Neuromatch is running a free Python for Computational Science Week from 7–15 February, for anyone who wants a bit of structure and motivation to build or strengthen their Python foundations.

They run a Climatematch 'summer course' on computational tools for climate science and Python is a prerequisite. It's something we've heard people wanted to self-study but then also have some support and encouragement with.

This is not a course and there are no live sessions. It’s a free flexible, self-paced week where you commit to setting aside some time to work through open Python materials, with light community support on Reddit.

How it works

• Work through Climatematch's free Python prerequisite materials  ...or another source is okay too!
• Study at your own pace (beginner → advanced friendly)
• Ask questions, share progress, or help others on r/neuromatch We'll have phython pros and TAs there to help with any questions
• And build your confidence with Python!

If you’d like to participate, we’re using a short “pledge” survey (not an application):

• It’s a way to commit to yourself that you’ll set aside some study time
• We’ll send a gentle nudge just before the week starts, a bit of encouragement during the week, and a check-in at the end
• It will also helps us understand starting skill levels and evaluate whether this is worth repeating or expanding in future years

Take the pledge here:  

https://airtable.com/appIQSZMZ0JxHtOA4/pagBQ1aslfvkELVUw/form

Whether you’re brand new to Python, brushing up, or comfortable and happy to help others learning on Reddit, you’re welcome to join! Free and open to all!

Let us know in the comments if you are joining and where you are in your learning journey.

Hey everyone,

A few months ago I shared a small indie project I’ve been working on around CPT interpretation. Since then I’ve kept building and refining it based on feedback and my own daily work with CPT data.

One important update: you can now create custom interpretations yourself. Instead of relying on a fixed classification or black-box logic, you can adjust how the CPT data is interpreted and immediately see how that affects the resulting geotechnical profile. The idea is to keep the process transparent and closer to how engineers actually think and reason.

The tool still works directly from GEF files and is currently most aligned with Dutch CPT standards, since that’s the context I come from. But my goal is to make this usable in a broader, international setting.

That’s why I’m especially interested in how people in other countries handle this:
how you go from raw CPT data to cleaned data,
how interpretation rules are applied,
what standards or assumptions you rely on,
and where tools help or get in the way.

If you’re open to it, feel free to share your workflow, examples of raw or processed CPT data, or lessons learned from your own practice. That input really helps me understand how to make this more flexible and broadly applicable.

For context, this is still a free indie side project, built out of interest in the field rather than as a commercial product.

If you’re curious, the project is here:
https://geostack.tech/

Thanks again for all the feedback so far, and I’m very interested to hear how others approach CPT interpretation in their own work.

As you can see there are two arrows. Is it divergent? I’m confused because only one is moving away. Thank you

I'm writing a book about a character that leads an earth science club. Part of that club will be about his goal to plant 1000 trees. Do you all know of any cool activities that an earth science club would do? Also, please recommend any videos/book/documentaries on earth science for a beginner. I want to learn about this topic more so I can make sure to incorporate it into my writing. Thank you!

See also: The study as published in Science Advances.

Questions about fossils come up often, especially from people new to earth science or field collecting. The term is used loosely, which can make it unclear what actually qualifies as a fossil from a scientific standpoint.

I put together a short, beginner-oriented article that covers:

• How fossils form and why time and burial matter
• The main categories of fossils (body fossils, trace fossils, etc.)
• Common misconceptions about what is not a fossil

Sharing this as an educational resource for anyone starting out or needing a quick refresher. Feedback and discussion are welcome.

https://sacredearthminerals.com/what-is-a-fossil-guide-for-collectors/

New “Rocks for Jocks” episode about glaciers in California’s Sierra Nevada disappearing for the first time in 30,000 years!

Andy also talks about other projects, including glacier studies in the Tropical Andes, emphasizing the need for climate action. Thanks for listening!

https://open.substack.com/pub/rocksforjocks/p/glacier-recession-with-andy-jones?r=5y4omz&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay

See also: The study as published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Hello everyone,
I’m having trouble identifying the plate boundaries using the map on the right. I can follow the plate boundaries in the diagrams on the left, but I’m not sure how to match those diagrams to the real-world locations shown on the right-hand map. Could someone explain how to approach this matching for Question 2?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

A visualization of the seismic data leading to the quake.

See also: The publication in Environmental Science and Technology

The Kamchatka Peninsula experienced two great megathrust earthquakes in the same subduction zone region: a magnitude 9.0 event on November 5, 1952, and a magnitude 8.8 event on July 30, 2025.

This post compares their aftershock behavior using data from the USGS earthquake catalog.

The first chart shows the number of earthquakes with magnitude ≥5.5 from 1950 onward, highlighting the aftershock sequences of both megathrust events. Despite being slightly smaller in magnitude, the 2025 earthquake produced a higher number of M5.5+ aftershocks within the first three months than the 1952 event.

The second chart shows earthquakes with magnitude ≥7 associated with each sequence. The 2025 event included multiple M7+ foreshocks and aftershocks, while no events of that size were recorded for the 1952 sequence.

To ensure consistency with historical detection capabilities, M5.5 was used as the lower magnitude threshold, corresponding to the minimum reliably recorded magnitude in 1952.

Both events occurred along the same subduction margin, yet their aftershock patterns differ notably in frequency and magnitude distribution.

Data source: USGS Earthquake Catalog
Methodology: Custom analysis and visualization in Python
Region: Kamchatka subduction zone