Global warming..

Hi,
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
Sandor

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?

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”

Hi 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
Sandor

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? 

Hi,
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
Sandor

Thanks, Monk. Yeah – I caught that.  The movie “Butter Effect” is a nice little ditty about wakeboarding or something.

You’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.

Hi,
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
Sandor

Monk
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!!
 

First 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.

Monk
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.

Hi Monk,
Thanks for the great link .. I’ll check it out later!
Cheers,
Andy

Monk,
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.
Ritz

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,
Shooter

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  Luck

Define the process, the unit moving through the process, etc, etc…..otherwise, no SS involved here………….its a basic search for statistical significance…

Why ask why…..we all need a “Bud Dry”…..its Friday !! 

It 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 ?

Forget all preconceptions and chattering of consultants cluttering your head. 
Be as a 3 year old and ask:  WHY 
Think for yourself.

Just  explain  why  3??

Six Sigma Shooter,
In a previous message, I was hoping you could share some Deming anecdotes with me ..
Cheers,
Andy

Further 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!
Andy

Many thanks Shooter ..

Guru and Shooter,
Excellent !

Monk,
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.
 

Interesting – 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.
 

What is your data source?  It’s often considered appropriate to cite data sources when making claims … especially when being even the slightest bit rude.
Cheers

Monkey,
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.htm

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 luck

The 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!