It is quite common for physics undergraduates to take an applied mathematics course, that can be one or two semesters long, and covers complex analysis and partial differential equations.

In addition, all physics graduate students take a two-semester course in electromagnetic theory, which is mostly a grueling exercise in solving linear partial differential equations.

Finally, all undergraduate students in physics have to take lab classes, in which basic principles of the statistical analysis of measurements are studied on one’s own time (no formal course, but if you don’t figure it out, you flunk). If they go on to do real work in a lab, they usually get a lot more.

Fred: if you really feel that way, are you going short on the futures market? (and why are you smarter than the market…not saying the market is perfect…but why are you smarter than all those invisible hands motivated by gain to drive the futures price).

Guaranteeing a high price for oil would be a nightmare. the companies invest based on expectations. They can deal with the risk. That is capitalism. No price controls, boys.

Yeah, it sorta looks like sweet crude is peaking. Part of the real problem is holdups and regulations inhibiting new refineries (with different technology) and also the low sulfur regs. This has driven the heavy-sweet spread from 5$ to $15.

In the “The lure of solar forcing” thread. My follow up questions haven’t appeared… yet?

JeffN

I found this link on quantifying uncertainty interesting:
http://www.measurementuncertainty.org/mu/guide/index.html?content_frame=/mu/guide/reportuncertainty.html

START QUOTE
9.2. information required
9.2.1. A complete report of a measurement result should include or refer to documentation containing,
-a description of the methods used to calculate the measurement result and its uncertainty from the experimental observations and input data
the values and sources of all corrections and constants used in both the calculation and the uncertainty analysis
-a list of all the components of uncertainty with full documentation on how each was evaluated
END QUOTE

JeffN

Steve: which realclimate post?

I find your NOAA Paleoclimatology link somewhat annoying. Not the link itself but the content at page linked. Some comments/questions.

1. In “Fig. 2a,b Hemispheric temperature reconstructions” are those blue areas supposed to represent error/uncertainty margins? If yes it appears the error margins are the same in both hemispheres despite the dearth of data points in the Southern Hemisphere(SH). How is this possible?

2. I notice that the SH’s proxy reconstruction is much more variable than the NH’s and yet it does not show a 20th centrury warming (though this is hard to see, see my point #6).

3. The NH reconstruction becomes strangely flat btween 300 and 500 AD.

4. If the SH reconstructed climate between 1850 and 1980(?) does not match the instrument record for the same period does this invalidate the entire reconstruction? In fact it appears as though the reconstruction is not very reponsive to actual measured temperature change. Does this invalidate the methodology?

5. In the NH there appears to be an inordinant concentration of “PCs of Tree-Ring Networks” (six in fact) in bristle cone country.

6. “Figure 1″ shows a spaghetti diagram. Given the flexibility of the Internet one would think that they could present the graphs individually or grouped together as desired by the viewer with or without the expletive “Instrument record” smudging out the 20th century. Are they trying to hide something? They are succeeding.

7. Why are the “Mann and Jones with uncertainties” back to 200 AD uncertainties smaller than the “Mann et al. 1999 with uncertainties” back to 1000 AD uncertainties? Are the calculation of these uncertainties described some place?

8. Doesn’t anyone actually look at this stuff?

Grid, I do not understand your comment about “in the name of rallying”. Paul asked a question, I answered it. If you see this as something to do with rallying, then I think you are imposing your own worldview onto what I said.

“spewing out false allegations” – am I right in thinking an allegation is a statement of fact ? I think you will find that most of my post above was more in the nature of vague thoughts and impressions, which I freely admitted could be wrong. Your clue to this is where the first line says “which may be rubbish”.

Of course, the reference to my memory of my own university days was a statement of fact. I’m sure you weren’t calling that a false allegation, because that would be calling me a liar, and you are far too polite to do such a thing. I should clarify that when I said “many years ago”, I meant more than twenty years ago. I have no knowledge of whether there was a course in atmospheric sciences back then.

Regarding old-timers, is that the original chaos theory Lorentz ? If so, what I was suggesting is that he might think of himself as a Grand Old Man of Meteorology rather than a Grand Old Man of Climatology. Please note that this is not a statement of fact, because I don’t know the guy – hence the use of “I get the feeling” in my original post.

I hadn’t heard of Suki Manabe. A quick Google brings up the quote :
“I come here from Tokyo and they give me millions and millions of dollars
of computers so I can enjoy my hobby.”
Hmmm.
Well, I look forward to seeing a precise and concise write-up of what he is modelling with those computers, so I can develop my own opinion of it.

Your phrase “your effort in playing scientists” is rather patronising. This tends to annoy people, which tends to impede the free flow of discussion.
Incidentally, the plural of ‘yourself’ is ‘yourselves’, not ‘yourselfs’ as you had it. You might like to broaden your reading so you don’t make such such simple spelling errors.
See what I mean ?

Specifically, in regards to MBH, we’re mostly talking about statistical issues. IMHO, statistics is heavily under-represented in education, yet it is vitally important to scientists – particularly in one such as climate with such potentially huge margins of error. The emphasis seems to be usually on probability distrubutions and statistics revolving around the normal distribution. I’ve seen some climate scientists argue statistics with people who have a statistical background – it isn’t pretty. Yet these same climate scientists adamantly insist they are correct.

FWIW, following is the listing of some of the requirements to be admitted to the graduate program in atmospheric science at Columbia University. James Hanson is listed as a professor, Gavin Schmidt over at realclimate.org is a research scientist, etc, and the association with NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) is certainly noteworthy. So CU is far from chump change in the climate science realm.

“A participant needs a strong background in physics and mathematics, including advanced undergraduate courses in mechanics, electromagnetism, advanced calculus, and differential equations. Deficiencies should be remedied during the first year. Undergraduate courses in atmospheric sciences, earth sciences, and astronomy are helpful but not necessary.”

Interestingly enough, no mention is made at all of statistics. Yet we are to believe that many scientists are experts in applying statistical methodology to analyze data.

Also FWIW, Columbia’s only calculus courses are at the undergraduate level and there are only 4 semesters (either calc I-IV, or in combination with linear algebra in honors math I-IV).

Also, there are many “old timers” as you put it in the climatology field. Perhaps you should do some research on that fact, particularly with GFDL, before you claim otherwise. To name some recently heralded older climatologists: Ed Lorenze and Suki Manabi.

I promote your effort in playing scientists yourselfs, but please refrain from making erroneous remarks.

The issue is more a price and capital markets issue than it is a resource constraint. If the financiers could rely on a guaranteed oil price of say US$40 or US$45 per barrel for a 20 year period, then the capital would certainly be available to develop the resources I have mentioned. The difficulty is that it would likely soon result in over supply which would see the market price drop below those prices, placing pressure on the financing. So the real answer to oil supply is to find a way to guarantee oil prices of US$40 or US$45 per barrel for 20 years. You will have all the supply you want if you do. Volatility and price risk are the main factors limiting development of alternative fuels.