Every recorded meteorite strike on Earth since 2,300 BCE mapped

This map is a great example of how Google Mercator is not always the right projection for a visualization. Antarctica is an important source for meteorite research; black specs are easy to pick off the white ice. But this map projection completely distorts Antarctica so you can't really read that part of the data. Cool map, but sometimes the off-the-shelf map tool isn't the right choice.

Nice.<p>Some kind of explanation would be helpful, though. Apparently the size of the circle is related to the mass of the meteorite, and color is density of circles. But it took me a while to figure that out.<p>Also, what happened in Oman?<p>EDIT: Wikipedia says, "The central desert of Oman is an important source of meteorites for scientific analysis." Possibly meteorites are just easier to find there, due to properties of the terrain. Perhaps meteorite hunting is a popular sport/business, too?

More accurately described as "where people were located since 2,300 BCE that were capable of recording meteor strikes and recorded them in a form that survived until present day and made its way into a database of meteor strikes." Latitudinal variations in the density of meteor strikes wouldn't surprise me; longitudinal ones should be entirely explained by the observational effect. Hence we see a ton of meteor strikes in the continental US and virtually none in rural China, though both are on similar latitudes.

Interesting. The relatively high number in India compared to surrounding locations says to me that there is a strong component of culture (determines if things are recorded) and population density. On the other hand, flyover country in the US seems to get more than the coasts, despite population density, so perhaps light pollution on the coasts is skewing the results?

sorry, but this is another population density map

Are the patterns I see here artifacts of the data collection method, or do meteors really prefer the northern hemisphere?

I wonder what data source was used. I've confirmed a few strikes several miles from where they actually hit. (A Kendall County, TX strike appeared south of San Antonio, and a Louisville, KY strike appeared downtown while the actual strike occurred several miles from downtown.

Some of these comments raised a lot of questions about meteor distribution due to orbital/rotational effects.<p>Found some answers here: <a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=746" rel="nofollow">http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=746</a>

Logically oceans get hit at the same rate. Also land that is now under water. Are there any recorded oceanic meteor strikes in this map?<p>Oh! The one that killed the dinosaurs. It was pretty big. Maybe only the big ones leave a mark on the ocean floor.

Some explanation over the map is here <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/18/4001936/map-every-recorded-meteorite-strike-earth-2300-BCE" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/18/4001936/map-every-recorded...</a>

They seem to concentrate in areas with the means to record them

it would be interesting to overlay geography and population maps on top of this data. It seems as if the most density comes in areas with flat, unobstructed land, but also with relatively high populations. Assuming random strikes, mere desserts or population centers do not seem enough to generate density, it must be a combination of prairie/desert and people such as Kansas or Northern Texas

If you are interested on how it was made, checkout <a href="https://vimeo.com/59791629" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/59791629</a>

Interesting - there is a perception, I think, that Russia gets hit by more than their share, but actually opposite seems true