A climate research project Proposal

statistics project and need support to help me learn.

My price is for finding a true statistician who have research background with hand writing(No AI), not someone who likes to look for answers online. We need to discuss a topic and find relevant supporting data before we start. (approximate 4 page in length for this assignment
Please choose the data analysis method from this book: https://kls2177.github.io/Climate-and-Geophysical-…
I expect to receive the first draft of the document in the first 6 hours after assign you as my tutor.
Below is the rubric, an recommond datawebsite(you are free to use other data)
and I hope to achieve a score of no less than 80 points for this assignment.
Requirements: 1000
MISCELLANEOUS DATA:One of my favourite websites is Our World in Data. Here you can Þnd a variety of Earth and environmental data, including climate data. CLIMATE DATA:A good one-stop source of climate data is the NCAR Climate Data Guide: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/Primary sources:Canadian Station Data:https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.htmlSurface air temperature:GISTEMP (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)HadCRUT5 (https://www.metofÞce.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/)Satellite Data:There are so many data sets available from via the NASA EarthData portal: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/Reanalysis products:NCEP-NCAR (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html). This is an NOAA reanalysis product.NOAA 20th century reanalysis (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_ReanV2.html)North American Regional Reanalysis (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.narr.html)ERA-5 (https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/dataset/ecmwf-reanalysis-v5). This is a European reanalysis product.MERRA-2 (https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/reanalysis/MERRA-2/). This is a NASA reanalysis product.
JRA-25 (http://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-55/index_en.html). This is a Japanese reanalysis product.Gridded Precipitation Data Sets:TRMM (https://gpm.nasa.gov/data)GPCP (https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/competitive-programs/measures/next-generation-global-precipitation-climatology-project-gpcp-data-products)CHIRPS (https://www.chc.ucsb.edu/data/chirps)And, here is a list of other gridded precip data sets:https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/tables/precipitation.htmlSea Ice and Snow Data:http://nsidc.org/datahttps://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/docs.php?target=datareqhttp://www.globsnow.info/index.php?page=DataCloud Data:ISCCP: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/onlineData.htmlCloudSAT: http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/cloudsat.aspCALIPSO: https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/calipso/calipso_tableMarine surface Data:http://icoads.noaa.gov/https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.v5.htmlArgo: https://argo.ucsd.edu/data/Modes of Variability:NAO: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtmlENSO: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
AO: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtmlAAO: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.shtmlAMO: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/PNA: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/pna.shtmlArctic Ocean Data:Sheba: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/arctic/sheba/ (for 1997 only)Antarctic Station Data:READER: https://www.scar.org/data-products/ref-data-environmental-research/Global Climate Model Data:https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/Regional Climate Model Data:http://cordex.org/data-access/esgf/Statistically Downscaled Data:https://climatedata.ca/https://www.paciÞcclimate.org/datahttps://www.nccs.nasa.gov/services/data-collections/land-based-products/nex-gddp-cmip6High Resolution Gridded US data:https://prism.oregonstate.edu/explorer/
Geophysical and Climate Data Analysis Final Project Proposal + Goal-Setting Rubric CriteriaExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableIntroduction-strong intro of topic and relevance to discipline, audience
-clearly articulates the research question to be addressed
-gives structure and direction to the proposal
-very thorough review of background literature and prior work (if applicable)-purpose or objective clearly stated and appropriately focused
-strong intro to topic
-identiÞes the research question to be addressed
-full review of background literature (if applicable)-general statement
-conveys topic and key questions/subtopics
– adequate review of prior work, missing some literature (if applicable)-topic/purpose statement lacks clarity and/or focus
-research question lacks focus
-very minimal review of prior work and literature (if applicable)-lacks purpose statement
-does not identify research question
-no background review of prior work and literature (if applicable)1.25 ptsCriteria of 16
Organization (structure, ßow, development of topic, clarity)-information is very
organized with well-constructed paragraphs
-content follows a logical sequence which adds clarity to reader.
-strong transitions linking subtopics to main topic.
-paragraphs effectively relate to and support topic-information is organized with solid paragraphs

-content ßows nicely to add clarity to reader
-clear transitions link subtopics with main topics-basic ßow between sections; although not all sections in logical order
-ideas clear although paragraphs not always related to topic
-content generally clear to reader-information organized in some parts; some basic ßow to topics
-some sentences only relate to paragraphÕs main idea
-details and amount of information sparse-information is disorganized; no relation to main topic
-gaps in content leave reader confused
-no direction or ßow to paper
-lacks purpose/focus and paragraphs donÕt relate to topic/idea 1 ptsQuality of Information (support, examples, explanations)-information clearly relates to topic posed in the introduction
-content covered in depth with no redundancy
-data and methods are highly appropriate and easy to follow
-uses wide range of strong, peer-reviewed, research-based support for topic
-data source(s) clearly identiÞed-information clearly relates to topic posed in the introduction
-content clear but not original
– data and methods are somewhat appropriate and fairly easy to follow
-sources well-selected to support topic with some research-based
-data source(s) identiÞed-information somewhat clearly relates to the topic posed in the introduction
– data is appropriate; methods need improvement but easy to follow
-sources not all peer reviewed or research-based but strong support for topic
-missing one data source, if more than one data source is used-information is not entirely related to topic posed in introduction
-data and methods not appropriate and not easy to follow
-few sources to support information and topic
-missing one data source, if more than one data source is used-information has little to do with the topic posed in the introduction
-no data or methods provided;
-text repetitious
-sources missing for support of topic and insigniÞcant and/or unsubstantiated
– data source(s) not identiÞed1.5 ptsExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableCriteria of 26
Language-uses academic (or formal) discipline-speciÞc language and key terms appropriately and skillfully-uses academic terms in most areas of paper (may mix formal and informal styles)-might use contractions and may use more general and non-academic language-use of key terms limited or non-existent
-language not appropriate for level of paper-incoherent use of terms and shows lack of understanding of discipline-related language0.5 ptsGrammar and Mechanics (punctuation, spelling, clarity, paragraph structure)-there are no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors
-writing clear and concise
-shows excellent writing skills
-uses academic and formal language of discipline-there are 1 or 2 minor grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that do not deter from quality of writing
-most of writing clear and does not ramble-there are 3 or 4 minor errors in punctuation, grammar and/or spelling which do not break the ßow for the reader
-generally clear but paragraph or sentence structure repetitive-there are 1 or 2 major errors in punctuation, grammar and/or spelling which do interrupt the ßow for the reader
-unnecessary words or sentences occasionally used
-writing might ramble-there are numerous major errors in punctuation, grammar and/or spelling which make understanding of content difficult
-writing is vague and convoluted
-appears hastily written with lack of concern for quality0.5 ptsExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableCriteria of 36
Proposal (description of approach to addressing research question)-clear and logical hypothesis
-strong detailed rationale for how proposed analysis addresses research question
-very complete description of proposed statistical
procedures
-correctly identiÞes superior methods for addressing the proposed research question
-hypothesizes relevant and potentially non-obvious results that may arise in the analysis
-proposed analysis is feasible given data availability and studentÕs time and expertise-logical hypothesis
-detailed rationale for how proposed analysis addresses research question
-complete description of proposed statistical
procedures
-relevant and detailed comparisons made between methodologies
-correctly identiÞes pros/cons of each methodology for addressing the proposed research question.
-proposed analysis is feasible given data availability and studentÕs time and expertise-statement of hypothesis
-rationale for how proposed analysis addresses research question
-statistical
procedures identiÞed
-comparisons made among methods but no critical analysis to identify advantages/disadvantages of each
-proposed analysis is somewhat feasible given data availability and studentÕs time and expertise -vague hypothesis
-poor description of proposed analysis
-no comparison between methodologies
-discussion of statistical methods but no clear selection of preferred statistical approach to addressing the proposed research question
-proposed analysis may not be feasible given data availability and studentÕs time and expertise-unclear or no hypothesis
-no rationale for how proposed analysis addresses research question
-lacking coherent discussion of statistical methods
-no or incorrect comparisons made among methods
-no identiÞcations of pros/cons of methods
-no logical/relevant statements regarding data and methodology
-proposed analysis is not feasible given data availability and studentÕs time and expertise.2 ptsExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableCriteria of 46
Conclusion (synthesis of ideas, summary)-strong integration with thesis and introduction
-insightful discussion of researched material
-conclusions are logical, reasonable and strongly supported within proposal
-hypothesizes the results of the proposed analysis based on literature review-strong integration with thesis and introduction
-conclusions are logical, reasonable and strongly supported within proposal-highlights most important points of the proposal
-conclusions reasonable and relate to topic-not all statements related to thesis/topic
-some gaps in logic relating conclusions to topic
-not all important points highlighted-important points not at all identiÞed
-conclusion does not relate to topic
-no logical statements1 ptsSources (citations and references style)-all sources are accurately documented and list matches with in-text citations
-3 or more peer-reviewed sources were used
-sources are recent (within past 5 years)
-all documented using a consistent style of referencing-all sources are accurately documented and list matches with in-text citations
-2-3 peer-reviewed sources were used
-sources recent
-all documented using a consistent style-all sources are accurately documented
-1 or 2 in-text citations missing from list or vice versa
-only 1 or 2 peer-reviewed sources were used
-1 reference or citation missing or incorrectly written
-some sources not very recent-attempt to document source used is not completely accurate
-only 1 peer-reviewed source was used
-1 or more non-peer-reviewed sources used
-two references or citations missing or incorrectly written-sources used not documented
-no peer-reviewed sources used-mostly popular press and/or websites
-most citations missing or incorrectly written
-does not use a consistent style of formatting0.25 ptsExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableCriteria of 56
Goals-3-5 project goals were listed and easy to identify in a separate sub-section of proposal or in a clear, bulleted list
-goals follow the DAPPS formula; dated, achievable, personal, positive, speciÞc-2-4 project goals were listed and easy to identify
-goals mostly follow the DAPPS formula; dated, achievable, personal, positive, speciÞc-2-3 project goals were listed
-goals somewhat follow the DAPPS formula; dated, achievable, personal, positive, speciÞc-1-2 project goals were listed
-goals do not clearly follow the DAPPS formula; dated, achievable, personal, positive, speciÞc-no project goals were listed1 ptsTime-line-a Gantt chart showing major deadlines to be met and major milestones and activities to be accomplished to complete the project
-clear alignment between goals and time-line
-chart is clearly labelled and color-coded
-timeline is feasible-a Gantt chart showing major deadlines to be met and major milestones and activities to be accomplished to complete the project
-good alignment between goals and time-line
-chart is clearly labelled
-timeline is feasible-a chart showing major deadlines, and milestones to be accomplished to complete the project
-some inconsistency between goals and time-line
-chart is labelled
-timeline is somewhat feasible-a chart showing major deadlines, to be met to complete the project
-poor alignment goals and time-line
-chart no clearly labelled
-timeline may not be feasible-missing chart
-no alignment between goals and time-line
-chart is very hard to interpret (e.g., no labels)
-timeline is not feasible1 ptsExcellent (Exceeds Standards)Very Good (Occasionally Exceeds)Acceptable (Meets Standards)Marginal (Occasionally meets standards)Unacceptable (Below Standard in all aspects)Marks AvailableCriteria of 66

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *