yellow are shallow events and purple are deep events). The 2000.01.08 M 7.2 earthquake is an intermediate depth earthquake (see the map in the upper right corner).
    • In the right center is a map from Timm et al (2013) that also shows the depth to the slab (the downgoing Pacific plate). I place a yellow star in the general location of today’s M 7.3 earthquake.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here are the two plots for the gages that have good records. The Pago Pago record is quite clear. However, the Nukualofa gage is pretty noisy. I don’t have much confidence in the measurements of the wave size.
    • Data from both gages show a background wave sequence that makes it difficult to know when the tsunami ends. Someone who can filter out that wave series could probably do a better job at locating when the tsunami ends, at least for the Pago Pago data.
    • Pago Pago (American Samoa) https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Device/959


    • Nukualofa (Tonga Island) https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Device/950


      •

  • 2022.11.18 M 6.9 Sumatra

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000iqpn/executive

    The plate boundary offshore of Sumatra, Indonesia, is a convergent (moving together) plate boundary. Here, the Australia plate subducts northwards beneath the Sunda plate (part of the Eurasia plate) along a megathrust subduction zone fault. This subduction forms a deep sea trench, the Sunda trench.

    This was a shallow event near the trench formed by the subduction here. The magnitude was a little small for generating a large tsunami. However, it was shallow, so the deformation reached the sea floor and generated tsunami recorded on several tide gages in the region.

    These gages are operated by the Indonesian Geospatial Reference System, though there are some gages that are posted on the European Union World Sea Levels website.

    The water surface elevation data was a little noisy on these tide gage plots, but two of them had sufficient signal to justify my interpretation that these are tsunami. My interpretations could be incorrect and I include two plots below.

    • Here are the tide gage data. I label the locations for these two gage sites on the interpretive poster.



      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper right corner is a map showing historic seismicity, fault lines, and the global strain rate map (red shows area of higher tectonic strain).
    • To the left of the strain map is a figure that shows historic earthquake rupture areas and a representation of how strongly the megathrust subduction fault is (Chlieh et al., 2008).
    • In the upper left corner are maps that show the seismic hazard and seismic risk for Indonesia. I spend more time explaining this below.
    • In the center top-left is a map that shows earthquake intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
    • In the lower left center is a low angle oblique view of a cut away of the Earth along the subduction zone in Sumatra, Indonesia from EOS.
    • Above the oblique view is a plot of the tide gage from Cocos, Island.
    • In the right center is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.11.22 M 7.0 Solomon Isles

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000irfb/executive

    There are also records of tsunami and seismic waves on water level sensors in this region. A tsunami was observed on the Honiara tide gage and seismic waves observed on the Coral Sea DART Buoy 55023.

    Here are the tide gage data from https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Home. This is a small tsunami that happened on a tide gage with noisy data. So, it is difficult to tell how long the tsunami lasted here.


    Here are the DART data from the same website. I triple checked the size of the wave but it still seems a little large for a seismic wave. I could still be wrong. Feel free to contact me if you think this plot needs to be corrected! quakejay at gmail.com.


      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper left is a map that shows the plate boundary faults and a century of seismicity. The shoreline data come from GIS data at Natural Earth (a great source of fee GIS data).
    • In the center right is a map from Holm et al. (2016) that shows various key elements of the plate configuration in this region. Colors representing the age of the crust shows how the Woodlark Basin has an active spreading ridge system with ridges striking East-West. Large Igneous Provinces are shown here in dark gray. A relevant cross section is C-D, with the location highlighted in magenta on the map. The cross section shows how the North Solomon Trench is configured.
    • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
    • In the center left is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
    • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include the USGS epicenter as a yellow circle. These ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
    • In the lower center are water surface elevation (WSE) data from a tide gage in Honiara and a DART buoy located near Cocos Island. The tide gage shows a small tsunami and the DART buoy shows evidence for seismic waves from this earhquake.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.11.23 M 6.1 Turkey

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000irp8/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the tectonic strain in the region. Areas of red are deforming more from tectonic motion than are areas that are blue. Learn more about the Global Strain Rate Map project here.
    • In the upper right corner is a comparison of the shaking intensity modeled by the USGS and the shaking intensity based on peoples’ “boots on the ground” observations. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. A modeled estimate of intensity is shown by the color overlay and labels MMI 4, 5, 6, 7. The USGS Did You Feel It observations are the colored circles (color = intensity) and labeled dyfi 6.2 for example.
    • Below the strain map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
    • To the left of the intensity map is a tectonic map from Taymaz et al., 2007 that shows the main plate boundary faults and their relative senses of motion.
    • To the left of the tectonic map is a plot from Stein et al. (1997) that shows the slip from these 20th century earthquakes along the NAF.
    • To the left of the Stein figure are two histograms from the USGS PAGER Alert system. These are rapid estimates of the potential damage from this earthquake. These data help organizations understand what response programs need to be utilized to help the people in this region following this earthquake.
    • In the center right is a map from the Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe program, which shows the chance for ground shaking from earthquakes over the next 50 years.
    • In the lower right corner is a larger scale map showing the tectonic geomorphology of the region (how the landscape is sculpted by tectonic forces). This map has aftershocks from the CSEM-EMSC catalog.
    • To the right of the legend are two maps that show (left) liquefaction susceptibility and (right) landslide probability. These are based on empirical models from the USGS that show the chance an area may have experienced these processes that may have happened as a result of the ground shaking from the earthquake. I spend more time explaining these types of models and what they represent in this Earthquake Report for the recent event in Albania.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

  • 2022.12.20 M 6.4 Gorda plate

    • https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc73821036/executive

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper left corner is a map showing the western US and a century of seismicity.
    • In the upper right corner is a map that displays a variety of earthquake intensity information. I plot the USGS modeled intensity, the USGS Did You Feel It? observations of intensity, and the shaking magnitude using the Peak Ground Acceleration scale in units of g (gravitational acceleration). I describe this map later in the report.
    • To the left of the intensity map are two maps that show the probability (the chance of) earthquake triggered landslides and the susceptibility (the chance of) earthquake induced liquefaction. I will discuss these ground failure models later in the report.
    • In the lower right corner I include a plot of aftershocks from a three day period.
    • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is an updated interpretive poster with 3 day’s seismicity plotted. I describe how this poster is different
    • In the lower right corner is a map from the USGS. This map shows where they interpret the location for the causative fault for this earthquake. There are also arrows (vectors) that show how Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS, used to be called GPS) sites moved during the earthquake and how the moved using a computer simulation of the Earth that incorporate a fault that slipped like shown on the map. These arrows show the direction of motion and the amount of motion.
    • To the left of this map is the USGS finite fault model for this earthquake. The colors represent the amount that the fault slipped during the earthquake. This is the fault model that they used to estimate how the GNSS sites moved in the map to the right.
    • In the upper right corner is a map that shows the seismicty from the past week (in orange) and seismicity associated with the earthquake sequence from exactly one year before (in blue).
    • In the main part of the map I plot the earthquake mechanisms from the past century.


      •

      Aftershock Patterns

    • Yesterday I got to feel one of the aftershocks, an M 4.2 to the southeast of the main sequence.
    • Today I plotted all the aftershocks to date as of this morning. It appears that there were two main faults involved. One about 45 km long and another one about 25 km long.
    • I include earthquake mechanisms for all events that I could download today. I placed some mechanisms that may not be related to these 2 faults at 50% transparency.
    • This poster below includes a map (lower right corner) of the Cascadia subduction zone and the cross section showing how the crust deforms between (interseismic) and during (coseismic) earthquakes.
    • I also include a schematic showing where earthquakes might happen (upper left center). Earthquakes along the megathrust subduction zone fault are called interplate earthquakes (like the interstate highways connect between states).
    • Earthquakes within the Gorda or North America plates are called intraplate earthquakes. The M 6.4 was an intraplate earthquake within the Gorda plate. I don’t really have a good way to show intraplate strike-slip faults in this diagram (room for future work!).
    • In the upper right corner is the seismicity profile that I also show above in the report. When comparing the seismicity with the Guo et al. (2021) slab model, it appears that most of the earthquakes are within the Gorda crust. There are some above, possibly in the North America crust.


      •

Social Media:

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.