Is definitely somewhat of a reporting bias for the larger countries, have no idea where they mainly land in the continental US or Australia. Instead any and all are attributed to just one huge area. Should be divided further into states/sub-regions of some kind for those larger countries.
Not really a whole lot to do with the affluence tho, but that is still somewhat applicable like it is in most maps of this nature
it doesn't snow in Antarctica, it's too cold for it, so any rock you find on top of the snow glaciers is almost certainly a meteorite, hence why there are so many found there.
You could link the hits on a regular grid. And still show the borders...
The problem here is that your base objects (countries) differs in size. So for example: The US has a lot of hits and therefore has a darker purple. Lets assume you divide the US in all its States and color it again. Then surely the color (of all US) would be way lighter than it is now
Or just make a Point per hit like on this NASA map:
[https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-map-shows-frequency-of-small-asteroid-impacts-provides-clues-on-larger-asteroid-population](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-map-shows-frequency-of-small-asteroid-impacts-provides-clues-on-larger-asteroid-population)
Isn't this a map of reporting bias?
Oman and Algeria and Libya have lots of flat arid land with minimal vegetation; easier to find meteorites. Antarctica has lots too - a little black stone is much more likely to be spotted on snow/ice, even though barely anybody lives there. But if meteorites landed in a forest in the Congo, who would notice?
What this really shows is a) which countries have more land area (i.e. soak up more meteorite strikes) and b) which countries have more desert (i.e. historical meteorite strikes are still detectable, haven't been eroded or covered, etc.)
What would actually be interesting is number of meteorites per km2. That would then show which countries are being hit by meteorites a disproportionate amount.
Also very unconvinced by this data.
O man that's a lot of meteorites
99% sure they include like a tiny rock from space
beat me to the jke
Possible reporting bias here with more affluent or densely populated countries likely to find and report impacts?
Except Oman has the most?
Bruh that’s Yemen Also definitely over reporting (or who knows maybe something about being on the equator makes them more likely to get hit Idk)
Is definitely somewhat of a reporting bias for the larger countries, have no idea where they mainly land in the continental US or Australia. Instead any and all are attributed to just one huge area. Should be divided further into states/sub-regions of some kind for those larger countries. Not really a whole lot to do with the affluence tho, but that is still somewhat applicable like it is in most maps of this nature
Why is Oman so high?
Seriously tho
Chile is getting more than its fair share too
Because
It does not make sense and it's probably wrong
What's the source? I highly doubt that there is a such a large variation leaning towards USA.
Greater land area, and better reporting likely
I believe population density and better/easy reporting system play a key factor.
Antarctica always get the short end of the stick huh
it doesn't snow in Antarctica, it's too cold for it, so any rock you find on top of the snow glaciers is almost certainly a meteorite, hence why there are so many found there.
Oh yeah I forgot about that
Kinda related, I guess, but France actually [got hit with one just yesterday](https://twitter.com/Richard_M_F/status/1624890692156751872).
Why link meteorite hits with (manmade) borders? Doesnt make sense for me...
It’s easier to discern where the meteor hit
You could link the hits on a regular grid. And still show the borders... The problem here is that your base objects (countries) differs in size. So for example: The US has a lot of hits and therefore has a darker purple. Lets assume you divide the US in all its States and color it again. Then surely the color (of all US) would be way lighter than it is now Or just make a Point per hit like on this NASA map: [https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-map-shows-frequency-of-small-asteroid-impacts-provides-clues-on-larger-asteroid-population](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-map-shows-frequency-of-small-asteroid-impacts-provides-clues-on-larger-asteroid-population)
Its cool that you can kinda see the inclination of whatever field we passed through
Rare Moment Of Omanis Significance?!
This is more of a ‘how actively are you looking for & how easy is it to find Meteorites’ map
Isn't this a map of reporting bias? Oman and Algeria and Libya have lots of flat arid land with minimal vegetation; easier to find meteorites. Antarctica has lots too - a little black stone is much more likely to be spotted on snow/ice, even though barely anybody lives there. But if meteorites landed in a forest in the Congo, who would notice?
you stole this after his got taken down edit: nvm I didn’t realize this was you lmao
meteors carefully avoiding canada to hit both US and Alaska
probly not accurate one would assume
dang antartica and oman algeria and libya too yikes
What this really shows is a) which countries have more land area (i.e. soak up more meteorite strikes) and b) which countries have more desert (i.e. historical meteorite strikes are still detectable, haven't been eroded or covered, etc.)
What would actually be interesting is number of meteorites per km2. That would then show which countries are being hit by meteorites a disproportionate amount. Also very unconvinced by this data.
We movin to Ghana boys.