Premium
Comment on “Self‐similar earthquake triggering, Båth's law, and foreshock/aftershock magnitudes: Simulations, theory, and results for southern California” by P. M. Shearer
Author(s) -
Hainzl Sebastian
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: solid earth
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.983
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 2169-9356
pISSN - 2169-9313
DOI - 10.1002/jgrb.50132
Subject(s) - foreshock , aftershock , seismology , induced seismicity , geology , similarity (geometry) , artificial intelligence , computer science , image (mathematics)
Shearer [2012] finds three differences of the seismicity clustering in southern California compared to self‐similar triggering models: (i) a significantly lower b ‐value for the aftershocks, (ii) a too large aftershock number, and (iii) a too large foreshock‐aftershock ratio to be consistent with the Båth law. Based on these observations, the author concluded that the observed seismicity is not in agreement with self‐similarity triggering and/or the observed clustering is not primarily caused by earthquake‐to‐earthquake triggering. However, I show that the observed lower b ‐value is likely related to incomplete recordings after mainshocks and that the apparently too large aftershock number does not disprove the self‐similarity. Thus, only the enhanced foreshock‐to‐aftershock ratio seems to indicate some discrepancy to self‐similar triggering.