Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by HABERMANN, R. E. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

A test of two techniques for recognizing systematic errors in magnitude estimates using data from parkfield, California

SCHOOL OF GEOPHYSICAL SCIENCES GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

Abstract

Selections of events from seismicity catalogs on the basis of size are universally made on the basis of magnitude. Such a selection implicitly assumes that these magnitudes provide a temporally consistent measure of earthquake size or that systematic errors in magnitudes are constant. Several techniques can be used to test this assumption. Results of application of these techniques to local and teleseismic catalogs indicate that in many cases this assumption cannot be justified. Two different techniques for identifying changes in systematic errors in magnitude are described here and applied to recent seismicity data from Parkfield, California. One technique relies on comparisons of seismicity rates before and after a possible change in magnitudes. The other uses station magnitude corrections to redetermine magnitudes. Both of these techniques indicate that a systematic decrease in magnitudes by 0.18 to 0.19 units occurred at Parkfield during November 1984. This decrease was associated with the installation of six low-gain stations in the Parkfield region. It is clear that changes in stations distributions can have significant effects on magnitudes and that these changes must be accounted for in all seismicity studies which use magnitude as a selection criteria. The results of past studies which have not accounted for these changes must be reevaluated.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2000; 90(4): 859 - 869.

				F. R. Zuniga and M. Wyss Inadvertent changes in magnitude reported in earthquake catalogs: Their evaluation through b-value estimates Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1995; 85(6): 1858 - 1866. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Wiemer and M. Wyss Seismic quiescence before the landers (M = 7.5) and big bear (M = 6.5) 1992 earthquakes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1994; 84(3): 900 - 916. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. WYSS Reporting history of the Central Aleutians Seismograph Network and the quiescence preceding the 1986 Andreanof Island earthquake Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1991; 81(4): 1231 - 1254. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. WYSS and Z. FU Precursory seismic quiescence before the January 1982 Hilea, Hawaii, earthquakes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1989; 79(3): 756 - 773. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. KISSLINGER An experiment in earthquake prediction and the 7 May 1986 Andreanof Islands earthquake Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1988; 78(1): 218 - 229. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. E. HABERMANN Man-made changes of seismicity rates Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1987; 77(1): 141 - 159. [Abstract] [PDF]