text:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
It would seem to me by far the most important thing would be to find an advisor who was a top researcher in the field (which a new graduate can probably figure out from google scholar), and who is tolerably likable and has a track record of graduating PhDs who go on to be successful researchers in their own right. So pick a school/major that makes several such folks potentially available.
Comment by Stuart Staniford — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:20 PM
One might check the web site for climate modeler Professor Steve Easterbrook
Comment by richard pauli — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:39 PM
It seems to me (a climate scientist) that if someone has "a deep-seated desire to help the planet remain as habitable as possible" they are probably better off studying engineering than climate science. Studying the planet is something altogether different from "helping" it.
Comment by Eric — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:44 PM
Excellent advice!! I gave my new graduate students a starter problem, then told them to define 3-5 more and different problems, assemble what it took to solve the problems, solve the problems, and publish the solutions. When they could tell me they could take care of themselves professionally, they were ready to graduate. The objective was to learn how to learn, and to create self confidence by repeated success. Diversity is critical. The things that will allow you to be productive, competitive, and satisfied 10-15 years from now have yet to be invented!! You are living in interesting times.
Comment by Lou Smith — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:47 PM
Newly graduated math major wrote: "I am someone with a deep-seated desire to help the planet remain as habitable as possible in the face of the trials humanity is putting it through. I'd like to devote my career to this cause …"
With all due respect to climate scientists, I would suggest that a career in climate science is not the best way to "devote your career" to "helping the planet remain as habitable as possible".
Climate science has, of course, elucidated the problem of anthropogenic global warming, and in doing so it is fair to say that climate science MAY have indeed "saved the world" — but ONLY if we, as individuals and as a global society, ACT on the knowledge that climate science has given us.
And that is where I would suggest you direct your efforts: not to further STUDY of the problem, but towards ACTION to SOLVE the problem, by developing and deploying the technologies, policies and practices needed to eliminate anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of GHGs.
Comment by SecularAnimist — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:50 PM
My response would be similar, but for a specific reason. Find an area that you are passionate about, whether its a specific branch of mathematics or an application of math, or even a broad area. A PhD is a hugely committing process, with many ups and downs along the way. It takes more than just a logical rationale to provide motivation through the process – a healthy mixture of logic and emotional attraction will have a much higher likelihood of success.
Comment by David Douglas — 15 Jan 2013 @ 6:53 PM
Study your own mind, then all problem solving will be much easier.
Then read Derrick Jensen, I would highly recommend Deep Green Resistance.
If that doesn't light a fire in your soul, nothing will. Just as important as the How, is the Why, of doing anything.
Comment by Sean Canton — 15 Jan 2013 @ 7:15 PM
I think you showed real wisdom in not trying dictate your own ideals and goals to the student but instead encouraging them to find their own path, plus offering some specific, practical suggestions for a maths student.
I teach environmental law, including climate law, to environmental management, science, planning and engineering students in Australia and I am often asked about study and career options.
Three things that I commonly do when asked about this are:
1. Find out what interests the student and encourage them to pursue their own path using the skills and experiences that are unique to them.
2. Suggest that they think of their careers as a marathon, not a sprint, so they can view their initial jobs and study as stepping stones in which they aquire knowledge and skills to do higher roles later in their careers.
3. Remind them that they need to balance their careers with family, friends and fun so that they don't burn-out and fall off their chosen path. Burn-out is a real problem for people working on climate change because the problems often seem over-whelming. I tell them that I often go bushwalking to reconnect with nature and to recharge.
For students who are struggling for answers and need a wider framework within which to anchor themselves, one book that I often recommend is the late Stephen Covey's book, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", particularly the chapter on personal leadership.
Comment by Chris McGrath — 15 Jan 2013 @ 7:46 PM
I'll share my own perspective from a graduate student:
My Bachelor's degree and current graduate track is all in "pure" Atmospheric Science. I chose to supplement that with some additional physics in undergrad, and many of my peers have made similar choices with mathematics or computer science "minors" or "double majors."
Depending on the school you go to, if you choose to go this route, you'll almost certainly be required to take courses in atmospheric thermodynamics, a couple fluid dynamics courses, and possibly radiation. These are the "bare bones" courses that atmospheric science students take regardless of whether they branch off into climate, synoptic meteorology, tropical hurricane dynamics, numerical weather prediction, etc, etc. After these essential courses are taken, the student will typically take elective courses that are suited for their own research interests.
As soon as you hit the research realm, you'll need statistics and programming background, as Gavin mentioned. I was hit with this realization as a student not too long ago, and the unfortunate fact is that many atmospheric science programs do not offer adequate "training" in those subjects. So, you need to take electives and learn it on your own. I'm still in the process of trying to use "R" as a toolkit for getting my work done, and many others around me use MATLAB. Fortran is popular in this discipline though I think is becoming an ancient language at University (I've had computer science roommates at Columbia who looked at me funny when I mentioned fortran).
I've found through atmospheric science courses and even a bit of astrophysics, that these courses are to a physics background what physics is to mathematics (this has been especially true in dynamics and synoptic meteorology). What I mean by this, is that you will gain an immense appreciation for being able to look at a complex equation and be astonished at how much you can apply it to the real world. It's fascinating to be able to look at a weather map, and then from an equation you just spent an hour deriving, tell yourself where the clouds are going to form. With all due to respect to pure physicists, I also think it is also much more interesting than studying the behavior of a proton in a box. It's stuff that I can also explain to friends, whereas with other theoretical ideas in physics or math, it became difficult for me to explain to others (or even myself) why they were interesting or important.
Just keep in mind that the field is becoming hyperspecialized (for better or worse). People are going that way in response to the pressures of the current academic/research/funding environment.
Comment by Chris Colose — 15 Jan 2013 @ 8:01 PM
Why not use your math talents or other forms of genius to create 'The Global 50/50 Lottery'? That is, what if we could exploit the infinite power of human greed to fight global warming? The USA and UN could use half the winnings from a global lottery to pay for the purchase and installation of vast arrays of clean electricity generating systems like windmill farms, solar panels, ocean and water powermakers, to make electricity to replace the juice from coal burning electric power plants, which are emitting the carbon dioxide that is causing global warming.
Comment by Robert Schreib — 15 Jan 2013 @ 8:05 PM
I'd suggest:
— many of the blogs in the sidebar, for thoughts
— The Azimuth Project which isn't in the sidebar — but might warrant being added
"The Azimuth Project is an international collaboration to create a focal point for scientists and engineers interested in saving the planet. Our goal is to make clearly presented, accurate information on the relevant issues easy to find, and to help people work together on our common problems."
No connection to me. Good and getting better for ideas, broadly.
See also more from John Baez
Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Jan 2013 @ 8:30 PM
While there is no way to guaranty the giving of specific advice about what to study for an individual there are some ideas that an individual can use to discover direction. The end result is a better informed ability to give oneself the best advice possible. But all in a path to discovery.
Gavin's answer provides wonderful clues about how as one wanders through the interests at large in order that one might find where one resonates better, or possibly even best.
I am reminded of something Jonas Salk once told me. He said "Life is a mosaic and each of us are colored tiles. The trick is to get our (as individuals) colored tiles in the right place so that the we benefit the bigger picture".
Following one strengths and interests along with ability, opportunity, and potential, including creating opportunity proactively in line with these considerations, is likely a good key to understanding just what color is our tile, and where it fits in the big picture.
Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 15 Jan 2013 @ 9:55 PM
"We are all in the gutter … some of us are looking at the stars"
and some of us are looking into the state of the sewers.
Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Jan 2013 @ 10:27 PM
I am just wrapping up my dissertation. In recent years I have become convinced that the spatial and temporal scope of the best science in my field (ecology) does not line up spatial and temporal scope of the social actions it needs to inform. If more smart people dedicated themselves to interfacing the ivory tower with communities and non-scientific institutions that act or form policy, and did not view such as a demotion, they could have as much or more impact than leading scientists. Remember that citations don't equal real world impact, but the only the chance of impact…when science affects policy or is implemented on the ground, it isn't cited in a journal. I hold pure science as sacred, but the community of scientists needs to look at talent and decide whether or not to cloister it all away as young post-docs writing scripts or communicate that there is plenty of room for talent to move out into the world. There is a separateion of science from society that will ruin us, if we don't invest in the bridges. It was suggested that this young graduate learn some programming languages. That's a good suggestion. A smart person can really learn those fairly quickly. Really, I would say to ignore laundry lists. Instead identify the task and learn the skills on the fly. If you care about it, it won't be that much trouble. A better suggestion is to seek out opportunities that allow one to teach and/or extend beyond the research community. What those experiences have to teach cannot be learned in a class or at a computer, but the best scientists and the best activists both have those skills. As far as careers go, look at some of the opportunities available with the government or NGOs that might not involve modeling climate, but modeling or testing responses to ranges of climate scenarios.
Comment by Dan Carter — 15 Jan 2013 @ 11:42 PM
I once got a doctorate in physics. This is my personal opinion for what it might be worth. For me there was no choice, as Rilke said, a writer writes because he must, for me, I had to do physics.
Do what you love. Else you will regret it for the rest of your life.
Grad school in hard science is like putting your head in a vice and tightening it until your head explodes or you graduate. You will be ruthlessly exploited, you will work insane hours, you will be paid a pittance, you will be screamed at, sneered at, dressed down by dyspeptic professors, your theories will be derided, your data will be dismissed, and job prospects in academia are below dismal. That's how science works today. All these things will happen, that's why you better love what you are doing. The most promising student in my class in grad school quit because he decided he didn't really love physics.
Remember you can quit grad school anytime, and get paid better anywhere for the hours you put in. That's your ultimate and only weapon when your advisor/superior tells you to do something particularly disgusting.
Don't do this to save the world, do it because you love it. Don't worry about saving the world. The world will save itself, as long as each of us saves just a little of whatever we can.
Do what you love. It might not be grad school.
Comment by sidd — 16 Jan 2013 @ 1:59 AM
Ahh, Hank. Yep, it takes all kinds.
Deciding what to study based on today's problems is tenuous at best. By the time a newly-entering student graduates and advances enough to "make a difference"… well, if the problems the newly minted PHD is poised to solve have already been solved…..
Yeah, like others have said, we ALREADY KNOW most of what we need to know scientifically about climate. The rest is important but inevitably solved. There's probably very little a new student can do to "change the world" via pure climate science. Ya need some engineering to turn the concepts into reality.
Of course, 99.9% of what we need CAN'T be taught in school. Note how most of the most successful folks dropped out of college and did things their way. (And, of course, ever so many who tried that path ended up asking, "Do you want fries with that?")
Comment by Jim Larsen — 16 Jan 2013 @ 2:00 AM
As a university academic for over 30 years involved in both teaching and research, my advice , for what it's worth, is get involved in something you like/are interested in. An earlier poster (David Douglas) has said get involved in a project you are passionate about. While I don't take any issue at all with that advice, finding out what you are passionate about may only happen once you've been immersed for some time in a particular area. If you've already selected the area or areas that you are interested in/like, it is usually fairly straightforward to select a particular area of study after you've spent time looking at various aspects of the area. Whatever career you eventually decide to pursue my very best wishes for your future.
Comment by Ian Lee — 16 Jan 2013 @ 2:32 AM
I graduated from mathematics (with focus on "pure" mathematics) before completing PhD thesis in atmospheric sciences. Based on my experience, the following things are useful:
– Programming skills: after you more or less master basic concepts and one non-trivial programming language, the rest becomes easier to learn. Personally, I have used Fortran, C++, IDL, and Matlab.
– Basic physics and chemistry along with some courses in statistics.
– Overview of the physics of the atmosphere of the Earth.
In my personal and limited opinion, I'd choose applied statistics over applied mathematics if you want to pursue career in atmospheric sciences. However, I do believe that PhD in atmospheric sciences is best way to go as you can probably learn (at least) some of the skills I mentioned above along the way. This is not granted with mathematics and statistics as they are somewhat limited in scope compared to atmospheric sciences which draws from several disciplines (mathematics, chemistry, computing science etc.)
Hopefully this is of some help.
Comment by lee — 16 Jan 2013 @ 2:47 AM
I have to say that in order to help humanity climate science is not the way to go. The broad strokes have been developed for a long time now and the major problems are not with the science.
For me the issues remaining on this are:
1, Policy and political frameworks
2, Financial and economic methods of making the change to a sustainable economy
3, Engineering and developing solutions to the many problems that are the result of all the changes.
Plenty of scope for a maths graduate in all three areas.
Comment by Andy Bond — 16 Jan 2013 @ 4:25 AM
My advice would be to really strive to do a PhD in a group that is active in the field you want to be in. While working in a related field may get you the skills and the qualifications, it won't get you the contacts or the recognition within the community that you get from actively doing the research. But more fundamentally, I always say that the two most important things to get right when embarking on a science PhD are that you enjoy what you're researching and that you get on with your supervisor/advisor. Neither of these stem from approaching it with a career 'means to an end' attitude.
Comment by JamesA — 16 Jan 2013 @ 4:51 AM
Whereas climate science is hugely important in understand what is going on – and I and so many others benefit hugely from the posts on Real Climate – surely the question of a way to make the planet habitable is a political/ social question, and not science alone. Prof Gavin's response is appropriate for his immediate needs perhaps, but in addition to following that advice, it would be important for that student to try to understand and intervene in the larger social context in which he is located. There has been so little progress re global warming, not because the science has not been understood or communicated, but because there is not adequate political will and popular pressure from below on governments in countries that are largest emitters of CO2 – China, the US and India (where I am located). More fundamentally, global warming and most of the other planetary ecological crises are linked to the logic of industrial capitalism, and this student needs to understand that systemic logic. That includes the drive to profit, to use the cheapest sources of inputs (energy included) and labour, and to externalize waste. It makes resolving global warming that much more difficult, and is why climate negotiations have gone nowhere in 20 years. For this student, a wider social engagement along with the technical specifics you suggest would help.
Nagraj Adve
Comment by Nagraj Adve — 16 Jan 2013 @ 8:25 AM
I´d go with Eric and Secular Animist on this one.
Sure, there are things worse for "the planet" (I prefer to call it "the people living on the planet") than being a climate scientiest, but I can imagine a lot of more helpful things, too. Engineering in renewable energies, for instance, or politics/activism. Unless flying around the globe a lot to a bunch of conferences each year somehow gives him better conscience about helping make the planet stay more habitable).
Comment by ara — 16 Jan 2013 @ 9:04 AM
Listerers listen. Leaders lead. Ask someone what to do, and you will get a list of what they wish they had done. Just do something. Change your mind often. Your niche will appear. In all training programs you are being taught how to work for someone, think for someone. Think for yourself. Stop looking for a job, stop looking for others to help. Just do something.
Comment by Weather head — 16 Jan 2013 @ 9:33 AM
Along the lines of SA's comment:
Seven Lessons to Learn in Order to Save the Planet
The tea party may be in flux now, but the points are still worth taking into consideration.
Unless you can come up with something "paradigm shifting", science/math will be peripheral on this issue to politics and other failing social systems.
Comment by Radge Havers — 16 Jan 2013 @ 9:56 AM
Most of the responses have fallen toward the high end of this spectrum….
On the ideal end……. we all want a career that is so rewarding we would still work for free after winning a record breaking Powerball lottery.
On the other end…. do something that brings a paycheck without killing your heart's ability to give your free time to your passions (I'm fond of this retired prof's theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5OYmRyfXBY)
I agree with others who say the bottleneck is our inaction, not the lack of climate-science research. Also the geo- socio- and publicworks engineering type careers, as well as international conflict resolution will all be exponentially increasing
Comment by Mark E — 16 Jan 2013 @ 10:00 AM
After studying physics, chemistry and logic. Read as much many books and research papers as possible from peer-reviewed scientists. Then perhaps you could follow the advise of Numbers 11. and 14. They have the insight into what is now needed to get something done — the public and politicians have to be motivated and most of them have no science background in the field of climate science. I suggest a prime time television series that explains the science to the layman and the urgency for addressing climate change with sustainable living and new laws, such as a carbon tax, etc. When you finally see something being addressed politically through your help with this urgent problem you will surely feel a great satisfaction that something is finally being done to save our planet. I wish you all the luck in the world that you find a passion for communication in this direction — as it is what is missing to motivate change!
Comment by Sharon Hawkins-Fauster — 16 Jan 2013 @ 10:50 AM
Learn at least one programming language no matter what you end up doing. Modelers running computationally expensive simulations often learn older, low-level languages like FORTRAN or C/C++. High-level languages like Matlab or Python are most useful for the rest of us. The trade-off is between computational speed (low-level languages run much faster) vs. coding speed (high-level languages are easier to write), so pick one appropriate to your problems of interest. A good compromise is to go with Python – it's quick to pick up, open-source (read:free), marketable, and has an elegant coding style, but the Cython extension lets you add in pieces of C code for bits that need to run faster.
As far as acute needs go, I wanted to highlight my field, which doesn't get talked about much in the climate community. As a recent climate PhD grad, I found one area with a lot of job opportunities was in the insurance/reinsurance business. This part of the private sector is on the front lines of adaptation, and is actively hiring climate scientists to improve decision-making. Not only do I think that getting the business community on board can improve our progress towards actually dealing with climate change, it's an area that currently has fairly limited access to climate expertise, so could really see a lot of benefit.
A statistical background with some spatial data analysis skills would be most useful for this field – we work on a lot of problems like how sea level rise will change the probability of hurricane storm surge flooding, how frequencies of extreme events might be expected to change in the future, and how sea surface temperatures relate to precipitation patterns – so, heavy on stats.
Comment by Kelly Hereid — 16 Jan 2013 @ 11:28 AM
Good professional advice. However, I would add, learn a bit about plumbing, carpentry, home power generation, and growing food. Just in case.
Comment by Dave Person — 16 Jan 2013 @ 1:01 PM
I'm about to submit my PhD thesis in Computational Neurosicence. I went into the PhD programme because I found the topic really exciting and interesting – and I still do! But I think a problem that afflicts a lot of people is being interested in more than one thing. I recently went to Malawi to visit my partner who was studying the use of Moringa as a nutritional supplement in a feeding programme (random controlled trial). There were lots of people talking about its de-worming powers, but there's no evidence (I can find) in the literature. So I got permission to take stool samples and get them tested for worms…
Anyway, the results of the mini-study aren't what I'm talking about. I found this mini-study was as exciting/interesting as my PhD back home, but even better: The results would have immediate implications, and I felt like it was a much more direct and important potential discovery (this might be because it's a very under-researched field! so easy to find big interesting problems to solve???).
Anyway, what's my advice? I'm actually reading these comments looking for advice: I'm trying to jump sideways, hopefully taking my Informatics and Science background with me – to find useful things to do in more of a "development environment" (is that a real expression?). But the topic is diverse, with considerable silos of domain-specific knowledge. At first I thought to look to development studies/Africa studies etc, but these are in the humanities. While other topics are scattered throughout Nutrition, Geography, Public Health, Education,…etc.
Plan B – is to head off, with some contacts and organisations and universities ahead, and physically visit them – am hoping interesting things appear as I go :) [worse case is my travels turn into a year-long-holiday!]
Anyway, not sure that ramble was useful, but I feel in a fairly similar situation, but slightly later in my career :)
Comment by Mike Smith — 16 Jan 2013 @ 1:04 PM
I studied wildlife biology and spent many years working to preserve and save endangered fish. I also write.
Warm Front
Comment by Mark A. York — 16 Jan 2013 @ 1:47 PM
Chris Colose said: "I've had computer science roommates at Columbia who looked at me funny when I mentioned fortran". I think people who use Matlab should be looked-at funny too because it is locked behind a paywall making it inaccessible to people like me who work independently and work at unfunded projects in voluntary service of their communities. Using Matlab adds an unnecessary workload to our part of collaboration with the rest of the scientific research community. Python can do everything Matlab can and more, and using it will serve all of us and the research community better.
Comment by Bert Rubash — 16 Jan 2013 @ 3:25 PM
Re:Matlab substitute
Comment by sidd — 16 Jan 2013 @ 4:11 PM
Get a job doing something you enjoy and that pays well, then marry someone with biodiversity-saving skills so you can support him/her while he/she does that.
Comment by Mal Adapted — 16 Jan 2013 @ 6:47 PM
The answers have been mostly pretty good. I'll just add something entertaining (hopefully) which I once read, but sorry I can't remember the source. So reconstructed out of memory:
The physics major asks: "How does it work?"
The engineering major asks: "How do we build it?"
The accounting major asks: "How much will it cost?"
The liberal arts major asks: "Do you want fries with that?"
Comment by Candide — 16 Jan 2013 @ 8:11 PM
I have to say I think Mike Smith @29 will end up doing just fine. Anyone who can get excited at the chance to collect stool samples will probably find fulfillment with little difficulty. My advice is to have an attitude like that.
Comment by S. Molnar — 16 Jan 2013 @ 9:23 PM
Everyone is going to hate this. IEHO the physical basis(WGI) is pretty well understood. Regional climate modeling is crowded. The real action is going to be in the biological interface (WGII), which needs good statistics and modeling.
Comment by Eli Rabett — 16 Jan 2013 @ 10:48 PM
As a side, a good set of gardening skills is always a good thing to have. Maybe combine it with the math and start to formalize sustainable agriculture practises, optimization of yield per water/fertiliser unit consumed is one way to go. In theory this might fall into discrete maths, since the available land areas are projected rather to decrease than to increase. And anyway discrete maths is what imho should be used in closed systems like earth (well that's not entirely correct.) But I guess this is too simplistic for an academic career. Organic gardening is also pretty labor intensive, so some physical education would be good. (Stopping before going hyperbole and Hunger Games)
Comment by jyyh — 17 Jan 2013 @ 1:19 AM
Excellent math skills can take you in many different directions, including being the basis for physics and engineering. Know what you love and what you are good at, and take a few courses in several different areas. Knowledge is not wasted.
I would also say that we seem to know enough in a general sense about how our world is reacting to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, so we really need to know how to run our civilization without burning fossil fuels. Research in chemistry, physics, or biology might find some basic information that would be useful in 30 to 50 years, but engineering using what is known now is probably what will best enable us to reduce emissions in the next ten or twenty years.
Disagreeing to some extent with Candide #34, sociology, applied psychology, and political science will all be important in making the changes needed to kick our fossil fuel addiction.
Comment by AIC — 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:12 AM
I agree with Secular Animist (post 5) – At this stage what is needed most to improve the world is political skills, in addition to scientific skills. Uncovering the science helps the world little if policy makers do not act on it. Your student might look to Frank Rowland as a model.
Comment by T Marvell — 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:26 AM
I am slightly disturbed by many of the posts advising that "helping the planet remain as habitable" would be outside a climate science career, and that the individual would be better in activism or engineering. As a climate activist (for a depressingly long time), I can say that activism on climate is dependent on the science. The better the science on climate, the better the quality of activism can be. Activists across the world need climate scientists to continue working on climate, getting better predictions on sea level rises (for example) and shifting weather patterns, and then communicating that to people outside of science (hence the value of this site). Even a casual reading of Real Climate suggests that there are many gaps in our understanding of climate and related, there is more to be discovered, and if someone has an interest in dedicating his/her life to figuring these unknowns out, fantastic. Activists benefit, engineers benefit, and, hopefully, the planet too.
Comment by Tristen Taylor — 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:38 AM
The only way you'll make a significant difference in any field is to put an insane amount of energy and concentration into some difficult topics.
And the only way you'll do that is if you absolutely love what you are doing, wake up each day (on the days you sleep) eager to get back into the problem-du-jour.
Pick the field that motivates you the most deeply, and the rest will follow.
Of course, finding a world-class advisor and convincing them you're worth their attention is also a huge win.
Comment by JimCA — 17 Jan 2013 @ 6:48 AM
I agree with others that if you want to change the world you should really take up engineering or social sciences but this graduate is into maths so that is what he should exploit.
The biggest threat to humanity is abrupt climate change. To understand that, i.e. Tipping Points, you need a grasp of Chaos and Catastrophe Theory. Chaos Theory arose out of meteorology and computing, so those skills would also be useful for a prospective climate scientist.
But going back to my first point, it is important to understand that mathematics is just theory, and that it should be used as a tool not as a paradigm when addressing real world problems.
Comment by Alastair McDonald — 17 Jan 2013 @ 8:13 AM
Hello Gavin,
"Bayesian approaches to statistics"
is there one or a couple of books you would recommend?
(a book, please, not a website)
[Response: Jayne's book is a classic, but I have been looking for something more up-to-date and accessible, but have not yet found one. – gavin]
Comment by Marcus — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:16 AM
Yes, there are many routes into Earth Science and Climate Change studies. But it seems to me that if you KNOW you want to study these fields as a senior in college, then the best course of action would be a graduate program in Earth Science. I don't think that either math or statistics would be the best PhD track here, especially if someone had little or no exposure to Earth Science as an undergraduate.
As Earth Science becomes more complex and specialized, I think it will be come increasingly difficult for someone with ABSOLUTELY NO background in the field to just jump in as a post doc. No amount of linear algebra or Bayesian statistics can substitute for actual understanding of our planet.
Comment by Bob F — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:49 AM
If you want to be involved in the economics of climate change (a hugely important field going forward), then I would suggest studying economics in grad school.
Comment by Bob F — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:53 AM
After spending 32 years as medical school faculty, I followed some ideas into biotech where business considerations dominate. The greatest challenge was to be creative, not on my ideas, but someone else's!! It can be done, and is just as rewarding.norvebci subjected
Comment by Lou Smith — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:59 AM
A math background certainly opens up a lot of possibilities; might as well lay them all out and see where personal interests intersect with best citizenship. Might also include geography (physical and cultural), systems and industrial engineering, urban planning, policy and administrative studies, landscape architecture, risk management, etc. etc. Also could extend into dealing with the potential aftermath of inaction; disease control, hydrology and water policy, disaster relief, environmental clean up…
Comment by Radge Havers — 17 Jan 2013 @ 11:49 AM
I am living, walking proof that one can do everything bassackwards, step way, way off the career track and still wind up having a career by accident. My recommendation is to look at what you do well and whether those skills are common. For instance, most people do not think statistically. If stats comes naturally to you, exploit that. I wound up being a stats autodidact, mainly because so few people understood it, and it was a skill that was needed…desperately.
Get the best background in basic science and math you can and try to use all of it. I've even used Stirling's approximation to the factorial a couple of times when looking at reliability of large systems.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 17 Jan 2013 @ 1:20 PM
Marcus @43 — E.T. Jaynes, "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" remains the best introduction to Bayesian statistics for those with a decent math & physics background. I am currently reading Christian Robert's "The Bayesian Choice" which is a more difficult text concentrating on decision theory; quite good but not the place to start.
Comment by David B. Benson — 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:42 PM
Outside research, there's plenty of consultancies around looking for technical people who can help them design more energy-efficient buildings and business processes, for example. Bigger companies might do it in-house also.
Comment by numerobis — 17 Jan 2013 @ 5:59 PM
We don't need more scientists to tell us what what they have already told us. No career choice anyone can make individually is going to help the planet's survivability. The only collective political action (mass movements) that put pressure on the government and corporations to legislate radical changes has any hope of succeeding.
It's fine to give someone career advice, but as peak oil facilitates more economic collapse, fewer and fewer people will have careers. This reality is already here, as colleges and universities cut enrollment. It behooves us to remember that it was only starting in the early 1960s that a university education became a widespread, middle-class phenomenon. It is as short-lived as the oil age.
Comment by Emanuel Sferios — 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:32 PM
My PhD is in the biomedical sciences and so I can't offer specific advice to a maths major. But I think simply asking a leader in the field for advice is a very good first start. If the planet and specifically climate science is your interest then identifying the movers and shakers and seeking their input is valuable. But remember that a PhD can be more of a learning experience than a stepping stone to a defined career path. More than likely during your PhD and/or postdoc you will find your niche. What really matters is finding mentors to guide you. Don't settle for second best, chase the best candidates until they accept you into their sphere.
Comment by Mike Pollard — 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:46 PM
Re : #43 and #49 Bayes. (Marcus, Gavin and David Benson)
How about David McKay's
book on Bayesian inference and information theory?
That is only one of his interests;
here is another.
Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:55 PM
Re: previous.
It should have been Mackay.
Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Jan 2013 @ 7:59 PM
> don't need more scientists to tell us what what they have already told us
I refute it thus:
"We dodged a bullet" — Crutzen, in his Nobel Prize speech.
We need more scientists to tell us what's unanticipated.
Comment by Hank Roberts — 17 Jan 2013 @ 9:58 PM
Geoff Wexler @53 — There are 6 reviews in
These suggest to me that statistics is not the primary focus. However, decide for yourself.
Comment by David B. Benson — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:10 PM
many different texts with different focuses, from pragmatic to philosophical, have received brief reviews.
Comment by David B. Benson — 17 Jan 2013 @ 10:29 PM
OK, my third comment, I hope it's not too much.
The more I think about it, the more I feel this question may be ill-posed.
I believe that climate change will be one of the defining issues of our times. It will affect every human life on this planet. BILLIONS of people will be involved in action, one way or another, to try to keep our planet habitable (or not).
As others have noted, the world will need professionals of all stripes devoting their careers to keeping this planet habitable: lawyers, politicians, engineers, community organizers, and yes, scientists, to name a few. It would be hubris to assume that we, as scientists, are somehow the most important people in that effort.
Scientists do play role in this narrative, one I am proud to be a part of. Earth Science in general is multidisciplinary, climate change even more so. It sucks in technical people from all sorts of backgrounds with all sorts of skills. Whenever you decide you want to participate in Earth Science, THAT is the time to come over and start immersing yourself in the field. There is FAR more opportunity here than in, say, particle physics or pure math or applied math or statistics.
For anyone starting out: a good career choice requires an intersection between the kinds of things you want to achieve (in this case, saving our planet) and your skills and aptitudes. I have only cursory knowledge of both these issues in your case, and there are likely no easy answers — it took me over 15 years to find that intersection! But maybe you can do it faster, if you work hard at knowing yourself, and you're willing to try different things, and you're mature.
Comment by Bob Fischer — 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:09 AM
Bert Rubash:
I think people who use Matlab should be looked-at funny too because it is locked behind a paywall making it inaccessible to people like me who work independently and work at unfunded projects in voluntary service of their communities. Using Matlab adds an unnecessary workload to our part of collaboration with the rest of the scientific research community. Python can do everything Matlab can and more, and using it will serve all of us and the research community better.
I agree with Bert. My division is spending considerable effort to replace existing Matlab and IDL code with Python, largely due to the prohibitive cost of licensing for both commercial languages. Take the trouble to learn Python, and avoid getting hooked on proprietary languages. It'll make you more employable if nothing else.
Comment by Mal Adapted — 18 Jan 2013 @ 9:34 AM
I'd go with David Benson on this. Jaynes' book is full of the sorts of insights that come only from someone who has been thinking about a subject for over 50 years. It is interesting that Gavin refers to it as a "classic", as its publication date was only in the past 10 years after Jaynes' death. That was probably the only way it would ever be published, given that Jaynes was never satisfied with it and kept tweaking it right up to his death.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:22 AM
My suggestion is to study what you find most interesting while ensuring that you progress your mathematical/coding/physical science skills. I wouldn't be too specific beyond that and certainly not tie yourself to a must having computer language. You never know where your career may go in the future. For example, my PhD was on Schumann resonances which is primarily an electromagnetic phenomenon in the Earth-ionosphere cavity due to lightning. A little later did I think about the relationship between global lightning activity and climate (though the relationship is not straightforward). Much later did I realise the potential connection between the work I was doing on stochastic trends and autoregressive process and climate statistics. With the work being done in the 80's and early 90's in coded in FORTRAN. The move to C++ and R later was straightforward. So I would say, don't tie yourself down too early – study what interests you.
Comment by Colin Burke — 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:40 AM
A junior member of my department keeps trying to tell me computer science needs no mathematical background. I can only suppose he's never had to solve an interesting problem. I would advise your student not to shy away from the hard stuff especially as applied to real-world problems. If you have a strong base and good ability to formalize you can switch fields and handle the complexity of multidisciplinary research much better than if you go for a narrow purely theoretical specialization and follow the line of least resistance. Aside from working climate scientists, John von Neumann is a great role model.
Comment by Philip Machanick — 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:15 PM
I second (third?) comments on Matlab. Aside from python, where there's work going on to replace Matlab functionality, R is a great tool. And there's no harm in learning a range of programming langages for when you just can't make the thing you're trying to smack home look like a nail.
Comment by Philip Machanick — 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:20 PM
I am sure that most colleges & universities in the U.S. offer student access to Matlab free. If not, the student version is very affordable. Sometimes it's worth paying to not reinvent the wheel!
Wish I knew more R, it's on my to-do list. I have dabbled in Python and should probably know more.
I have found that learning NCL, the NCAR Command Language, very useful — allows you to mine to vast amounts of climate data as you wish. FORTRAN remains the ultimate fall-back but only if you must.
Good luck, stick with the science it's in short supply these days.
Comment by BillS — 18 Jan 2013 @ 4:36 PM
Maybe it is just youthfull exuberance, but after four or more years of university education and you express a deep-seated desire to help the planet remain as habitable as possible indicates a career in something other than science would be advisable. Deep-seated desires to help suggests you might be more suited to social programs than hard science. In all seriousness, you to biased out of the gate to be in the hard sciences.
Comment by Bob — 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:50 PM
First I have to say that what sidd says about the life of a graduate student in the hard sciences is outdated (at least in the U.S.) I have been at this for a long time (in Math/CS/Engineering depts), and from my point of view, the life of a grad student has improved significantly in the last 20 years. It is still intense, but not so exploitative as before.
The main point I want to make is that if you want to study climate change, I think you have to study numerical methods for partial differential equations. While this may sound like an esoteric, math-geek, topic, it is actually at the heart of all long term climate prediction.
In my (admittedly somewhat limited) opinion, the state of the art in multi-scale numerical modeling of the climate is currently lagging behind what scientists in fields like combustion or fusion are regularly adopting. So I will predict an increase interest in high-order,multi-physics, multi-scale numerical methods applied to climate in the next 10 years.
Learn this stuff, and you will be sought after.
Comment by Trip Lasso — 19 Jan 2013 @ 3:17 AM
Susan Bentsch McGrayne's "The Theory That Would Not Die" is easy-to-read, fresh and breezy introduction to the history of statistics, with particular emphasis on the Bayesian vs Frequentist "wars".
Comment by Toby — 19 Jan 2013 @ 11:38 AM
A book: "The Signal And The Noise," by Nate Silver. I found about this site by reading it.
…is a relatively new book that is, essentially, *all* about Bayesian Statistics applied to a wide variety of fields, from baseball, cards, and the economy, to weather and climate science. Well, well worth the read, as it's constantly pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of Bayesian logic (spolier alert: weaknesses are few, compared to other models). Nate Silver has also, recently, yet again proved himself a serious authority on Bayesian statistics by predicting (among other things) the last U.S. Presidential Election and related races with fairly stunning precision; or, as he would say – accuracy. His blog, for a quick primer, recently published an AMA transcript where he answers a lot of questions about his process http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
[Response: Unfortunately, there are some things that Nate gets seriously wrong about climate change/climate modeling, etc. See my piece at Huffington Post on this. –mike]
Good luck to you.
Comment by Kieran Garland — 19 Jan 2013 @ 5:16 PM
A little physics to go along with that math would go a long way in improving her/his understanding of what she/he is modeling.
Comment by SB — 20 Jan 2013 @ 12:55 AM
I recommend you read Mike's blog article (in response to post #68). If nothing else, this makes clear the difference between being smart and KNOWING a field.
Many responses here have mentioned tools: C++/Python/MATLAB/IDL/NCL/Fortran, Bayesian Statistics, PDE Solvers, etc. These are (some of) the technical tools that underlie all hard sciences these days (and many "soft sciences" as well). Sure, anyone wanting to be a scientist should have these skills. But more important than any of them is the CONTENT of the field. We are studying the Earth, not just solving PDEs or grinding data through statistical models.
First and foremost, a curiosity about the EARTH is required. When I do something, I ask myself "what does this tell us about the Earth?" If I've built a cool piece of software that uses sophisticated statistics but in the end it tells us nothing, then I'm wasting my time as a scientist.
As for Statistics… this tool shines through when you want to measure small things accurately — for example, the likely winner of a presidential election that's close to 50-50 split. But climate change is different, less subtle. You don't need fancy statistics to see that the glaciers and ice sheets are melting, or that CO2 is going up, or that measured temperatures are increasing. Statistics is useful, don't get me wrong. But progress is made by scientists who USE statistics, not by statisticians who wonder whether they might apply their tools to climate change. That is true, even when the scientists use outdated methods of computer science, numerical analysis, statistics, etc. Better statistics will lead to better papers. But in the absence of better statistics, scientists will make do with inferior tools.
I disagree with Comment #65. There are certainly scientists who are motivate purely by curiosity. But there are plenty who want their curiosity to fit a larger social or human goal. Nothing wrong with that. Scientists are people, not robots, and it is only natural that we care about the subject of our study. That does not, in and of itself, introduce a "bias" into one's work.
Anyway, you need to find a career path that fits your interests, skills and aptitudes. And from the sound of it, your skills and aptitudes seem to make you at least as well suited to be a scientist as any of the other careers mentioned.
[Response: Well put Bob. Thanks for stopping by :-) –mike]
Comment by Bob F — 20 Jan 2013 @ 1:02 AM
I agree very much with with Bob F but would just like to return to..
'Best' book on Bayes.
Some others here, know much more about this topic than me , but in general for other subjects , I would usually recommend reading more than one book at once, especially if there is a chance to download one free. In the case of the book I suggested, you could do the opposite of what its author suggests. David MacKay suggests that Chapters 3 and 37 are not essential and could be skipped. I think that you could perhaps skip most of the rest of the book and browse or read just those two chapters and parts of chapter 2. They are not written as if they are restricted to information theorists. You don't have to follow every line.
There is also a tiny "Further Reading" list at the end of chapter 37.
Comment by Geoff Wexler — 20 Jan 2013 @ 11:21 AM
Bob F:
…the difference between being smart and KNOWING a field.
This needs to be emphasized! There are many smart AGW "skeptics", but almost none who know the field. Those that take the trouble to know it, like R. Muller, tend to lose their skepticism.
Comment by Mal Adapted — 20 Jan 2013 @ 2:26 PM
Regarding statistics and climate, I recommend some of the talks from a workshop at NCAR, October 2007, see Strange scholarship …, pp.67-70. Among the good talks (and one very bad one), was Statistical Issues Involving (Climate) Computer Models by Jim Bergman, including p.17 "How can statisticians help?" but especially, p.19
'How can statisticians become involved?
The Key: Becoming involved in a ‗team environment' with scientists.
Facilitating infrastructure:
• NCAR, where teams operate
• SAMSI (and NPCDS), where teams can be formed
• National labs (both LANL and LLNL have climate/stat teams)
• Large interdisciplinary grants available today
• Statistics cannot generally fund involvement of statisticians in other
disciplines which, in turn, rarely have much money for statistics.
• Shortage of statisticians
• The time needed for a statistician to get deeply involved with
another science and to also learn the statistics needed for it.
• Scientists often have a hard time judging what they can do
themselves and when they should seek statistical help.'
In particular, while math/statistics skills are always important, it is another expression of the idea that one has to know something about the science as well. It is all too easy to generate statistics and nice graphs … that don't actually contribute any insight into anything real.
On computing: as I've often said for 35 years, as in this:
Work at the highest level possible'
Anything one can do to *find* code and *use* it rather than write it is good … because then, if you write it, you may actually solving something useful. [UNIX shell programming was created, in part, because I kept finding people struggling to write C code … that mostly duplicated the effects of some combination of existing UNIX commands.] If I were still teaching CMPSC, I'd probably have a few programming assignments where the task was to be solved without writing much if any code, but by studying the various repositories for what already existed and using that, maybe with a little glue.
Of course, some people must write in FORTRAN or C++ or C, either for structural reasons or performance, but most people should be able to avoid needing to do that.
Comment by John Mashey — 20 Jan 2013 @ 3:29 PM
Bob F at ~70 says it well and says it right.
As a layperson, I've been holding back here. But it is very important that you write clearly and communicate by any means possible. Right now, the science is getting clearer by the day, and the obfuscation more forceful. We live in a marketing-based society and our model will not create the community of all we need to solve the many problems we face.
The letter seemed clear and to the point, which is part of what is needed. Being able to tell a story that grabs people's attention would be a great additional asset.
Comment by Susan Anderson — 20 Jan 2013 @ 9:32 PM
I agree that a person with aptitude in math should consider pursuing engineering to "help the planet." Many years ago one of my physics professors said I should go into photovoltaics if I wanted to stop global warming. (I should have listened to him.) Two other things that come to mind are writing software used to design energy efficient buildings, including cost analysis (which could have a very large immediate impact), or working on computational chemistry or computational engineering for clean technology applications.
Comment by Ed Z — 20 Jan 2013 @ 9:54 PM
Response @ 68 Mike: Thanks for the fine article, and for pointing it out here, and for taking the time to do it when there's so much else to do.
My advice is: study logic. I am stunned by the lack of it on the part of self-important think-tank carpetbaggers, and others, who come feigning high pedigrees.
The most common fallacy I find could be called, "pounding around the nail," or maybe just,"changing the subject," though Aristotle had a different term.
In addition to all the specific tools commented on here, logic is an asset–as RC contributors habitually demonstrate.
Nate Silver has been out of logic so long, on cli-sci, it looks like sarcasm to him.
It's a missed opportunity, as you wrote, because he "could have applied his considerable acumen and insight to shed light on this important topic."
Silver's success sorting out demographic statistics for political relevance has gone–um, fallen–to (the wrong part of) his head.
On cli-sci, he is fighting for the wrong industrial revolution: the former one.
This may be a charitable way to understand the virulence of the attack you have been–excuse the word–forced to document. It's the last industrial revolution fighting to continue.
One ideal paradigm deserves another.
That's why I appreciate John Schellnhuber's view of least-cost analysis and the global optimum, at minute 43:10 here:
Comment by patrick — 21 Jan 2013 @ 7:22 PM
My view is that we could use more and better statisticians in the field of climate change. There are many examples of the wrong statistical methods being used to interpret climate data normally by climate scientists whose primary knowledge is in physics / climatology
Comment by Colin Aldridge — 22 Jan 2013 @ 5:37 AM
#77 Colin Aldridge: cite?
Comment by Philip Machanick — 22 Jan 2013 @ 8:44 AM
Mike @68: the lesson – whenever you are asked about your field by an outsider, ask them first what they know.
Thanks for posting the link; I never read anything by Nate other than when his competition is partisan pollsters. Thanks also for the reminder of you book: I should get a copy.
Comment by Philip Machanick — 22 Jan 2013 @ 8:48 AM
On statisticians in climate science or any other science for that matter:
The thing is that most scientists have little formal training in statistics. In my case, while doing particle physics research for my PhD, it was simply assumed that you would pick up what you needed. As a result, a lot of us go only as far as necessity and inclination take us. The downside of this is that often our statistical analysis would be cringeworthy to a professional statistician, even if we get it more or less correct. The upside is that when we do learn a technique, we tend to see how it applies, since we have an application readily at hand.
The obverse side of this coin is that some statisticians may apply an analysis that is patently unphysical–e.g. approximating global temperatures as a random walk.
Snow's Two Cultures have continued to bifurcate multiple times since the 50s. What is needed is researchers sufficiently broad to bridge the gaps between them.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 22 Jan 2013 @ 9:45 AM
Water is the big issue of today and the future. So I recommend Hydrogeology and Water Resources – in which I have a Masters, and have been working for 25 yrs.
Comment by Oakwood — 22 Jan 2013 @ 5:32 PM
I did a BA in Mathematics, went on to do an MSc in Environmental Science and eventually after years working went back to college to do a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. The most useful degree was Environmental Science. I work now in the area of EnviroInformatics and build environmental management software (mainly geospatial). There is a demand of people with IT and mathematical skills who understand environmental problems (from scientific perspective).
Comment by Conor — 26 Jan 2013 @ 4:20 AM
Excellent,my first time reading this blog. I have no advanced education or degrees. I am Joe average.
Knowing all the math and physics you could possibly ever want is not going to do anything if you dont figure out how to change Americans mindsets on how they currently live.
99% of the people just want to gas up the suv and go to the mall to buy more electronics gadgets to distract themselves from there problems.
Climate change isnt on there radar at all!!!
Comment by chris in chicago — 26 Jan 2013 @ 1:10 PM
Excellent, first time reading this blog. I am Joe average. I have no advanced degrees.
Knowing all the math and physics in the world isnt going to make a bit of differance until someone figures out how to change the current mindset of Americans
99% of people just want to gas up there suv and go to the mall to buy more electronic gadgets and crap.
Climate change isnt even close to being on there radar!!
Comment by chris in chicago — 26 Jan 2013 @ 1:15 PM
This is a great thread and has helped me think about what I want to do. I'm a "retired" applied statistician and software developer. I have an MS plus 30 hours and am considering going back to school to get a PhD that would prepare me to support some kind of climate change effort – a purposely vague goal. My thoughts are to get a PhD in statistics with additional courses in "big data" techniques and also some numerical analysis. I spent 35 years working in industry and (as has been mentioned above) realize that many scientists and engineers do not get enough training in statistics to be able to apply it efficiently to their problems. I think I could help in that area. I would feel that going back to grad school and updating my skills would have been worth it if I could help some solar panel manufacturer increase yield by 10% or help develop an algorithm that would optimize a power grid or help a battery company properly design a set of experiments to evaluate a new battery design.
Comment by Medina64 — 28 Jan 2013 @ 2:25 AM
Re- Comment by Medina64 — 28 Jan 2013 @ 2:25 AM
Go for it! So far In this thread the best advice regarding training in climate science has been provided by the professionals and students in this area, so I recommend that you ask some statisticians who are doing what you think you would like to train for and ask them how best to get there.
Comment by Steve Fish — 28 Jan 2013 @ 10:57 AM
I am not a climate scientist: I work as an epidemiologist on the health effects of climate (and other environmental issues too). But my backgroung is in fluid mechanics, the proof that your entire professional life is not defined by your diplomas :-)
From my daily work, I understood that studying the climate is important, but if we want to change things we also need to study the impacts, and to understand the adaptation needs and possibilities for many different topics.
To do so, we need more people able to work on an integrated fashion, willing to share and develop new methods on a multidisciplinary / interdisciplinary basis. So if you already master enough maths and stats, you may want to broaden your view and study environmental or social sciences…
Comment by Mathilde — 28 Jan 2013 @ 11:12 AM
The new graduate posed the issue as follows: "I am someone with a deep-seated desire to help the planet remain as habitable as possible in the face of the trials humanity is putting it through." This problem has many dimensions (scientific/technical, economic, sociopolitical, as starters), and any credible solution has to address these many dimensions in parallel. This calls for a systems engineering/systems optimization/operations research type of approach, and would be well suited for a person with good mathematical and logical skills. Having good climate science results is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for addressing the overall problem. The climate science is central to setting the requirements for any technical, economic, and sociopolitical solutions. But, most importantly, all the components of the overall system must mesh.
Comment by Superman1 — 31 Jan 2013 @ 9:15 AM
With the caveat that I have not been convinced that GW = AGW or that climate can be successfully modeled to make valid predictions, I do find myself largely in agreement with at least some of the ideas in most all of the above. I especially find #3, #5, #19, #22, #75, #80, #85, and #88 relevant. As many have suggested, I also would advise to consider a broad approach to hard science, engineering, and mathematics. This would enable you to adapt to whatever the future needs of society might entail as opposed to a narrow paradigm of the moment.
Concerning statistics: As noted by others, there are methodologies labeled "statistics" and then, with all due respect to Bayesians, there are other methodologies also so labeled. During my college years at an institution largely devoted to science and engineering, analogue computers were just beginning to be replaced with mainframe digital computers. During a summer internship, I also had the opportunity to work at a research facility that was engaged in silicon crystal growth. (The long — hopefully long — cylindrical silicon crystals would go elsewhere to be sliced and diced into chips.) My job entailed writing a Fortran program that used the output of the crystal growth furnace / kiln computer to do a statistical analysis of the data (temperatures, rate of rotation and vertical speed, etc.) that would then be plotted graphically and also used as re-inputs to the crystal growth kiln computer. The job entailed not only learning Fortran IV on the job but also learning statistics. My vocabulary thus increased with words such as "correlation," "significant correlation," "chi square", etc. The advantage of the statistics we used was that the results of calculations could eventually be measured. That is, as a result of our work the crystal growth procedure either improved or else it didn't. I can thus identify with the experience and goals of #85 Medina64. But I am skeptical about using statistical inference to predict future climates or even next week's weather. Thus I would be leery of "big data techniques" if the goal is to infer a supposed truth certainty of the paradigm.
It has only been in recent years that I have stumbled across "Bayesian statistics" in my reading. As I understand matters, a great deal of skepticism is called for, at least in some uses. A problem stems from the introduction of subjective beliefs (including hypotheticals about hard data) as opposed to just hard empirical data and calculations that can be tested in the real world. This problem has been further compounded by the failure to always be transparent regards such subjectivity and underlying assumptions. Mario Bunge wrote an interesting article on this titled "In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia." See Bunge's article in THE FLIGHT FROM SCIENCE AND REASON edited by Gross, Levitt, and Lewis and published by the New York Academy of Sciences, 1996. Bunge wrote (p.103):
"When confronted with a random or seemingly random process, one attempts to build a probabilistic model that could be tested against empirical data; no randomness, no probability. Moreover, as Poincare pointed out long ago, talk of probability involves some knowledge; it is no substitute for ignorance. This is not how the Bayesians or personalists view the matter: when confronted with ignorance or uncertainty, they use probability — or rather their own version of it. This allows them to assign prior probabilities to facts and propositions in an arbitrary manner — which is a way of passing off mere intuition, hunch, or guess for scientific hypothesis. In other words, in the Bayesian perspective there is no question of objective randomness, randomization, random sample, statistical test, or even testability; it is all a game of belief rather than knowledge."
Is my skepticism regards Bayesian inference (and the public's skepticism regards AGW while accepting GW) misplaced? Also note, at Amazon, some of the seemingly quite expert reviews of Jaynes' book. See also RealClimate's informative FAQs regards modeling.
In any case, several of my more specific suggestions for any mathematician, scientist, or engineer who is just starting out, and whether or not you accept an extreme version of AGW, would be:
(1). a. Spend some time with GoogleMaps. Google the country as a whole, any region, or any locale. Then ask yourself this question: Does the country really need more "infrastructure"? It has often occurred to me that some disestablishmentarianism has long been called for.
b. Consider 'the Traveling Salesman Problem' especially 'biological approaches to.'
(2). Consider the notion, in economics, of cost externalities, both positive and negative externalities. If our goal is to be as unbiased as possible, who ought to pay for or benefit from such currently unaccounted for externalities? Ask the same question regards what are termed incremental costs. Who ought to pay for school buses driving 5 miles out to the suburbs or for mail delivery 20 miles into the country? Etc.? Who ought to pay for the externalities of global trade? Etc.?
(3). Study some quantum physics and nanotechnology so that we might get on with the space elevator (and also origins of life issues). Contemplate the question, Would adding or deleting mass to the Moon-Earth system change the system's orbit about the Sun or is the orbit totally dependent upon initial conditions?
(4). As scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, consider how many MBAs and Wall Street, real estate, and commodities "money changers" you all will be needing to manage you and what comparative values you would place on such managements.
All those of you who already have multimillion dollar or larger bank roles, come work with me ASAP.
Comment by Local Transportation Guy — 1 Feb 2013 @ 10:46 AM
Bradley Efron
A 250-year argument: Belief, behavior and the bootstrap
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50:1 January 2013
is an engaging, after dinner styled, 18 page paper which places Bayesian and frequentist notions of statistics in contrast, overlap and perspective. He ends with "[t]he two philosophies, Bayesian and frequentist, are more orthogonal and antithetical. And of course, practicing statisticians are free to sue whichever methods seem better for the problem at hand — which is just what I do.
"Meanwhile we can all get ready to wish Bayes rule a very happy 250th birthday [this] January."
Comment by David B. Benson — 1 Feb 2013 @ 6:04 PM
> free to sue whichever methods seem better
Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:51 PM
Here's the Efron article — link to the abstract; PDF of full text available there
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-2012-01374-5
Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Feb 2013 @ 1:06 AM
Hank Roberts @91 — Brad Efron invented (discovered?) the bootstrap method. Surely one of the greatest statisticians ever. So what seems to him is probably right.
Comment by David B. Benson — 2 Feb 2013 @ 5:15 PM
Ah, here's something at my level, mostly:
Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Feb 2013 @ 8:37 PM
I would also add the words of Joseph Campbell: "Follow your bliss"
Comment by Jesper Moeller — 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:33 PM
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
0.419 Powered by WordPress


text:
May 5, 2016
August 25, 2006
27-year-old Sandy Dawn Akin is accused of robbing the Family Dollar stores on Sand Bar Ferry Road and Broad Street, along with a convenience store in Harrisburg.
Two of the robberies happened on January 17.
Akin was extradited to Augusta from the Aiken County Jail Wednesday.
She faces three counts of armed robbery and three counts of gun possession.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Greg | DailyGrail.com
During psychography, all mediums reported altered states of consciousness, but to different degrees. Experienced mediums spoke of a deeper trance, with clouded consciousness, often reporting being out of the body, and having little or no awareness of the content of what they were writing. Less expert mediums were in a less pronounced trance state and usually reported writing phrases being dictated to them in their minds.
...Subjects attributed their trance writing to spirits. Compared to normal writing, less expert mediums showed more activation in the same cognitive-processing areas during psychography, whereas experienced mediums showed a significantly lower level of activation. The less expert ones had to work harder, as shown by their relatively higher levels of activation of the cognitive processing area during psychography. Experienced mediums showed significantly reduced rCBF changes during psychography, which is consistent with the notion of automatic (non-conscious) writing and their claims that an outer source was planning the written content.


text:
(Washington-AP) -- A soldier who was born in Denver has died of wounds received two weeks ago while hunting for Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan.
The announcement Monday from the Pentagon confirmed the death of
28-year-old Sergeant First Class Christopher James Speer, who now
is from Albuquerque.
Officials say he was among five U-S soldiers injured in an ambush on July 27th in the east of Afghanistan.
Speer completed Special Forces training in 1997 and was assigned to the Third Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Authorities say about 50 U.S. soldiers and allied Afghan militia were trying to confirm intelligence about an enemy operative in the area when they came under small-arms fire.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
PORTLAND, Ore. ( TheStreet) -- When you spend enough time scrolling the business pages and reading between the all-caps, bolded lines of tech IPOs and banking settlements, two things become immediately apparent: It's a grim scene outside corner offices and Silicon Valley, and those toiling under that pall are getting increasingly frustrated by the experience.A few days ago, my colleague Rocco Pendola used Tesla (TSLA - Get Report) founder Elon Musk as an example of the media's fixation with building personalities up just to knock them down. He posited that folks like Musk who are out there creating PayPal and electric automobiles hold up a mirror to the rest of us as a reminder of what we haven't and, in many cases, won't achieve. The only flaw to Rocco's argument was limiting it to only the media.
Why the American Worker Is Miserable
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Real Money
More than 30 investing pros with skin in the game give you actionable insight and investment ideas.
Product Features:
- Access to Jim Cramer's daily blog
- Intraday commentary and news
- Real-time trading forums


text:
Mayor Bill de Blasio has named his wife, Chirlane McCray, the chair of the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City. Mayor de Blasio made the announcement on Thursday at the Osborne Association, a Bronx program that helps people who were incarcerated get back on their feet with life and job skills training. McCray will head the nonprofit that uses donations from large companies and private...
Content Preview This content is exclusive for Optimum, Time Warner®, Comcast®, customers with access to News 12.
Log in
Create an account


text:
In response to rameakap's comment:
Boyce and Harmon were picked as needs b/c Bill wiffed on adding a legit veteran safety alongside McCourty and couldn't up the ante for Emmanual Sanders by all of 1 million. Sanders means no Boyce.
If we had signed Goldson, the safety Brady just said he most admired, who should have been signed when he was in for a visit 2 years ago (and all but guaranteed a SB win over the Giants) then we'd have not had to have Harmon.
I am still fine with the great value Pats got from Vikings for that #1 pick. Still a no-brainer unless Ogletree is an absolute superstar.
So Collins, Dobson and Ryan still could have all been the plays there. The Harmon pick goes to Pitt. I'd have liked to have seen Akeem Spence, the DT we just saw sack Brady, over Boyce. Then how about trading up 15 spots from our own 4th with a 7th and maybe a future 6th or 7th to take Barrett Jones and solidify the inside of the O-line?
An offseason in which we stole Sanders, retained Welker (for that 3rd year and like 500k more a year) instead of Amendola, signed Goldson over Wilson and extended Spikes would have made me very happy. Same 3 top 3 picks with Spence and Jones over Harmon, Boyce and Beauharnais.
Buchanan, Blount, Kenbrell and Sudfield all are here as well of course.
I think we also should have traded the Vikes a 6th round pick for Adrian Peterson and the Texans a 7th rounder for J.J. Watt
The above is just as likely to happen as Goldson was going to play for the Pats!


text:
husband is repeatedly doing cocaine behind my back and lying about it
My husband of a year and a half continues to use cocaine behind my back despite what i tell him. I myself used to be a drug addict before i became pregnant with our first child. I am now 26 weeks pregnant with our second child and i have had enough. I dont know what to say anymore because i feel like ive said it all. I do not want to raise my children around that, and I dont know what to do to make him realize that he needs to change. He knows i used to have a drug problem and i do NOT want to have that stuff around me or in the house. I have tried so hard to turn my life around and i am NOT going back! What should I do? Should we leave him for awhile to make him think? I dont know what to do to make him realize that he needs to stop!
Posted: 12/07/2007 by babyblue000
Mom Answers
Sort by: best answers | most recent answers
1 - 6 of 6 answers
If you can, leave him. It doesn't have to be permanent. You can tell him that you still love him but you don't love his addiction and what it does to him. For the sake of your child, please do not raise him or her with your husband until he gets sober. You are at very high risk of relapsing while your husband continues this behaviour. A home with drugs in it is not a home for a child to be raised in.posted 04/30/2008 by MicroMama
I know this situation can be EXTREMELY difficult. I would think about leaving him and plan on coming back if and only if he gets help. Sometimes addiction can be stronger than our love and even if we say things over and over ... the addiction speaks louder. You've been there and you know it isn't safe or right for your kids to be around. Do you have family around that would be of good influence to your children who would consider letting you stay for a while... or perhaps a friend? Sometimes people who have these kinds of problems (cocaine is a hard one) needs to be pushed to the very edge ... and if it takes loosing their family temporarily to help them change then you will not only be helping your husband but children also. Best wishesposted 04/30/2008 by Snyderme
I think that you should leave and till him that when he ready to stop all the drugs thats when you be back with him and that he should do for your kids.posted 04/30/2008 by la masomenos
Oh dear, I know this sitution all too well. My ex had the same problem and so did i when we had our baby. I dealt with the lies and the not coming home for days, but when i found him overdosed on our bathroom floor it was time for him to go. I know it's hard. And i will always have some kind of love for him. that was 3 years ago i had to kick him out. and yes it hurt, but it was the best thing for me and my Daughter. Now i'm married to a great guy an we have an 8 month old daughter aswell. Oh and even if he gets help or treatment, it's not a cure as i'm sure u know, My ex went to treatment and detox and all those lovely places several times. Where is he now? on the skids. and where am i now? in a beautiful home with 2 beautiful kids and a great guy. I'm not saying this is what happens or that u shuld do what i did, i just thaught i'd shARE my story. maybe it will helpposted 04/30/2008 by luvs babygiggles
Follow your words with action. It doesn't have to be a drastic or permanent step. If you can stay at a friend's place or with family, then try that after having a conversation.posted 04/30/2008 by jagpawmom
i would tell him to stop or that you are going to leave with the kids and not come back till he goes to rehave and cleans up his lifeposted 04/30/2008 by la masomenos
Answer this question


text:
This DVD bonanza features two classic films that provide more gun-blazing action than any die-hard western fan could hope for. Boot Hill tips its hat to the more comic side of the western tradition, rounding up a bunch of laughs courtesy of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. Vengeance Valley is the tale of two brothers headed for a deadly draw starring Burt Lancaster.
Boot Hill (1969): Get ready to meet two brothers who don't have a whole bunch in common in this entertaining spaghetti western about Cat Stevens (Terence Hill) and his half brother Arch Hutch (Bud Spencer). These boys are never really looking for trouble, but trouble seems to have a strange way of always finding them. When the wealthy town boss decides to flex a bit of muscle, these two drifters have no choice but to meet the challenge with a positive attitude and guns blazing. These brothers will have you laughing before they're through with you!
Vengeance Valley (1951): The setting for Vengeance Valley is a peaceful family ranch that is about to greet a violent confrontation between two brothers that will change life forever. Owen Daybright (Burt Lancaster) is the honest, hardworking son of ranch owner Arch Stroble. In an act of rage and jealousy, Owen's brother Lee (Robert Walker) decides the only way to better his brother is to frame him for a crime he did not commit. Bad blood between brothers can only lead to bloodshed in this western classic.


text:
- Dec 28:
- Orton knows he'll catch flak after failed comeback
- Briefs: Dawkings deals with emotional return to Philly
- Kiszla: Entrance to elite circle closing
- Reid lets Eagles defense carry day
- What the fans are saying: Slam the screen door shut, please
- Krieger: Microcosm of bipolar season
- Broncos lose third straight
PHILADELPHIA — For a week, Champ Bailey had stared at the video, had seen DeSean Jackson run, seen Jackson jump, seen Jackson score oh- so-many times from long distance.
"I looked at it over and over," Bailey said. "And bottom line is, they know what they've got and they use it. They use it any way they can draw it up, and a lot of times, he takes it the distance."
Which is exactly why the Broncos made the choice Sunday to put Bailey on Jackson much of the time and simply take their chances 10-on-10 with the rest of the Eagles offense.
And they kept Jackson, who entered the game with eight touchdowns this season of at least 50 yards, from being the one who sent them home with a loss. Jackson caught four of the 10 passes Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb threw his way for 33 yards to go with a 2-yard touchdown reception in the first quarter.
Broncos vs. Eagles
- View slide show of Broncos-Eagles game Dec. 27.
- Analyze boxscore for Broncos-Eagles game.
- Read gameday blog about inactives for Broncos-Eagles.
- Read gameday blog about Brandon Lloyd in uniform.
- Examine printable scouting report.
- Analyze a pre-game stats matchup for Broncos-Eagles.
- Visit the Broncos Stats Page for roster, standings, team leaders.
- Visit the Eagles Stats Page.
- Read the latest notes and analysis on the All Things Broncos blog.
- Ask Mike Klis about the game.
- Post photos of your team spirit.
- Pore over Broncos '09 schedule.
Fans, sign up now for Broncos Premium, our website offering don't-miss news, analysis and features only available to registered users. It's free!
"I thought we put (Bailey) in some situations where he had to stand in there and fight with the guy," Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said. "He's a great receiver, and Champ's a great corner. I thought Champ did nice job, for the most part."
Jackson has such quick feet and gets to his top-end speed so quickly, he can have an impact at both outside spots in the offense as well as in the slot in each side of the formation.
Bigger corners like Bailey usually can't keep up and the smaller ones can't knock Jackson off his route at the line of scrimmage. Jackson also is a quality finisher who can reel in the out-of-frame pass from almost any angle.
Sunday, the Eagles moved him around plenty. Before their final possession, in which they ran the ball on five of six plays on their game-winning drive, Jackson lined up to the outside on the offensive right 31 times, lined up to the outside on the offensive left 12 times, lined up inside, in either slot position a combined 18 times, lined up in the backfield next to McNabb once and carried the ball on a direct snap once.
That was plenty of variety for Bailey to deal with, and much of the time Bailey was doing it in man coverage.
"I like those kinds of challenges," Bailey said. "I want that. We've done it more this year in my time here. And I like that. You hope it helps you come away with a win, and you don't feel good when it doesn't, but I want that responsibility."
Two weeks ago, Bailey held Indianapolis' Reggie Wayne, the league's No. 3 receiver in yardage, to four catches for 43 yards. He held Jackson, the league's leader in yards per catch at 18.7, to only 8.3 yards per reception.
Went right: No pop
The Eagles have made life miserable on defenses with their ability to go big to so many players. Philadelphia has nine players who have had either a run or reception for at least 34 yards, including four wide receivers.
But with Jackson largely off the table for McNabb, the Eagles were forced to reel things in. Rookie Jeremy Maclin, who made a 27-yard catch with a sideline toe-dance on the Eagles' final possession of the game, was the only Philly wide receiver with a reception longer than 15 yards.
Went wrong: The other guys
Philadelphia's offense also is diverse and adapts well. Like the Chargers, they have players all over the formation to challenge a defense in the short, intermediate and deep areas.
Eagles' tight end Brent Celek finished with 121 yards on his four catches, including a 47-yard catch-and- romp in the open field for a score. Mac lin gained 92 yards on his six receptions.
The Broncos stopped the biggest playmaker but didn't close down the rest.
Up next: Kansas City
The Broncos catch a break in the regular-season finale Sunday in that the Chiefs offense doesn't stretch the field. Kansas City has had five games this season when it hasn't averaged 5.5 yards per pass attempt.
The last time the two teams played, Chiefs coach Todd Haley yanked quarterback Matt Cassel from the lineup, replacing him with Brodie Croyle.
Chris Chambers, whom the Chiefs acquired in a trade in early November, has been their deep threat, averaging at least 20 yards a catch in four of his eight games with the Chiefs. No other Chiefs receiver has done that in a game this season when catching more than one pass.
The Chiefs will have receiver Dwayne Bowe back in the lineup. He was suspended when the Broncos faced the Chiefs earlier this month.
Jeff Legwold: 303-954-2359 or firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Edited Press Release
Articles by Press Release Edited
Kentucky Ag Commissioner to Speak at May KENA Dinner
May 01, 2016
Ryan Quarles is the featured presenter for the Kentucky Equine Networking Association meeting in May. Read More
University of Tennessee to Host Equine Podiatry Conference
April 30, 2016
The pre-conference workshop and conference for vets and farriers will take place May 20 and 21, respectively. Read More
Churchill Downs Reaccredited by Safety, Integrity Alliance
April 29, 2016
Churchill Downs was the first track to be accredited in 2009, the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance's inaugural year. Read More
Eventer Boyd Martin Named Brooke USA Ambassador
April 28, 2016
In this capacity, he will represent the equine welfare charity throughout the country and in his travels abroad. Read More
New Mexico Enhancing Out-of-Competition Drug Testing Program
April 27, 2016
The New Mexico Racing Commission will enhance its out-of-competition drug testing program effective immediately. Read More
Belmont Stakes Celebration to Benefit Equine Research
April 26, 2016
The celebration, which will benefit the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, will be held June 9 in New York City. Read More
Grandin Elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
April 26, 2016
Temple Grandin, PhD, is an internationally recognized leader in humane animal handling techniques. Read More
McLean to Visit University of Arkansas as King Scholar
April 25, 2016
Equine behaviorist Dr. Andrew McLean will visit with and lecture to students and others on April 28. Read More
AHC Issues Forum to Focus on Putting Horsepower in Congress
April 25, 2016
The AHC's annual meeting will take place June 12-15 in Washington, D.C. The issues forum will be held June 13. Read More
Surgeon Ortved Joins New Bolton Center
April 25, 2016
Dr. Kyla Ortved specializes in orthopedic surgery, including arthroscopy, tenoscopy, and fracture repair. Read More
Second Maryland Horse Tests Positive for EHV
April 21, 2016
All horses exposed to the two positive cases are currently free of clinical signs and are being monitored daily. Read More
Howard County, Maryland, Horse Tests Positive for EHV
April 20, 2016
The affected horse tested positive for non-neuropathic EHV-1 and was euthanized by a private veterinarian. Read More
Pennsylvania Horse Tests Positive for EIA
April 20, 2016
A farm in Halifax has been quarantined after a horse residing there tested positive for EIA on April 18. Read More
Three Nebraska Horses Positive for Neurologic EHV-1
April 20, 2016
One of the affected horses has been euthanized while the other two have been isolated on the premises. Read More
Grayson-Jockey Club's Ocala Initiative Receives Donations
April 20, 2016
Double Diamond Farm donated $20,000, while Glen Hill Farm and Payton Training Center have each committed $10,000. Read More
Rabies Confirmed in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, Horse
April 19, 2016
The horse was hospitalized and later euthanized. Read More
Finalists Selected for 2016 Equine Industry Vision Award
April 18, 2016
Finalists include Tootie Bland, Gary Carpenter, the EQUUS Foundation, and the Retired Racehorse Project. Read More
Study: Not All Maple Species Contain Hypoglycin A
April 16, 2016
Hypoglycin A is the toxin behind the potentially deadly muscular disease atypical myopathy. Read More
Microchip Scanners Available to Jockey Club Customers
April 16, 2016
Microchips will become mandatory for the registration of Thoroughbred foals born in 2017 and later. Read More
Julie Broadway Named President of American Horse Council
April 15, 2016
Additionally, Ben Pendergrass has been promoted to vice president for policy and legislative affairs. Read More
FEI Joins Other Stakeholders in Concussion Conference
April 15, 2016
The fifth International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport will take place Oct. 27-28 in Berlin, Germany. Read More
Monmouth Park Announces New Health Protocols For Shippers
April 15, 2016
The new measures come in response to a number equine herpesvirus-1 cases at nearby Parx Racing, in Pennsylvania. Read More
Meeting for Fish Springs Wild Horse Pilot Program Scheduled
April 15, 2016
The meeting, scheduled for April 21 in Nevada, is being held to inform the public of the project and address questions. Read More
Lecture on Robotics-Controlled Imaging System Scheduled
April 15, 2016
The presentation on the Equimagine system will take place May 6 at the Penn Vet New Bolton Center. Read More
Registration Open for KHC Large Animal Rescue Training
April 14, 2016
A basic training class and an operations-level course (which will be open to auditors) will be offered. Read More


text:
How to Apply
Physician assistants interested in applying to our one-year fellowship that begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 must submit a complete application by March 1.
To submit an application, please complete our online form (you will need to upload your curriculum vita and three letters of recommendation).
Selected applicants will be invited to interview. Interviews typically last four to five hours. During this time, applicants will meet with the medical director and program director as well as the program director of the psychiatry residency. The interview will also include a tour of the facilities. No funding is available for travel expenses.


text:
Trade What You See: How To Profit from Pattern Recognition (Wiley Trading)
Leslie Jouflas, Larry Pesavento
Trading the financial markets is extremely difficult, but with the right approach, traders can achieve success. Nobody knows this better than authors Larry Pesavento and Leslie Jouflas, both traders and educators of traders, who have consistently used pattern recognition to capture profits from the markets. In Trade What You See, Pesavento and Jouflas show traders how to identify patterns as they are developing and exactly where to place entry and exit orders. While some patterns derive from the techniques of Wall Street's earliest traders and other patterns reflect Pesavento's emphasis on the geometry of market movements and Fibonacci numbers. Filled with hard-won knowledge gained through years of market experience, Trade What You Seeoutlines both a practical and sophisticated approach to trading that will be of interest to both novice and seasoned traders alike. Larry Pesavento is a forty-year veteran trader. He operates a Web site,
Technical specifications
- Hardcover: 224 pages
- Publisher: Wiley
- Product Dimensions: 10.1 x 7.2 x 0.9 inches


text:
Kurt Angle vs. Wes Brisco and Garett Bischoff
X Division Championship: Kenny King vs. Petey Williams vs. Zema Ion
Magnus is Taken out By The Aces and 8s
Update on the Condition of Velvet Sky
#1 Knockouts Contender Match: Mickie James vs. Miss Tessmacher
The Aces and 8s Send Joseph Park a clear Message
Which Tag Team Will get the Next Title Shot?
TV Championship: Samoa Joe vs. Devon
James Storm vs. AJ Styles
World Champion Bully Ray calls out Hulk Hogan to face him on IMPACT
The Hottest WWE news, photos and videos delivered to your inbox in one convenient newsletter. Sign up now and give it a try!


text:
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Republican Dave Spence brought his campaign for Missouri governor to Callaway County Wednesday with a stop at the Hatton Community Hall and charged Gov. Jay Nixon is a tool of trial lawyers and unions that have contributed $5 million to the Democratic governor's campaign.
Spence said trial lawyers and unions each have contributed $2.5 million to Nixon's campaign.
After taking $5 million in campaign contributions from trial lawyers and unions, Spence said Nixon has blocked needed measures such as tort reform, worker compensation fixes, employment discrimination reform and other policies needed to enable Missouri businesses to grow.
He said Missouri now ranks last in the nation in job growth because Nixon's policies have stifled growth.
Spence said a state audit revealed Nixon misappropriated about $1.7 million from other state agencies to pay for his personal travel expenses, including flying a state airplane around the state.
Spence said his campaign has taken him to all 114 Missouri counties and he is dismayed by the current state of Missouri's economy.
"Why are many of our towns drying up," Spence asked, "and people moving to other states? Why are many of our town squares boarded up? That's the state of our economy in a lot of small towns. It's sad. How did we get to be last in the nation in job creation? How did we get to having one in six Missourians on food stamps? How did we get to having 16 percent of our population living in poverty?"
Spence said the answer is a lack of leadership by the governor who is interested only in his re-election. Spence said Nixon has dodged debates with him and the governor's departments only want to impose more regulations on businesses rather than helping them grow and create jobs.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting.


text:
Interested in more details on this topic? Click here!
Commentary by Jeremy Wacksman
You see smartphones and tablets all around you. From business executives in airport lounges to teenagers on buses to distracted drivers waiting at red lights, faces everywhere reflect the glow of a screen. People check their phones 150 times per day, according to a recent study.¹ Mobile device usage has become ingrained in our daily lives, empowering us to get immediate answers, make use of otherwise unproductive time, and interact with others whenever we want through phone calls, video chats and social media.
And mobile users love their apps. As smartphone and tablet users, we spend 89 percent of our media time on mobile apps, compared with just 11 percent browsing mobile websites.² For businesses, apps have become an instrumental medium to interact with consumers.
At Zillow, we realized early on that real estate information could be optimized for a mobile environment. So we focused heavily on developing great mobile apps and, as a result, now operate the most popular suite of real estate apps out there with more than two dozen across the major platforms.³ Mobile changes the consumer expectation in home shopping—mobile shoppers expect information immediately, and that the experience is personalized for their needs—so we've made those benefits core to the Zillow mobile experience.
Our data shows that consumers love shopping for homes on mobile devices. In March, more than 460 million homes were viewed on Zillow Mobile—that's 173 homes per second.4 This figure has nearly doubled in one year.
So what does the consumer's obsession with mobile mean for the real estate agent?
Today's house hunters can integrate their mobile shopping with their Sunday drives, allowing them to immediately expand their knowledge about what's on the market, who the listing agent is and where the next open house is located. With a few texts or emails between buyers and agents, a real estate deal can originate through a mobile device.
This integration of mobile with the home search means agents need to be on mobile to stay competitive. It means a mobile strategy is crucial to an agent's marketing plan. It means listings and agent contact details need to be on mobile, because that's where the consumer is looking.
Zillow helps agents fulfill their mobile needs by publishing all listings and agents on both desktop and mobile for free. Regardless of whether agents advertise with us, they're visible to consumers on our apps if they've set up a free Zillow profile. This helps everyone involved in the home-buying process—buyers, sellers and agents—be more successful.
¹ 2013 Internet Trends, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, May 2013
² The Cross-Platform Report, The Nielson Company, Q4 2013
³ Zillow Internal, March 2014
4 Google Analytics, March 2014
Jeremy Wacksman is vice president, Marketing and Product Management, Zillow. For more information, visit www.zillow.com.
Interested in more details on this topic? Click here!
Copyright© 2016 RISMedia, The Leader in Real Estate Information Systems and Real Estate News. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be republished without permission from RISMedia.
Content on this website is copyrighted and may not be redistributed without express written permission from RISMedia. Access to RISMedia archives and thousands of articles like this, as well as consumer real estate videos, are available through RISMedia's REsource Licensed Content Solutions. Offering the industry's most comprehensive and affordable content packages. Click here to learn more! http://resource.rismedia.com