[mturmon]

I think you intended this to be a validation of the idea that small quakes relieve stress and therefore lower the chance of a large quake.

The above link does not answer that question. It is relating stress release to "fault strength", or the maximum shear stress that can be withstood by the fault. There is an incidental relationship with depth that plays a role.

The video linked nearby (on criticality) also does not address the question at issue.

I'm only replying because I work adjacent to this area, and my understanding is that the idea that small EQ's release stress is a myth. Here [1] is another link, listed as #1 in the "Myths" category. And you can dig up quotes from none other than Lucy Jones [2] saying that this is a myth.

I don't work directly in this area, so I'm not willing to say absolutely no. But I'd really like to see a head-on reference supporting the claim that it's not a myth.

[1] https://earthquakes.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Jones

[fc417fc802]

EQs are a release of energy. That energy is stored as stress prior to release. There is a finite amount of stored energy at any given time.

So the statement "EQs release stress" is true and it follows that adding the modifier "small" to the front doesn't change this.

It should also be immediately apparent that it would be very surprising if there were not statistical implications as a result of this. So surprising in fact that I would suggest that the burden of evidence should fall on those claiming that any such statistical effects are unexpected.

[mitthrowaway2]

This part is unquestionably true. But since we don't have a direct measurement of the stored energy at a given time, the occurrence of an earthquake acts as both an indicator of release of stored energy but also, potentially, evidence of increasing stored energy.

Like how buying a Porsche costs money, and leaves you poorer than before you bought it, but when you see stranger buy a Porsche, you update towards believing that they're wealthy rather than poor.

Disclaimer: I am not a geoscientist.

[mturmon]

For real: Earth science is complex. When you have domain experts literally saying the opposite of your guesses, in a section of an outreach webpage devoted to "Myths," reconsider your position.

(Related, and profound apologies for the fb.com link: https://www.facebook.com/DLJCSS/posts/small-quakes-do-not-pr...)

(Source: Work with Earth science domain experts in $dayjob, and am often surprised when my basic intuitive arguments turn out to be wrong.)