AQA A2 Geography unit 4B 2013 June

The ZigZag booklet is swinging in that direction from what I have done, there is quite a bit on how it was weaker than the Dargield quake yet did more damage


Posted from TSR Mobile

would anyone amazing be able to talk through which is the best way to present P2, and if you compared P1 and P2 would you just use spearman's rank? would be so helpful!!

Hey! My teacher has been really helpful and has asked us to do many things for the AIB unfortunately I've been super busy with other exams and since I just finished yesterday I'm finally using my time to prepare for this one on Friday since it is my last exam!

But anyways she's asked us to do:

- A fact file on the Christchurch Feb 2011 earthquake and on the Darfield Sept 2010 earthquake.
- The reliability of the sources like the insurance company Munich Re - look through the website
- We've had to research how prepared New Zealand is for an earthquake - how have they coped with it and what they will do to prepare for future case studies
- Look up articles on each natural disaster to support and increase in global warming; e.g. Storms increase global warming
- Look through the USGS website
- Find out what responses took place for the 2011 earthquake

This is what we had to do for each of the figures:
- 4 scatter diagrams for figure P1 - one for each section of the bars
- a bar graph for figure P2
- Spearman's rank with figure P1 and P2
- Spearman's rank with figure P3 and P4

I've done the bar graph for Figure P2 and Spearman's rank for P2, I think some girls in my class have done the Spearman's and I might ask for a copy because I think they showed that there was a correlation.

I'm pretty sure she gave us more to do but I'm not too sure...I have a lunch time session now so if we do anything else I'll let you all know if you want Hope this has helped!

Thanks for this! but can you explain how to do spearmans rank? cause ive never got taught before on how to do it, thanks
nvm i found out how to do it now :P

But for spearman's rank, its between two variables, are you doing it between the global hottest years with the number of disasters
or
are you doing global hottest years against each of the different events (climatio, hydro etc...)?

Also theres like 30+ data for each, you gonna do it for all? gonna be a pain to do the rank...

I just did the spearman's rank for the data on figure P1 and figure P2 and I found a very weak negative correlation (-0.423), I'm pretty sure I'm wrong though, might need someone to check that.

Well for P1 and P2 I did the Spearman's from the years shown in P2... I'm not sure if I've done it correctly I can find out for you tonight when I ask someone in my class And I'm gonna ask my teacher to go over it tomorrow again just so I know what all this means! This is definitely my weakest point in the AIB I'm pretty confident with the earthquake information.
I also did a Spearman's for P3 and P4 which was a pain! because I did rank all 30 sets of data! It's pretty easy to do a Spearman's if you have all the numbers but with these graphs it was really hard to pick out and it was just an estimation - which in the exam if you talk about it, it's worth mentioning that results aren't accurate since the data was hard to interpret.

Alright cheers! im doing a spearmans rank on p3-p4 atm for all like 30+ data, its killing me atm....

when im done we can compare our values

Well you have to do from 1980 to 2009!! because Spearman's can only be done to a maximum of 30 values! sorry should've said it before hah just realised that's what I've done on mine

Well you have to do from 1980 to 2009!! because Spearman's can only be done to a maximum of 30 values! sorry should've said it before hah just realised that's what I've done on mine

Not sure if you can see it, but I thought I would help out. Just done Spearman's rank for P1 & P2.
The correlation is -0.159669503 so:
No linear correlation or slight negative correlation if any. Issues with this calculation: You have to exclude 2010 because you don't have the number of natural disasters for that year, and also the number of natural disasters are estimates as the scale on P1 is not small enough. Secondly the data from P1 is from a German insurance company which may be bias on unreliable as their bounds or collection methods aren't clear.