|
Analysis of flare data |
Hi all; I've done a chi-square calculation of the flare/quake data as follows; I took the cumulative daily totals for 25 flares (#3 is too recent) for mag 5+ quakes as the observed. Expected is 47036 quakes divided by 11233 days times 25 instances. Chi-square is 80.73 which is off the charts. VERY significant. Which means that the observed frequencies do not fit an average number per day value. Any suggestions? Roger Follow Ups: ● Re: Analysis of flare data - chris in suburbia 15:15:58 - 11/1/2003 (19947) (2) ● Re: Analysis of flare data - Roger Hunter 16:07:01 - 11/1/2003 (19949) (2) ● did you remove aftershocks? - John Vidale 11:02:59 - 11/2/2003 (19965) (1) ● Re: did you remove aftershocks? - Roger Hunter 13:17:08 - 11/2/2003 (19969) (0) ● Here's the chi-square calculation - Roger Hunter 16:37:43 - 11/1/2003 (19950) (1) ● Re: Here's the chi-square calculation - EQF 03:25:27 - 11/2/2003 (19957) (1) ● proton storms vs electron storms - chris in suburbia 08:16:14 - 11/2/2003 (19962) (2) ● Re: proton storms vs electron storms - EQF 00:07:41 - 11/3/2003 (19975) (1) ● Re: proton storms vs electron storms - chris in suburbia 04:12:49 - 11/3/2003 (19976) (1) ● Re: proton storms vs electron storms - EQF 06:14:24 - 11/3/2003 (19978) (0) ● quick reaction - John Vidale 11:12:41 - 11/2/2003 (19967) (1) ● Re: quick reaction - chris in suburbia 14:06:53 - 11/2/2003 (19970) (1) ● Chris; define aftershocks - Roger Hunter 14:58:33 - 11/2/2003 (19972) (1) ● John, define aftershocks - chris in suburbia 04:17:55 - 11/3/2003 (19977) (1) ● no particular favorite definition - John Vidale 22:54:12 - 11/3/2003 (19992) (1) ● Roger-P.S. on aftershocks - chris in suburbia 04:23:52 - 11/4/2003 (19996) (0) ● forgot link - chris in suburbia 15:20:10 - 11/1/2003 (19948) (0) |
|