Reply to comments by Console et al

Console et al. (2017, hereafter abbreviated as C17) object to statements inMulargia et al. (2017, hereafter abbreviated as MSG17) regarding apaper byParsons et al. (2012, hereafter abbreviated P12). The statements in question may be found on p. 71, right-hand column, line 8 to two linesfrom bottom, of MSG17. C17 appear to claim that MSG17 misrepresented P12 as favoring the characteristic earthquake model (CE). On the other hand, thefirst twosentences of P12 are“Is it best to calculate seismic hazard by attempting to identify every possible fault segment and their characteristic earthquakeruptures and rate cycles? The answer is probably yes when there is enough information to do so.”Thus P12 in fact were not unfavorable to CE. Thiscasts doubt on one of C17’s main arguments. It is notable that P12 proposes a“simple”simulator model to be used where data scarcity precludesusing CE. However, P12’s“simple”simulator model uses at leastfive parameters (P12, p.1678, bottom of left column and top of right column) tofit 6data points (P12, p.1675, middle of left column) and–despite its approximate nature–its results are presented with magnitude limits at 3 significantdigits (P12, p.1680, 1st paragraph of Section 5).