HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References 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 Michael, A. J. Articles by Jones, L. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Seismicity alert probabilities at Parkfield, California, revisited

U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road—MS 977, Menlo Park, California 94025
U.S. Geological Survey, 525 So. Wilson Avenue, Pasadena, California 91106

Abstract

For a decade, the U.S. Geological Survey has used the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment scenario document to estimate the probability that earthquakes observed on the San Andreas fault near Parkfield will turn out to be foreshocks followed by the expected magnitude 6 mainshocks. During this time, we have learned much about the seismogenic process at Parkfield, about the long-term probability of the Parkfield mainshock, and about the estimation of these types of probabilities. The probabilities for potential foreshocks at Parkfield are reexamined and revised in light of these advances. As part of this process, we have confirmed both the rate of foreshocks before strike-slip earthquakes in the San Andreas physiographic province and the uniform distribution of foreshocks with magnitude proposed by earlier studies. Compared to the earlier assessment, these new estimates of the long-term probability of the Parkfield mainshock are lower, our estimate of the rate of background seismicity is higher, and we find that the assumption that foreshocks at Parkfield occur in a unique way is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. While the exact numbers vary depending on the assumptions that are made, the new alert probabilities are lower than previously estimated. Considering the various assumptions and the statistical uncertainties in the input parameters, we also compute a plausible range for the probabilities. The range is large, partly due to the extra knowledge that exists for the Parkfield segment, making us question the usefulness of these numbers.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Christophersen and E. G. C. Smith Foreshock Rates from Aftershock Abundance Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2008; 98(5): 2133 - 2148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Harris and J R. Arrowsmith Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake and the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, September 1, 2006; 96(4B): S1 - S10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. D. Jackson and Y. Y. Kagan The 2004 Parkfield Earthquake, the 1985 Prediction, and Characteristic Earthquakes: Lessons for the Future Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, September 1, 2006; 96(4B): S397 - S409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. R. Felzer, R. E. Abercrombie, and G. Ekstrom A Common Origin for Aftershocks, Foreshocks, and Multiplets Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2004; 94(1): 88 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Secondary Aftershocks and Their Importance for Aftershock Forecasting Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2003; 93(4): 1433 - 1448.