Research Study Ideas For College Environmental Science Program

[ConvectiveSolutions]

Hey everyone. Long time viewer here.

Anyways, this semester for my college Envi. Sci. course, I have to do a research study on some aspect of the Environment. My real passion is Atmospheric Sciences but, the school that I'm currently at does not offer it. I was thinking of measuring some kind of chemical in the atmosphere but, I'm not sure what. CO2? No. N2? Maybe. CH4? Eh.

Over the past year or so, I've finally opened my eyes, done the research, and saw all the bogus rubbish that makes up "Global Warming." I want to do something along the lines of maybe "disproving" it but then again, how do you disprove something that doesn't exist? Hm.

Anyone have any good ideas on what my research study could be on?

I'll take any and all suggestions but please, no arguing on whether AGW is real or not. There are PLENTY of other forums to do that on.

Thanks for your time!

[skierinvermont]

Why don't you do a project on the theory and evidence behind AGW and why that theory and evidence is wrong. Perhaps in the process of learning what the theory and evidence is you will learn that AGW is a reality.

[WeatherRusty]

Hey everyone. Long time viewer here.

Anyways, this semester for my college Envi. Sci. course, I have to do a research study on some aspect of the Environment. My real passion is Atmospheric Sciences but, the school that I'm currently at does not offer it. I was thinking of measuring some kind of chemical in the atmosphere but, I'm not sure what. CO2? No. N2? Maybe. CH4? Eh.

Over the past year or so, I've finally opened my eyes, done the research, and saw all the bogus rubbish that makes up "Global Warming." I want to do something along the lines of maybe "disproving" it but then again, how do you disprove something that doesn't exist? Hm.

Anyone have any good ideas on what my research study could be on?

I'll take any and all suggestions but please, no arguing on whether AGW is real or not. There are PLENTY of other forums to do that on.

Thanks for your time!

Since by definition AGW is an enhancement to the greenhouse effect why not start there. Demonstrate that man's activities are not enhancing the greenhouse effect.

When you say global warming does not exist I hope you don't mean that literally. Just about everyone acknowledges that the Earth has warmed over the past century.

[ConvectiveSolutions]

Why don't you do a project on the theory and evidence behind AGW and why that theory and evidence is wrong. Perhaps in the process of learning what the theory and evidence is you will learn that AGW is a reality.

Thanks for your input!

[ConvectiveSolutions]

Since by definition AGW is an enhancement to the greenhouse effect why not start there. Demonstrate that man's activities are not enhancing the greenhouse effect.

When you say global warming does not exist I hope you don't mean that literally. Just about everyone acknowledges that the Earth has warmed over the past century.

I'll agree that some slight decadal warming has occurred but, it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It is of little significance and certainly not from anthropogenic causes.

Furthermore, it is a known fact that the global surface-station data has been seriously compromised from the effects of urbanization and more local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes. When you compare satellite data against surface data, the satellite data wins every time.

Thanks for your input!

[skierinvermont]

Well if you are going to assert blatantly incorrect things about the climate you should expect to be corrected. if you don't want to discuss the validity of AGW, avoid the subject instead of posting baseless and fraudulent claims from skeptic blogs.

I'll agree that some slight decadal warming has occurred but, it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.

Wrong.

It is of little significance and certainly not from anthropogenic causes.

Wrong.

Satellites give direct empirical evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2.

http://www.skeptical...ct-advanced.htm

Furthermore, it is a known fact that the global surface-station data has been seriously compromised from the effects of urbanization and more local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes.

Wrong. The trend is the same at both rural and urban stations. It is confirmed by a variety of sources and quality checks.

http://www.skeptical...ts-advanced.htm

Thanks for your input!

You're welcome.

[WeatherRusty]

I'll agree that some slight decadal warming has occurred but, it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It is of little significance and certainly not from anthropogenic causes.

Furthermore, it is a known fact that the global surface-station data has been seriously compromised from the effects of urbanization and more local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes. When you compare satellite data against surface data, the satellite data wins every time.

Thanks for your input!

This is how all 5 data sets compare when plotted against the same baseline period. They all show very nearly an identical trend in temperature covering the era of satellite measurement. Far from these differing methodologies contradicting one another this replotting actually offers confirmation of the general overall accuracy of them all.

[ConvectiveSolutions]

This is how all 5 data sets compare when plotted against the same baseline period. They all show very nearly an identical trend in temperature covering the era of satellite measurement. Far from these differing methodologies contradicting one another this replotting actually offers confirmation of the general overall accuracy of them all.

That is a very nice graph but unfortunately most, if not all, of the data sets that went into that graph have been adjusted/manipulated in such a way that shows an overall upward trend. In those data sets, urban warming is allowed and warm bias is artificially introduced into the rural data sets (which show no warming in their unmanipulated states), which after being adjusted, show warming.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[ConvectiveSolutions]

Well if you are going to assert blatantly incorrect things about the climate you should expect to be corrected. if you don't want to discuss the validity of AGW, avoid the subject instead of posting baseless and fraudulent claims from skeptic blogs.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Satellites give direct empirical evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2.

http://www.skeptical...ct-advanced.htm

Wrong. The trend is the same at both rural and urban stations. It is confirmed by a variety of sources and quality checks.

http://www.skeptical...ts-advanced.htm

You're welcome.

Unfortunately, all of what you have just stated has been thoroughly disproven in A.W. Montford's book titled, "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate And The Corruption Of Science."

[WeatherRusty]

Unfortunately, all of what you have just stated has been thoroughly disproven in A.W. Montford's book titled, "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate And The Corruption Of Science."

Tell that to the National Academies of Science. Did you pay for that book?

[WeatherRusty]

That is a very nice graph but unfortunately most, if not all, of the data sets that went into that graph have been adjusted/manipulated in such a way that shows an overall upward trend. In those data sets, urban warming is allowed and warm bias is artificially introduced into the rural data sets (which show no warming in their unmanipulated states), which after being adjusted, show warming.

Garbage in, garbage out.

RSS and UAH have been manipulated too? Wow, this conspiracy has no bounds!

[BethesdaWX]

RSS and UAH have been manipulated too? Wow, this conspiracy has no bounds!

I think he was speaking of GISS/HADCRUT/NOAA, etc.

I wouldn't go as far to say they were outright manipulated, but they've definitely been "massaged", no question about that.

[ConvectiveSolutions]

Tell that to the National Academies of Science. Did you pay for that book?

Yes.

[BethesdaWX]

Unfortunately, all of what you have just stated has been thoroughly disproven in A.W. Montford's book titled, "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate And The Corruption Of Science."

I agree with you, these hockeysticks are all BS, and yes, they've been debunked..... the other 1/2 have "missing" or "lost" the data

[ConvectiveSolutions]

I think he was speaking of GISS/HADCRUT/NOAA, etc.

I wouldn't go as far to say they were outright manipulated, but they've definitely been "massaged", no question about that.

Forgive me for not clarifying. I was talking about solely the NASA/NOAA based data sets. I cannot speak for UAH and RSS but, I know for a fact that GISS/HADCRUT/NOAA have been deeply "massaged."

Heck, they've even gone on record stating: "The computer model simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends in global temperatures for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2008.php

Also, if you do some digging within the Climategate leaked emails, you will find one from the former CRU Director Phil Jones acknowledging that CRU mirrors the NOAA data. "Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. And NASA uses NOAA data applying their own adjustments as they note in their documentation here."

[nzucker]

No the graph included UAH and RSS and he said they have been manipulated.

We've found a conspiracy theorist that outdoes even you Bethesda! Step up your game!

You mean to say I'm not the biggest conspiracy theorist on this board? Damn, I feel discouraged now!

Come online for a sec?

[skierinvermont]

I think he was speaking of GISS/HADCRUT/NOAA, etc.

I wouldn't go as far to say they were outright manipulated, but they've definitely been "massaged", no question about that.

The adjustments made to the GISS/HadCRUT/NOAA temperature indexes has all been made for valid scientific reasons. All of the raw data, adjusted data, and reasons for the adjustments, are available in published documents.

[BethesdaWX]

The adjustments made to the GISS/HadCRUT/NOAA temperature indexes has all been made for valid scientific reasons. All of the raw data, adjusted data, and reasons for the adjustments, are available in published documents.

Post them, or I call BS....its BS anyway. The fact that they have not been able to defend the adjustements is key right there.

[skierinvermont]

Post them, or I call BS....its BS anyway. The fact that they have not been able to defend the adjustements is key right there.

I've posted them dozens of times before for you.

But as you said, 'it's BS anyways'... you don't care what the evidence is.

[BethesdaWX]

I've posted them dozens of times before for you.

But as you said, 'it's BS anyways'... you don't care what the evidence is.

BS...Post them

[skierinvermont]

BS...Post them

No. I get tired of compiling good peer-reviewed references for you to read when you have already told me they are BS anyways.

[BethesdaWX]

No. I get tired of compiling good peer-reviewed references for you to read when you have already told me they are BS anyways.

Post them, it takes 5 seconds.

[beneficii]

Post them, it takes 5 seconds.

skierinvermont doesn't like being toyed. There is still, however, a solution for you:

Go to skierinvermont's profile, then click "Find My Content", and then select "View All Posts by skierinvermont". There are about 40 pages, but it shouldn't take too long, especially seeing as how you're so interested in the subject.

[BethesdaWX]

I looked...nothing. Thankyou for vindication.

[stellarfun]

I looked...nothing. Thankyou for vindication.

No, you didn't. You posted that there was "nothing" at 1:24 PM. The visitor log for skier's profile says you visited at 1:45 PM.

[skierinvermont]

No, you didn't. You posted that there was "nothing" at 1:24 PM. The visitor log for skier's profile says you visited at 1:45 PM.

Not surprising he lied at all. Anyways here they are. These journal articles explain when, how, and why adjustments have been made to GHCN.

Hansen et al. 2001

Explains adjustments that were made to GISS including 1) a correction of time of observation and station history bias in the U.S. alone 2) reclassification of rural and urban stations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, 3) a change in the adjustment made for UHI.

Time of observation biases were made according to the method developed by Karl et al. 1986 which has been validated against hourly temperature data to remove time of observation bias.

Reclassification is done based on night time light data which replaces the old method of Hansen et al. 1999 of using population data. This procedure was done in the U.S., Canada, Mexico alone. In the rest of the world, stations are classified as urban and rural based on whether their population is greater than or less than 10,000.

In Hansen et al. 1999 UHI was adjusted for by making urban station trends pre-1950 and post-1950 correspond to the mean trend of surrounding rural stations within 1000km. This methodology was changed to use a flexible hinge point instead of 1950, and to use only stations within 500km. Semi-urban stations (10k-50k) were also adjusted. The ultimate point is that urban stations were adjusted to match the long-term trend of surrounding rural stations, thus eliminating the effect of UHI. In 58% of cases they were adjusted cooler, while in 42% they were adjusted warmer. In the U.S. the 100 year trend is reduced by .15C by the UHI adjustment.

In 2007, GISS fixed a small warm bias that was occurring in the U.S. because some of the updates they had made to GHCN were not being incorporated automatically in the data feed. This led to a .0003C reduction in global temperatures.

In 2010, Menne et al. demonstrated that there was no difference in trend between stations ranked as poor and very good by the surfacestations.org project led by Anthony Watts. In fact, prior to the adjustments made by USHCN, the "poor stations" showed less warming than the "good stations." This is because many of the "poor stations" shifted equipment during the 1980s which introduced a cool bias. This cool bias in the poor stations (where one would expect a warm bias) was accounted for by the USHCN adjustments. After adjustment "poor" and "good" stations did not differ.

Additional information on adjustments to U.S. temperatures can be found here:

USHCN Version 1

USHCN Version 2

The methodologies of all of the adjustments made to the data are publicly available in published documents, along with the rational and/or validation of the adjustments.

[BethesdaWX]

No, you didn't. You posted that there was "nothing" at 1:24 PM. The visitor log for skier's profile says you visited at 1:45 PM.

I admittedly looked after the fact... but I knew what I was going to find regardless. Its not there.

Post them.

[BethesdaWX]

Not surprising he lied at all. Anyways here they are. These journal articles explain when, how, and why adjustments have been made to GHCN.

Hansen et al. 2001

Explains adjustments that were made to GISS including 1) a correction of time of observation and station history bias in the U.S. alone 2) reclassification of rural and urban stations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, 3) a change in the adjustment made for UHI.

Time of observation biases were made according to the method developed by Karl et al. 1986 which has been validated against hourly temperature data.

Reclassification is done based on night time light data which replaces the old method of Hansen et al. 1999 of using population data. This procedure was done in the U.S., Canada, Mexico alone. In the rest of the world, stations are classified as urban and rural based on whether their population is greater than or less than 10,000.

In Hansen et al. 1999 UHI was adjusted for by making urban station trends pre-1950 and post-1950 correspond to the mean trend of surrounding rural stations within 1000km. This methodology was changed to use a flexible hinge point instead of 1950, and to use only stations within 500km. Semi-urban stations (10k-50k) were also adjusted. The ultimate point is that urban stations were adjusted to match the long-term trend of surrounding rural stations, thus eliminating the effect of UHI. In 58% of cases they were adjusted cooler, while in 42% they were adjusted warmer. In the U.S. the 100 year trend is reduced by .15C by the UHI adjustment.

In 2007, GISS fixed a small warm bias that was occurring in the U.S. because some of the updates they had made to GHCN were not being incorporated automatically in the data feed. This led to a .0003C reduction in global temperatures.

In 2010, Menne et al. demonstrated that there was no difference in trend between stations ranked as poor and very good by the surfacestations.org project led by Anthony Watts. In fact, prior to the adjustments made by USHCN, the "poor stations" showed less warming than the "good stations." This is because many of the "poor stations" shifted equipment during the 1980s which introduced a cool bias. This cool bias in the poor stations (where one would expect a warm bias) was accounted for by the USHCN adjustments. After adjustment "poor" and "good" stations did not differ.

Looks like I have alot of reading to do.

I'll have time to go through it all and attempt a rebuttal this weekend, when I have more time on my hands.

Thankyou for the post, was that so hard?

[skierinvermont]

Looks like I have alot of reading to do.

I'll have time to go through it all and attempt a rebuttal this weekend, when I have more time on my hands.

Thankyou for the post, was that so hard?

I have provided you with the Hansen 2001 paper and the USHCN version 1 adjustments a half dozen times in the past. And yes it was difficult, I had to waste nearly 2 hours re-reading, compiling and explaining these references to you when I already know that it will not change your mind at all. As I can see, you have already determined to "rebut" them and you have not even read them yet.

Also you may have missed an edit I made to my post to include the following:

Additional information on adjustments to U.S. temperatures can be found here:

USHCN Version 1

USHCN Version 2

The methodologies of all of the adjustments made to the data are publicly available in published documents, along with the rational and/or validation of the adjustments.

[BethesdaWX]

I have provided you with the Hansen 2001 paper and the USHCN version 1 adjustments a half dozen times in the past.

No you haven't, or I would have looked into it already.

I need to get going, please don't tempt me to respond to you via Iphone, Movie Theatres don't allow that sh*t, k bro?