Prediction methods based on seismic precursors, and hence assuming that catalogues contain the necessary information to predict earthquakes, are sometimes criticised for their sensitivity to the unavoidable catalogue errors and possible undeclared variations in the evaluation of reported magnitudes. We consider a real example and we discuss the effect, on CN predictions, of a long-lasting underestimation of the reported magnitudes.
Starting approximately in 1988, the CN functions in Central Italy evidence an anomalous behaviour, not associated with TIPs, that indicates an unusual absence of moderate events. To investigate this phenomenon, the magnitudes given in the catalogue used, which since 1980 is defined by the ING bulletins, are compared to the magnitudes reported by the global catalogue NEIC (National Earthquake Information Centre, USGS, USA) and by the regional LDG bulletins issued at the Laboratoire de Detection et de Geophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, France.
The comparison is performed between the ING bulletins and the NEIC catalogue, considering the local, ML , and duration, Md , magnitudes, first within the Central region, and then extended to the whole Italian territory. To check the consistency of the conclusions drawn from ING and NEIC data, the comparison of local magnitudes is extended to a third data set, the LDG bulletins.
The differences between duration magnitudes Md that are reported by ING and NEIC since 1983 appear quite constant with time. Starting in 1987, an average underestimation of about 0.5 can be attributed to ML reported by ING for the Central region; this difference decreases to about 0.2 when the whole Italian territory is considered. The anomalous behaviour of the CN functions disappears if a magnitude correction of +0.5 is applied to ML reported in the ING bulletins. However, such a simple magnitude shift cannot restore the real features of the seismic flow, and ING bulletins are not suitable for CN algorithm application.
