Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baldwin94)
    I got a correlation of 0.33804 so 0.34 to 2.d.p
    for which one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can do as it may help you interpret it.
    But from what I understand you just need to be able to explain what it means at A Level so:


    • Close to -1 - Negative correlation.
    • Close to 0 - No linear correlation.
    • Close to 1 - Positive correlation.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kent12)
    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
    Is there any chance you could message me the ZigZag booklet! Im really really struggling and feel it would really help???? :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary)
    for which one?
    For the spearman's rank between figure P3 and figure P4
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, I also did spearmans rank for p1 and p2 but ended up with 0.075 as my result... Still suggests there is a very weak relationship between the 2 though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could anyone help me answer the question ... "From the information provided, are hazards becoming more common"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That is so obviously going to be the 15 marker if there is one, I know that doesn't help your question but its a huge part of the booklet and it would be a big surprise if they didn't ask that question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Spearman's Rank for Figures 1 and 2 I got 0.046?

    Anyway, it basically shows you that there is no correlation, though there may be indications of a delayed correlation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alicejackson95)
    Could anyone help me answer the question ... "From the information provided, are hazards becoming more common"?
    Basically I would use the figures that you have been given to make the argument that natural disasters are becoming more common, figures 1,2,3,4 and 5 support this. Figure 2 can help you open the debate about global warming by talking about the temperatures and increased severity of weather.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alicejackson95)
    Could anyone help me answer the question ... "From the information provided, are hazards becoming more common"?
    Firstly, it seems that the quantity of natural disasters per year are increasing on the whole, with there being around 390 disasters in 1980 to a high of around 1050 in 2007. There seems to be a great increase in the amount of hydrological and meteorological events, increasing by around 300% and 200% respectively in some years. The classification of a 'natural disaster' may however, have been distorted over the years, incorporating human aspects. For example, the natural disaster in Bangladesh, the flood events, were triggered and exacerbated by humans with deforestation. In addition, economic growth may now categorise many events as 'disasters' due to the economic effect and cost of rebuilding. An increased population density in many areas of the world, especially those with high vulnerability, means that more people are also effected by these events, increasing the likelihood of it being coined a disaster. Therefore, there may only be a perceived increase of natural disasters. Wider reportings and increased communication may also increase the sense of a perceived increase in natural disasters, explaining in part, why the quantity increases on figure 1.

    There has, however, not been an increase in climatological and geophysical events, apart from yearly anomalies in figure 1. There is also an issue of the reliability of Figure 1, and so may question the increase of the natural disasters. The company is a reinsurance company, and may have a vested interest in presenting an increase in these disasters as they will gain extra funding. That said, they will also have an interest in accuracy as they will want to ascertain what money they will potentially be handing out to customers and insurance companies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do people make of the Figure P5?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    got -0.15 for p1 - p2

    and 0.317 for p3 - p4
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandHall)
    What do people make of the Figure P5?
    I don't think there's much they can really ask you to be honest. All it shows that put in perspective, the Boxing Day earthquake, whilst being absolutely huge, pales in comparison to the 1960s events. Also perhaps shows that there is not an increase in earthquakes, as thought by some. Also, it may be noted that there may also be a decrease of energy release before major events however this is a tentative link and does have some anomalies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary)
    got -0.15 for p1 - p2

    and 0.317 for p3 - p4
    Holy moly. T

    here are some quite different results here. Is that for Spearman's? I have to admit I didn't do mine myself, it was done by my geography teacher..
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EloiseB)
    Holy moly. T

    here are some quite different results here. Is that for Spearman's? I have to admit I didn't do mine myself, it was done by my geography teacher..
    yeh it is

    i think most people for p3-p4 got something along the lines of 0.3something

    and p1-p2, mainly minuses? not sure though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone tell me how I should interpret / what I should know about / What I may be asked on for Figure P7?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks so much for answering my question.........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eloiseb)
    firstly, it seems that the quantity of natural disasters per year are increasing on the whole, with there being around 390 disasters in 1980 to a high of around 1050 in 2007. There seems to be a great increase in the amount of hydrological and meteorological events, increasing by around 300% and 200% respectively in some years. The classification of a 'natural disaster' may however, have been distorted over the years, incorporating human aspects. For example, the natural disaster in bangladesh, the flood events, were triggered and exacerbated by humans with deforestation. In addition, economic growth may now categorise many events as 'disasters' due to the economic effect and cost of rebuilding. An increased population density in many areas of the world, especially those with high vulnerability, means that more people are also effected by these events, increasing the likelihood of it being coined a disaster. Therefore, there may only be a perceived increase of natural disasters. Wider reportings and increased communication may also increase the sense of a perceived increase in natural disasters, explaining in part, why the quantity increases on figure 1.

    There has, however, not been an increase in climatological and geophysical events, apart from yearly anomalies in figure 1. There is also an issue of the reliability of figure 1, and so may question the increase of the natural disasters. The company is a reinsurance company, and may have a vested interest in presenting an increase in these disasters as they will gain extra funding. That said, they will also have an interest in accuracy as they will want to ascertain what money they will potentially be handing out to customers and insurance companies.
    oh my god. Thankyou so much just seen this!! Youve made me so happy but how do you know all this!!! So so jealoussss youre going to do insane!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just interpret the sources and use my own knowledge and present it in a coherent way? I got an A last time but I need over 90% this time to get my A*.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alicejackson95)
    Can someone tell me how I should interpret / what I should know about / What I may be asked on for Figure P7?
    For this, it shows the correlation between the size of the seismic event and the quantity of the seismic events, and the anomalies. The anomalies tend to be the big events; Darfield earthquake, Christchurch (both in Feb and June) where the amount of joules released is very high (insert figures here) and the quantity of quakes is relatively low. There is then a subsequent increase in the quantity of quakes with a high amount of joules released overall which then proceeds to gradually decrease over time, suggesting that the amount of aftershocks decreased as time progresses from the original event.

    Examples from the graph: Big earthquake on the 4th Sept (Darfield) with one big event and several smaller quakes with total energy release of around 200TJ, whilst the day after, it sees a massive spike in shocks to around 71 quakes with a smaller energy release of around 11.2TJ. (I can't see the lines properly on my print out so these are only rough guides).

    You also need to be able to explain what a logorithmic graph shows (and determine relative joules measurements) and also the advantages and disadvantages of a semi-log graph.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 12, 2014
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.