The author, in Raghukanth (2010), has compiled an earthquake catalog for India and the neighboring region from various sources and used a clearly defined procedure for estimating the seismicity parameters. The obtained recurrence parameters were compared with that reported in the literature. Nath and Thingbaijam (2010, hereinafter NT) disagree with the methodology for deriving the spatial variation of seismicity parameters for India. NT's objections to the methodology are based on their theoretical interpretation and misunderstanding. I disagree with almost all of NT's comments but limit my reply to the following salient remarks....
Reply to “Comment on 'Estimation of Seismicity Parameters for India' by S. T. G. Raghukanth” by S. K. Nath and K. K. S. Thingbaijam
S. T. G. Raghukanth; Reply to “Comment on 'Estimation of Seismicity Parameters for India' by S. T. G. Raghukanth” by S. K. Nath and K. K. S. Thingbaijam. Seismological Research Letters ; 81 (6): 1004–1005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.6.1004
Download citation file: