Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 -- 2011, R.I.P

Y. Kagan, D. Jackson, R. Geller
{"title":"Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 -- 2011, R.I.P","authors":"Y. Kagan, D. Jackson, R. Geller","doi":"10.1785/0220120107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unfortunately, working scientists sometimes reflexively continue to use \"buzz phrases\" grounded in once prevalent paradigms that have been subsequently refuted. This can impede both earthquake research and hazard mitigation. Well-worn seismological buzz phrases include \"earthquake cycle,\" \"seismic cycle,\" \"seismic gap,\" and \"characteristic earthquake.\" They all assume that there are sequences of earthquakes that are nearly identical except for the times of their occurrence. If so, the complex process of earthquake occurrence could be reduced to a description of one \"characteristic\" earthquake plus the times of the others in the sequence. A common additional assumption is that characteristic earthquakes dominate the displacement on fault or plate boundary \"segments.\" The \"seismic gap\" (or the effectively equivalent \"seismic cycle\") model depends entirely on the \"characteristic\" assumption, with the added assumption that characteristic earthquakes are quasi-periodic. However, since the 1990s numerous statistical tests have failed to support characteristic earthquake and seismic gap models, and the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and 2011 Tohoku earthquake both ripped through several supposed segment boundaries. Earthquake scientists should scrap ideas that have been rejected by objective testing or are too vague to be testable.","PeriodicalId":390991,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Geophysics","volume":"242 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"86","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Geophysics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 86

Abstract

Unfortunately, working scientists sometimes reflexively continue to use "buzz phrases" grounded in once prevalent paradigms that have been subsequently refuted. This can impede both earthquake research and hazard mitigation. Well-worn seismological buzz phrases include "earthquake cycle," "seismic cycle," "seismic gap," and "characteristic earthquake." They all assume that there are sequences of earthquakes that are nearly identical except for the times of their occurrence. If so, the complex process of earthquake occurrence could be reduced to a description of one "characteristic" earthquake plus the times of the others in the sequence. A common additional assumption is that characteristic earthquakes dominate the displacement on fault or plate boundary "segments." The "seismic gap" (or the effectively equivalent "seismic cycle") model depends entirely on the "characteristic" assumption, with the added assumption that characteristic earthquakes are quasi-periodic. However, since the 1990s numerous statistical tests have failed to support characteristic earthquake and seismic gap models, and the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and 2011 Tohoku earthquake both ripped through several supposed segment boundaries. Earthquake scientists should scrap ideas that have been rejected by objective testing or are too vague to be testable.
特征地震模型,1884—2011,安息吧
不幸的是,工作中的科学家有时会条件反射性地继续使用基于曾经流行的范式的“流行语”,这些范式后来被驳斥了。这可能会阻碍地震研究和减灾工作。常用的地震学术语包括“地震周期”、“地震周期”、“地震间隙”和“特征地震”。他们都认为,除了发生的时间不同,地震序列几乎是相同的。如果是这样的话,地震发生的复杂过程可以简化为对一次“特征”地震加上其他地震发生次数的描述。一个常见的附加假设是,特征地震主导了断层或板块边界“段”上的位移。“地震间隙”(或有效等效的“地震周期”)模型完全依赖于“特征”假设,并附加了特征地震是准周期性的假设。然而,自20世纪90年代以来,许多统计测试都未能支持特征地震和地震间隙模型,2004年苏门答腊地震和2011年东北地震都撕裂了几个假定的分段边界。地震科学家应该抛弃那些已经被客观测试拒绝的想法,或者那些太模糊而无法检验的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信