Global warming..
Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › Old Forums › General › Global warming..
- This topic has 79 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
WHOfan.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 27, 2006 at 9:41 am #45041
This is the most active forum, that I have come across and I am eager to know, how this forum can contribute in tackling the cocnern of ‘Global warming’.
As we all know, there used to be a time, when the weather was quite predictable – it used to rain when it was supposed to rain and so and so forth. For the last few years, it is observed that the weather has become too unpredictable. Six-sigma is widely used to address variability issues, do you think six-sigma can help to address the issue of ‘Global warming’…Think over it and answer as this will be a great service to our mankind.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 9:58 am #145877
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.I believe through introducing SS into the Weather Casting Business??
0October 27, 2006 at 10:24 am #145883Hi,
I would start with a bit of critical data analysis:
do you have any data to support the statement that weather predictions used to be more accurate “a few years” ago ?Is this even relevant to the question of global warming ? You’ll have to separate the variability due to changes in measurement and prediction techniques from changes in the weather patterns for instance.Regards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 10:42 am #145887Sandor
You are right in asking for the data. I have explained below the phenomenon of ‘global warming’.
” Global Warming is an avearge increase in the temperature near the Earth’s surface and in the ‘troposphere’, which can contribute to changes in the global climate patterns. The causes can be natural or human indicted such as greenhouse gases from human activities’. “
My question was intended to understand, how six-sigma can be used to address issues leading to global warming. It was not intended to discuss on measurement techniques of weather forecasting.
Apologies for the confusion.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 10:46 am #145888
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Before charging down this path, you may want to think about a quote from George Box: “All models are wrong, some are useful.” Wasn’t it about 20 or 30 years ago when they said they knew we were going into another ice age? Chaos Theory, anyone?
0October 27, 2006 at 10:52 am #145889Popularly known as the ‘butterfly effect’…right.
So what was the key input…which has taken us to where we are today?
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:03 am #145891
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.I don’t think we understand the complexities of the input variables well enough to say. We may be dealing with global climate cycles that go beyond our recorded history and current level of understanding of the weather. There’s a lot of noise out there! That’s why our weather prediction models aren’t all that great. Heck, we’ve been gathering tons of data on hurricanes and tornados for years, and we still can’t figure them out.
Regards,
“Shooter”0October 27, 2006 at 11:10 am #145892Does that mean that a systematic approach is needed to identify key variables leading to ‘global warming’?. If the answer is ‘yes’, can six-sigma be used , if no, how do we tackle the problem…….any other approach, which can be applied to address the problem.?
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:17 am #145893Hi Monk,
I think the way you raised the question is fully OK, you only need to fill in the details :))Based on some data – in this case concerning the quality of weather prediction the you stated a hypothesis that there is an effect known as global warming.What I meant is that before you can even discuss the hypothesis you’ll need to seriously check the relevance and quality of your data, which would be the second step in a 6S project BTW.Now, if the question is how six sigma can be used to address issues leading to global warming I would – again- start with looking for data. Regards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 11:24 am #145895Monk,
This is an excellent question.
I would like to ask another – what is the cause of global warming? Is it due to too much Carbon Dioxide emissions from cars, smoking valcanoes, burning vast racks of forest, or a deficiency of ozone in the upper atmosphere (to block infra red.)
Cheers,
Andy0October 27, 2006 at 11:29 am #145896Sandor,
I can understand the relevance of your questions and where you come from…
Assuming that data is relevant and management agrees to support…what will be your approch? No repeat answers pl. :-)
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:31 am #145898SSS
BTW..have you watched the movie ‘Butter Effect’….I am a big fan of the movie…makes lot of sense.
Monk
0October 27, 2006 at 11:34 am #145899
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Good point. Maybe we should start am organization to study such things. We could call it the National Oceanographic and Atmoshperic Administration or something like that. Just a thought.
BTW, if we do not understand the weather’s key input variables and its cycles, how can we come to a conslusion that Global Warming actually exists?0October 27, 2006 at 11:41 am #145901
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Monk,
Can’t say as I have, but will check it out on your recommendation.
Best always,
“Shooter”0October 27, 2006 at 11:42 am #145902Hi,
well, I do not want to pretend that I am ignorant of all the debates going on concerning the “hockey stick” curve and other aspects of the global warming discussion … but let’s assume that we have relevant data and furthemore let’s assume that the data points at CO2 emissons as the root cause, so our objective can be the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.I would start by a process map sort of analysis of what is happening with the CO2 – what are the sources and the sinks of CO2 in nature – and then a Pareto . And definitely a stakeholder analysis quite early in the process :)) Then I would just go where the data leads me, as opposed to where my political preferences, prejudices etc point….. AFAIK there is too much of THAT in the global warming debate already.
Regards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 11:42 am #145903Andy,
Thanks for the same.
As a initiator of this thread, I would suggest that let us keep the scope of discussion on issues / causes that are within our control ie. mankind. Let us keep the causes due to nature out of scope of discussion as it is futile to discuss on those, as there will be no actionables out of it.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:45 am #145905SSS,
sorry there was a typographical error. the name of the movie is ‘Butterfly effect’.
Get a copy and watch it.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:46 am #145906Hi,
pls allow me to disagree :) at this stage of the project it would be absolutely wrong to exclude potential root causes from the investigation – otherwise we’d be like the proverbial drunkard looking for his keys where the light is on…Regards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 11:50 am #145907
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks, Monk. Yeah – I caught that. The movie “Butter Effect” is a nice little ditty about wakeboarding or something.
0October 27, 2006 at 11:52 am #145908Sandor,
Good one! The worrying thing is, what you are saying is ‘the fact’.
So how do u make the drunkard find the keys in this situation :-) and also make him open the lock !
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 11:54 am #145909Well, I thought someone from WHO should be able to own the responsibility for that….So who is the problem owner…Is the WHO at the globle level ?
correct me if i am wrong !
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 12:12 pm #145910Good question :))
there seems to be too much politics around the whole question to have an easy answer to that.Just an example: about 3 years ago I read a small news item stating that the ice-caps on Mars are shrinking. I do not know whether this was true or not but in any case it should have been part of the discussion on global warming, don’t you think?Well, I never saw it mentioned, ever. Why would this be, I wonder?Regards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 12:31 pm #145913You’ve been out in the sun too long. Next you’ll be spending $40,000 to learn how to go to the bathroom.
Try selling 6s to your grandmother instead.0October 27, 2006 at 12:44 pm #145915asf
Thanks for the response.
I am sorry I cannot fulfill your wish of ‘selling 6s to your grandmother’, as she is no more.
Can you contact your grandmother to do that for me please ! :-) Thanks in advance.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 12:48 pm #145916Sandor,
I agree with your concern. You will agree that politics exists everyewhere, in our organisations too. So we use six-sigma so that we bring more objectivity to the problem, which will help the top management to take decision based on data.
So how do we use six-sigma to counter this ? Ultimately its all about change management..yah!
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm #145918Monk
I’ve enjoyed reading many of the responses to your question. And the simple answer is no – Six Sigma can’t help you solve your problem.
A common mistake in the use of Six Sigma is to apply it to problems where we already know the solution. In this case, the solutions and the causes are known. So we need an action plan and great stakholder/ change management to implement the solutions and then we’ll see an improvement.
I’m sure many fellow practitioners would argue that Six Sigma is really really useful in lots of ways. But they’re wrong – this is time to just get on and do something.0October 27, 2006 at 1:13 pm #145919Hi,
I would use all the data I can have and be especially wary of any preconceived ideas. I would also start with a thorough stakeholder analysis.In the real case I just do not see the sponsor or champion who has a genuine interest in solving the problem as opposed to promoting some private agenda under the guise of global warming. This is not necessarily so, to quite this degree, in every company. In case it is, there is not much Six Sigma can help there – and I’d tend to think the same applies for global warming as well :(((Regards
SandorRegards
Sandor0October 27, 2006 at 1:28 pm #145921Thanks for the response.
If I would have been in your place, I would have asked myself – “Do I know everything I am supposed to know about this poblem, or I am assuming a lot of things and think some of the actions would work?”
As you rightly said, we all know that global warming is due to CO emission and depletion of ozone layer. So what do we do?
We can do the following:
– Define ‘metric’ that can measure the ‘greenhouse effect’ in different cities around the world.
– WHO to make it mandatory for all countries to have a plan in place to control the metric, which should keep a check on having any further damage to the climate.
– WHO should give weightage to this metric in all discussion.
– UN should start discussing on how to monitor this metric and contol it effectively.
–more suggestions from your side.
Currently there isno enought data available or it isnot being utilised for any fruitful purpose and by using six-sigma, we can have a focussed team to work on. Problem is who is going to own it ?
Ultimately…we re all here to make things better to improve our business, but what is the use if ….we donot have the ‘right environment’ to enjoy the ‘money’ that we have. Think about it !!
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 1:32 pm #145923Monk
Do you really think we don’t have enough meaningful data to solve the global warming problem?
Of course we do. As I already wrote, the issue is with people. Nobody owns cause (amongst other things) it costs too much. So we need to keep working on the buy in.
More measurement is exactly what politicians and big business want us to be discussing. Why? Because it just puts off the inevitable.
Act – stop talking – stop measuring and stop analysing!!
0October 27, 2006 at 1:36 pm #145925Julian,
I agree that enough is there….so what happens to that information ? How does it reach the common man? Is this information used to creat awareness and how it is done?
Can you share what data is available with you, so that I can myself get educated on it? I am not trying to challenge you, just asking for more information.
Thanks !
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 1:42 pm #145926First question asked should be what ‘could’ casue global warming. If you are seeing if the issue really exists, then that should be the start. From there, collect cause and effect data on the different variables and move forward with the most plausible. Your hypothesis will change if you make the assumption that global warming does exist from the start.
0October 27, 2006 at 2:17 pm #145932I agree with this approach, which is why I raised the question about the possible link between the green-house effect, Carbon emissions (both natural and by man’s activities), and ozone. (I believe Ozone is opaque with respect to IR.)
I’d be interested in the time-lines of these paramters – perhaps they’re linked in some unexpected way.
Andy0October 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm #145933Andy,
Agree…the data for the global warming will be available at the following website.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
As I said earlier the information is available (like it does in a typical organisation), but what do we d with it? How are we using it to do something production? Any data collection, which doesnot get looked into and communicated is a ‘waste’….should we do a ‘lean’ exercise to scrap all these unwanted data collections happening.
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 2:37 pm #145934Respectfully, you and Julian are making a causal relationship statement without providing data and analysis to support it. You have used the words “proven” and “proof” much too often and have moved the discussion beyond analysis into assumption. As this thread has mentioned numerous times, be careful about your own preconceived notions. Please document your hypotheses, models, and confidence intervals … and be sure to conduct an MSA before making such statements.
Secondly, I believe the WHO (World Health Organization) has little to due to studying Global Climate Change. I believe the organization Andy mentioned would be more appropriate – NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration).
Lastly, I seem to recall Wheeler having a control chart in one of his Variation books discussing this very topic. While he didn’t get into the discussion much, I do know that control chart demonstrated statistical control of temperature … not that I’m agreeing with what he did, just pointing out an interesting reference.
Interesting discussion – but let’s keep to the facts.
Ritz0October 27, 2006 at 2:41 pm #145935Monk
Thanks for the resoponse – now we’re talking. I need to answer your request with a question: What’s in it for me?
There are two broad approached to change people’s behaviour (which is fundamentally what is required to solve global warming). Either you create something of value that incentivises the change, or you create a negative consequence severe enough that people are forced to behave in the correct way.
There’s little incentive to change at the moment – who wants to fly less, walk more, recycle? It generally costs more in time and money than before – so politicians find it very hard to impose these changes and we don’t like them much either. When governments introduce environmental taxes (negative consequences), e.g. extra duty on gas guzzling cars, the amount they charge (a few hundred pounds) is insufficient to change behaviour when the cars themselves cost £40,000+ for luxury brands. The consequence isn’t severe enough.
So one possible answer is to make the consequences so negative, e.g. taxing thousands to make waste unafordable. Another answer is carbon trading, where you have an allowance for waste and if you want more, you have to buy it from someone willing to sell it….. But can you imagine any politician today proposing such a thing and rolling it out quickly? How would the public really react?
Of course the most negative consequence of all is the destuction of the planet, but that’s too far off for anyone to risk making unpopular decisions today.
Fortunately, children are now being raised with a new set of beliefs that caring for the environment really is important, so I reckon in 10-20 years time when they start filling political and big business posts the world will really start to change. In the mean time we’ll need some significant natural disasters to shock people into acting now.
Just remember – everyone knows what to do. Just not enough people care enough to be want to change quickly. It’s all about “what’s in it for me”
By the way – if you’d like to read the theory try: Unlock Behavior, Unleash Profits by Leslie Braksick – a bible in behavioural management.0October 27, 2006 at 2:53 pm #145938Ritz
so …you agree that a systematic structurl approach is needed to tackle this problem…or
you agree that enough data is not available to make any conclusive statement… or
you agree that global warming is not a issue that we need to discuss or focuss on, as we are unaffected by this..
I question to you –
-> Which of the above statements do you agree to?
-> Do you agree that ‘global warming’ is something related to ‘change management’ and six-sigma is all about ‘cnage leaders’.?
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 2:59 pm #145939Julian,
I am glad that you can ‘think’ ?
Can you answer my questions …as the answers are hidden in the quesions itself ?
-> When a mother feeds her baby, does she ask ‘what is in it for me?’ ?
-> When you hug your mother or kiss your husband …do you ask the question ‘What is in it for me?’?
Why?
can your book’unlock behavious’ answer the answer to the above questions?
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 3:28 pm #145941Hi Monk
You’re going to have to stop responding so I can do some work….. but as you can tell, I’m enjoying our discussion. See how I consider what’s in it for me? Weighing up the positive consequence of reading your responses versus the negative threat that I’ll be in trouble if I don’t finish my work.
The answer to both your questions is yes. And I can explain……
For some people not feeding a baby seems more positive to them – perhaps they don’t like it, or the baby is a fussy eater and it’s frustrating, or they would prefer to let a partner or friend do it.
Does every grandchild kiss their grandparent out of love or are they looking for some pocket money?
Does an abusive parent harm a child out of hatred? Or is it because they can’t stand the crying and they want it to stop? Or do they like the feeling of power they have?
So you see (and we are way off topic here) we all are constantly weighing up consequences and acting according to what is of interest to us – “what’s in it for me?”
In fact the only case where this does not apply is when there is a genuine mental problem that prevents an individual from bahaving rationally. But in your case of global warming, and almost all other situations in life, this will be a rare event.
Now I have to do some work!
But I’d still be interested in your response.0October 27, 2006 at 3:30 pm #145942Hi Monk,
Thanks for the great link .. I’ll check it out later!
Cheers,
Andy0October 27, 2006 at 3:45 pm #145944Julian,
Thanks for the genuine response. I can understand how you feel…sorry for the disturbance..but I can’t help it.
First of all, I agree with you that there is a definite purpose behind all the things that we do in life, but there are a few things for which we don’t look for incentives ! This is what I wanted to point it to you.
Why would you need an incentive for giving a healthly life to your grandchildren? It is their birth right and it is our duty to do it.
But as far as people think in a manner that everything they want to do…they need an incentive….then their is something wrong in either the way they think or in the way they are brought up ! Ultimately it is our responsibility ..not the responsibility of the politician.
If you can motivate your own behavious to change the way yo udo things …yo uwill be a role model that your neighbours will follow. the bigger problem is – whi wants to be a role model….
How does six-sigma come in picture ? its about how to communicate in a manner that people take responsibility for what they do?
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm #145945Julian,
BTW. I thought your weekend has alreayd started…Why do you overstretch so much? whats in it for you? Do things that you can enjoy!
Cheers
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 4:03 pm #145946Well Monk 2 things
1. We always weigh up consequences – read the book I recommended. Even feeding a baby or ourselves!!!
2. I’m in the UK. I’m off now – not bad it’s 4.45pm and I have finished my work!!0October 27, 2006 at 4:14 pm #145948Monk,
1) I’m not sure yet, but probably
2) Most likely, but I really don’t know
3) No
Discussion:
1) I can’t say that using a structued approach is needed to tackle this “problem”, since no one has shown me evidence that a problem exists. If I were convinced that a problem exists (through data), I would agree that use of a structured, scientific method would be appropriate.
2) No one has shown me any data, and I have not researched the available information to know if “enough” data exists. Therefore, any conclusive statements made are irrelevant and illogical.
3) How can I agree or disagree to a statement without resolution to #2?
The posters to this thread moved from a hypothetical (can six sigma help understand / solve “global warming”?) to statements of fact (global warming is a validated problem, we know the root causes, so let’s start solving). My previous post merely points out this discrepency.
Comments:
In my mind, you haven’t gotten out of the Define phase. No one (on this thread!) has presented facts or data, framed a hypothesis, or shown any measurements that indicate a problem. So, don’t jump to solutions until you pass Define.
Ritz0October 27, 2006 at 4:20 pm #145950Ritz,
Enough data is available to take decision…the problem is who is going to bell the CAT. Pl. refer the below mentioned link, which can give you data for the last few decades.
Again…there are issues like measurement method and measurement study that needs to be looked into….but atleast we need to start somewhere…who will do it and when ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Monk0October 27, 2006 at 5:07 pm #145954
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.You know, this whole thread reminds me of the cautions about post-hoc falacies associated with correlation. I guess some get it and some don’t.
Regards,
Shooter0October 27, 2006 at 5:16 pm #145955Monk,
I firmly disagree, until you list sources of critical factors that are inputs into the model you are trying to create and establish statistical evidence of the relationship.
I do not believe that a few decades worth of data points is sufficient in determining climate change on a global scale when the average climate cycle can last over 10,000 years.
I thought we were going to keep pre-conceived notions out of this discussion, yet you seem to have made a conclusion without statistically providing evidence. Therefore, I can not see how you have rejected your null hypothesis … which must, by default, have been something to the effect of “The Earth’s temperature today is not statistically significantly different than any other time period of Earth”.
I don’t understand your reference: “…bell the CAT”.
I did find a link you may find interesting. I have not thoroughly read or digested the information at this time, but may read-up on the subject.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/climate-change/basics/
Ritz
0October 27, 2006 at 7:33 pm #145962
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.I believe serious efforts should be taken to introduce SS Techniques into the following domains:
*Green methodologies and products
*Producing Ethanol insted of the Methanol
*Encouraging environmental efforts by introducing Lean tools
*Encouraging and supporting the production New (safe ) cars
by introducing Lean-SS practices…etc
Good Luck0October 27, 2006 at 9:23 pm #145965
NostradamusParticipant@NostradamusInclude @Nostradamus in your post and this person will
be notified via email.This should now include the methodology on Divinity For Six Sigma (DFSS) inclusive of new KPIVs such as the Universe instead of environment.
0October 27, 2006 at 9:54 pm #145969Define the process, the unit moving through the process, etc, etc…..otherwise, no SS involved here………….its a basic search for statistical significance…
0October 27, 2006 at 11:11 pm #145971Monk and all the narrow minded SS morons here might stop and ask:
why has the earth been warming and cooling for millions of years ?
why was the “Medieval Warm Period” hotter than today ?
why did Dome Concordia ice cores show temperature rises preceding CO2 increases for the past 700,000 years?
why did global temperatures fall between 1930 and 1970, despite rising CO2 levels.
why do so many people follow the pack like sheep ?0October 27, 2006 at 11:14 pm #145972Why ask why…..we all need a “Bud Dry”…..its Friday !!
0October 28, 2006 at 6:09 am #145977
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.To answer your questions:
First please enlight us as you are the only Great Mind in this Forum.Monk’s Question was about possibility of Involving SS’s techniques in Global Warming?
If we can’t help in “minimizing” Global Warming,then why we are seeking for new safe green products and techniques all over the world??
Yes we are all glad to follow Monk like sheep,waiting for you to enlight us .Have a great day.0October 29, 2006 at 9:48 am #146017It seems my questions have put you all off.
They hint at a fundamental six sigma flaw. Can you guess what it is ?
why has the earth been warming and cooling for millions of years ?
why was the “Medieval Warm Period” hotter than today ?
why did Dome Concordia ice cores show temperature rises preceding CO2 increases for the past 700,000 years?
why did global temperatures fall between 1930 and 1970, despite rising CO2 levels.
why do so many people follow the pack like sheep ?0October 29, 2006 at 10:15 am #146019Sam,
I think there is a big difference between problem solving and process improvement.
I applaud your approach because you’re studying contradictions. I also share your scepticism, even though I may well be a sheep.
I view the world’s atmosphere as a lens. As you know, the amount of light refracted into a lens depends on the refractive index of the atmosphere compared to space.
The questions is what influences the density of electrons in the atmosphere? Is it carbon aerosols? A natural phenomenon as yet undetected? The quality of ozone in the upper atmosphere?
PS: I’m making this up as I go along :-)
Cheers,
Andy0October 29, 2006 at 11:02 am #146022Forget all preconceptions and chattering of consultants cluttering your head.
Be as a 3 year old and ask: WHY
Think for yourself.0October 29, 2006 at 1:52 pm #146028
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.SS as a methodology can be used to tackle any type of problem including “Global Warming”??
0October 29, 2006 at 1:54 pm #146029
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Just explain why 3??
0October 29, 2006 at 3:35 pm #146033
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.I would argue it is not a flaw in six sigma, but an emotional reaction seen many times throughout the history of science. Basically, it is what happens when people become emotionally tied to an issue, reacting to gut instincts and beliefs. The world was once flat and the universe revolved around the earth. Anyone who said otherwise could be put to death as a heretic. The same holds true for global warming. Decisions are made without any understanding of the system or the science. Correlation fallacies are made, but – because the cause of “solving global warming” is so noble – those who question the fallacies are labelled heretics – sound familiar?
Being good stewards of our planet is a no brainer – it’s just the right thing to do. But the pendulum does swing too far in the other direction, as well . . . especially when well meaning people in high-minded places decide that man can and does create global warming without fully understanding the cycles and its inputs.
Lets bring this into the six sigma world. Don’t we see this type of “thinking” in almost every place we go? Even in our black belts and those who are supposed to know better. That’s why decisions to improve processes are made with incomplete information – looking at only a limited timeframe of data – not understanding the cycles, the noise variable and such. When the improvement doesn’t work as a result, they all stand back and wonder why.
I doubt that few of the “we must do something to stop global warming” crowd have ever really looked at the data. They get their news from their favorite source and buy the latest hype of the day. And – as you have pointed out – the data is very interesting and leads to more questions and deeper learning of our world and its environment.
As systems thinkers, I would think the Six Sigma community would have something to add in getting to the data – not adding to the hyperbole and emotion-based decision making. As Dr. Deming would say, “Off we go to the Milky Way.”
Black Belt Test Question: To what was Dr. Deming referring when he made the above statement? (No Darth – you don’t get to answer ;-) )0October 29, 2006 at 4:11 pm #146037Six Sigma Shooter,
In a previous message, I was hoping you could share some Deming anecdotes with me ..
Cheers,
Andy0October 29, 2006 at 4:13 pm #146038Sorry to disagree – all problem solving methods include a ‘differential’ diagnosis.
DMAIC does not use this strategy – it’s a cycle of improvement along the lines of PDCA.
Cheers,
Andy0October 29, 2006 at 4:48 pm #146039Further to my previous post, I’ve been able to confirm there appears to be mininal global warming at the equator. I found the following reference, but I don’t know where I can find others
“There is minimal warming at the equator, but copious warming at the poles, which is where the ice is the melting of which is going to cause many of the more severe problems. There is minimal warming at the equator, but copious warming at the poles, which is where the ice is the melting of which is going to cause many of the more severe problems. “
Ref. OCRegister
If gobal warming is due to green house gases I would expect the temperature to increase everywhere across the planet, and not just at the poles. One thing Six Sigma teaches us is looking at an average without considering statification can be dangerous!
Andy0October 29, 2006 at 4:52 pm #146040
Six Sigma ShooterMember@Six-Sigma-ShooterInclude @Six-Sigma-Shooter in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Certainly. I’ll start a thread called “The Sayings and Lessons of Dr. Deming” – see if it gets any traction
“Shooter”0October 29, 2006 at 5:15 pm #146042Many thanks Shooter ..
0October 29, 2006 at 8:41 pm #146057
Marlon BrandoParticipant@Marlon-BrandoInclude @Marlon-Brando in your post and this person will
be notified via email.We all glad to have a person like you.You are really adding value to this forum.
0October 29, 2006 at 9:34 pm #146059Guru and Shooter,
Excellent !0October 30, 2006 at 12:42 pm #146098SS,
Thank you very for your insights.
If you refer my message header- it asks how six-sigma can be applied to ‘global warming’. As I understand ‘global warming’ is a phenomenon, which in a normal scenerios is considered perfectly normal, whereas under certain circumtances may be diastrous. Refer the link forwarded to you. It is very clear that in last 100 years the average temperature has increased by 1deg. C. How do you explain this phenomenon, which in a normal scenerio should happen in 1000 years. The phase at which the ‘global warming’ is happening is a matter a concern.
While I agree to you that sufficient data is not there to say whether the change has been statustically significant, at the same time, you will not disagree that it will take ages to collect data and by the data sufficient data is available to show statistical significance, it will be too late. the damage to environment is ‘irreversible’ and the cost will be significantly higher. So What do we do?
The question typically showcases a situation, where you see something is a obvious concern to focus on and we ask for data to quantify it.
What do we do under such a scenerio?
PS.- refer the headlines at the BBC website.
Monk0October 31, 2006 at 3:21 pm #146212Monk,
Two comments-
1) Make a determination whether or not we can do anything about it. If it is Global Change, fat chance of doing anything besides learn to adapt and invest in the new ocean front properties in Tennessee and Nevada.
2) If it is man-made, the only recourse I see is to stop the economic growth of China and India — since there appears to be a direct relationship of economic growth and the increased emission of “greenhouse” gases. Which would probably mean the forced adoption of “green” technology….which would probably lead to a relatively significant war.
Cheers.
0October 31, 2006 at 3:32 pm #146214Shaman,
Thanks for your response. MY comments to your comments:
1. Regarding the global warming, you can get more information at our website on the left side menu : > click Statistics & Analysis Control charts SPC & global warming.
2. As regards, economic growth of India is concerned, 60% of India’s populatin is in agricultural sector. So don’t be under the false notion that global warming will affect India negatively. On the contary, it will be helpful in cultivation of agriculture and strike balance in the ecosystem.
Regarding the economic growth of China, even currently China’s economic growth is the big flaw. It is much less that what it is actually. read the article written by Jim Womack in http://www.Lean.org website.
read the above and get back !
Monk0October 31, 2006 at 7:57 pm #146249Interesting – though I’m still not convinced that the shift over the past 130 of so years is significant (in terms of special cause) compared to the unknown history of temperature fluctuations on Earth. I do believe it may very well be significant for mankind. We can try to limit “greenhouse” emissions, but it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things.
I’ll admit to not being fully verssed in India and China economics, but it seems to me that the % of the population that is agrarian may not be the best indicator of their country’s “carbon footprint”. I would hypothesize that a significant % of the American population was agrarian back in the 1800’s when industrialization started. It’s the trajectory of the consumption curve that worries me. I would further hypothesize that the environmental regulations are more lax in developing countries.
So, in my opinion, do what you can on the greenhouse gas issue … but good luck convincing the developing country’s of the importance when the regimes of many developing country’s are not set-up for an environmental focus. I think I’ll invest in that Tenessee real-estate … maybe my future decendants can enjoy the ocean breeze.
Cheers.
0October 31, 2006 at 8:17 pm #146251“It is very clear that in last 100 years the average temperature has increased by 1deg. C.”
WRONG. No wonder you fools blindly follow SS.
Global temps FELL between 1930 and 1970.
CHECK YOUR FACTS . If you do, you will also see all the nonsense in SS
0October 31, 2006 at 9:18 pm #146253What is your data source? It’s often considered appropriate to cite data sources when making claims … especially when being even the slightest bit rude.
Cheers0November 1, 2006 at 12:45 am #146264Are you a baby ? Do you need to be spoon fed ?
0November 1, 2006 at 9:29 am #146301Terry
I will hold that my statement that ‘ It is very clear that in last 100 years the average temperature has increased by 1 deg C’ as true. If you don’t agree, thats your problem. I cannot change your opinion. You can hold on to your truth….I don’t mind :-)
Regarding the six-sigma, you have the right to express your opinion in this forum. At the same time, what you say, has to solve some purpose. I can’t see any rationale in your statemet ‘ No wonder you fools blindly follow SS’. You are free to live in your own world of illusion.
Yah, if six-sigma is nonsense, it is fine. What do you believe in ?
What value are you adding to the original message?
Monk0November 1, 2006 at 9:36 am #146304Shaman,
First of all, I will request you to go to http://www.india.gov.in website and know about India. If you make a statement with half knowledge, you need to be very careful and that my prove to be suicidal for you.
As far staying in Nevada or Tennessee is concerned, it is just a matter of time, for you to make you realise that ‘it doesnot matter where you stay, globl warming is going to affect you’. It might happen that a big Tusami / thunder-storm can hit Nevada or Tennessee and then you will remember my words and …..it will be too late by then. In other words….’ wake up to Face the reality ! don’t run away from it’.
Monk0November 1, 2006 at 10:00 am #146306Monkey,
I can understand you not having the brains to do your own reseach.
These might get you started, you sad sod ..
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm0November 1, 2006 at 11:38 am #146312Terry
Thanks for the information. I will go through it and get back.
There is nothing wrong in not having brains and admitting it..atleast it will lead to something positive. SO I accept that I am here to get knowledge from learned people like you….but have you given a thought about yourself….if not….start doing it ..right now !
Monk0November 1, 2006 at 12:35 pm #146318
Mike CarnellParticipant@Mike-CarnellInclude @Mike-Carnell in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Sam,
First I like your list of questions. Even after the Houston Chronicle published a big article on how badly the Texas coast would get hammered this year – worse than last year (and I sat through Rita) – I moved to the coast because looking at it like any other SS process they seemed to have decided that Hurricanes are related to one x and that is water temperature. They claimed the water temperature has risen 3 degrees. There is a threshold for hurricane formation that is dependent on one facter (water temperature) and it is sensitive to a 3 degree shift? They failed to mention that the shift had taken place over 27 years. Anyone who has done more than a couple dives (SCUBA) has run across a thermocline and seen that there are significant temperature shifts rumnning through the GoM constantly. No credibility.
Now we have made it through hurricane season with virtually no activity at all nobody wants to discuss last years article or accept responsibility for the garbage that was published. The lack of activity is being explained as a wind sheer that is cutting off the tops of the formations before they become hurricanes. Another X and possibly an interaction?
First I don’t see the “fundamental flaw” in six sigma even though I did not take the time to read the entire string. If anything it demonstrates that when people do not stick to the Y = f(x) and they choose to latch onto their favorite x and things seem out of control.
We have allowed the Global Warming thing to drive panic. We have people who claim that processes have to be stable to take data and make assumptions. If this is a SS thing let’s see the MSA and lets see the infamous stability tests before we start to draw conclusions. It is a system that people don’t understand and at the drop of a hat will run freely through the streets screaming that the sky is falling.
1 degree C over 100 years? That is amazingly stable for a system with this many inputs and this large. The heater and air conditioner in my home are lucky to do that well.
Just my opinion.
Good luck0November 2, 2006 at 9:13 pm #146433Monk,
Let’s be very clear: I made a hypothesis. You seem to be the one making statements. Backing them up with information from government sponsored web sites does not engender confidence in data sources. As far as “suicide” is concerned, you should consider taking care of yourself. You have yet to provide any solid evidence for your assertions that global warming exists or can be ameliorated. I think Ritz was the one who said somethign to the effect that 130 years of data is not sufficient evidence for a planet that is roughly 3.4 Billion year old. I tend to agree, and any good practitioner of six sigma would as well.
I think you are too focused on proving “man-made” causes without pausing for consideration of global cycles of warming and cooling. Did you at least take a look at the link I posted? Note the impartiality of the discussion … something you seem to have a hard time with.
Going back to your original post, six sigma is not supposed to be used to prove a point (much less a political one!) … six sigma is to be used to make improvements to processes with statistically validated root causes of defects. Until you provide evidence, your entire argument is moot.
Cheers0November 6, 2006 at 7:07 pm #146655The WHO are indeed at a global level. Their music is well-known worldwide. Why did no one think of asking them to solve global warming before now? Genius!
0November 6, 2006 at 7:07 pm #146656The WHO are indeed at a global level. Their music is well-known worldwide. Why did no one think of asking them to solve global warming before now? Genius!
0 -
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.