SUMMARY The rate of occurrence of anomalous ultra-low frequency electromagnetic (ULFEM) pulses has been claimed to have increased days to weeks prior to the M5.4 2007 and M4.0 2010 Alum Rock earthquakes. We re-examine the previously reported ultra-low frequency (ULF: 0.01–10 Hz) magnetic data recorded at a QuakeFinder site located 9 km from the earthquake hypocentre, and compare to data from a nearby Stanford-USGS site located 42 km from the hypocentre, to analyse the characteristics of the pulses and assess their origin. Using pulse definitions and pulse-counting algorithms analogous to those previously reported, we corroborate the increase in pulse counts before the 2007 Alum Rock earthquake at the QuakeFinder station, but we note that the number of pulses depends on chosen temporal and amplitude detection thresholds. These thresholds are arbitrary because we lack a clear physical model or basis for their selection. We do not see the same increase in pulse counts before the 2010 Alum Rock earthquake at the QuakeFinder or Stanford-USGS stations. In addition, the majority of pulses in the QuakeFinder data and Stanford-USGS data do not match temporally, indicating the pulses lack a common origin and are not from lightning or solar-driven ionospheric/magnetospheric disturbances. Our assessment of the temporal distribution of pulse counts shows pulse counts increase during peak human activity hours, suggesting these pulses result from local cultural noise and are not tectonic in origin. The many unknowns about the character and even existence of precursory earthquake pulses means that standard numerical and statistical tests cannot easily be applied. Yet here we show that exhaustive investigation of many different aspects of ULFEM signals can be used to properly characterize their origin.

Anomalous ultra-low frequency electromagnetic (ULFEM) pulses occurring before the M5.4 2007 and M4.0 2010 Alum Rock earthquakes have been claimed to increase in number days to weeks prior to each earthquake. We re-examine the previously reported ultra-low frequency (ULF: 0.01-10 Hz) magnetic data recorded at a QuakeFinder site located 9 km from the earthquake hypocenter, as well as data from a nearby Stanford-USGS site located 42 km from the hypocenter, to analyze the characteristics of the pulses and assess their origin. Using pulse definitions and pulse-counting algorithms analogous to those previously reported, we corroborate the increase in pulse counts before the 2007 Alum Rock earthquake at the QuakeFinder station, but we note that the number of pulses depends greatly on chosen temporal and amplitude detection thresholds. These thresholds are necessarily arbitrary because we lack a clear physical model or basis for their selection. We do not see the same increase in pulse counts before the 2010 Alum Rock earthquake at the QuakeFinder or Stanford-USGS station. In addition, when comparing specific pulses in the QuakeFinder data and Stanford-USGS data, we find that the majority of pulses do not match temporally, indicating the pulses are not from solar-driven ionospheric/magnetospheric disturbances or from atmospheric lightning, and lack a common origin. Notably, however, our assessment of the temporal distribution of pulse counts throughout the day shows pulse counts increase during peak human activity hours, strongly suggesting these pulses result from local cultural noise and are not tectonic in origin. The many unknowns about the character and even existence of precursory earthquake pulses means that otherwise standard numerical and statistical test cannot be applied. Yet here we show that exhaustive investigation of many different aspects of ULFEM signals can be used to properly characterize their origin.

When working with ultra-low-frequency (ULF) magnetic datasets, as with most geophysical time-series data, it is important to be able to distinguish between cultural signals, internal instrument noise, and natural external signals with their induced telluric fields. This distinction is commonly attempted using simultaneously recorded data from a spatially remote reference site. Here, instead, we compared data recorded by two systems with different instrumental characteristics at the same location over the same time period. We collocated two independent ULF magnetic systems, one from the QuakeFinder network and the other from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)-Stanford network, in order to cross-compare their data, characterize data reproducibility, and characterize signal origin. In addition, we used simultaneous measurements at a remote geomagnetic observatory to distinguish global atmospheric signals from local cultural signals. We demonstrated that the QuakeFinder and USGS-Stanford systems have excellent coherence, despite their different sensors and digitizers. Rare instances of isolated signals recorded by only one system or only one sensor indicate that caution is needed when attributing specific recorded signal features to specific origins.