iSixSigma

Six Sigma , Global Warming Carbon Credits

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Six Sigma , Global Warming Carbon Credits

Viewing 63 posts - 1 through 63 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #53038

    bbusa
    Participant

    Expert teams from various countries are busy fighting on how to tackle global warming , reduce carbon dioxide emissions etc I am sure SS Gurus will have some solutions to offer.One of the fastest growing businesses is that of carbon credits . To me it looks like the beginning of another scam – The Global Carbon Credit Scam . People in the know should highlight how this will reduce carbon dioxide emissions .Not relevant to SS ? I think it is BBUSA

    0
    #187564

    Mikel
    Member

    Something needs to be changed and Six Sigma may be
    relevant!Very insightful, I would have never thought of that.

    0
    #187569

    Taylor
    Participant

    As with any problem usually comes innovation. Six Sigma will and is and has been a part of dealing with Global climate change and reducing emmissions from all sources in many different industries. I am in the ethanol industry and the company I work for is based in Spain. As a member of the Keoti agreement we are constantly trying to reduce our CO2 output in anyway we can.
    The problem I have, is the reporting of emmissions is junk science, it is not even an a good SWAG. We currently require GHG information on all incoming product from Grain to energy to spare parts for the whole plant. And to make it even more of a challange, this information is audited for accuracy. Imagine my destest for this.
    Another problem I have is, the system by which each country and industry is going about reporting GHG information is different, there is no standardization, and thus all the systems have different numbers (variability).
    Then the question becomes, what do you do with the numbers? OH wait, Carbon Credits!!!!!!!! WTF, its as laim as it gets. Junk Science for Money, Tax Payer Money at that. Best Ponzi scheme ever.
     
     

    0
    #187571

    bbusa
    Participant

    ChadYou said it ! A Ponzi SchemeThe least the SS fraternity could to is to play the role of a whistle blower before this scam consumes all of us .I can see it coming and soon All experts , pl contribute . Does’t matter if Robert S is really Freddy or Zippo !bbusa

    0
    #187572

    GB
    Participant

    Hmm, let’s see…
    making a market killing based on a perceived need, which is based on junk science and the recent uncoveing of Scientific fraud??Where do I sign up?!?heh P’raps we could form a LLC and schill to ALGORE. (Where’s freddy/zippo/les/robert s. when you need him?)I’m sure ALGORE would jump on it, as long as we don’t accept carbon credits as payment, it should work out just fine…(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

    0
    #187577

    Stevo
    Member

    Stevo enters the political debate.
     
    First, for the record I believe that man has contributed to the warming of the earth in a negative way.  I would suggest that some of you (you know who you are) should test this theory by sucking on an exhaust pipe and see if it has any negative effects, but that would be wrong.
     
    On the topic of credits.  If I wanted to ease my mind and plant a tree to offset some of my less then desirable traits, I could or I could pay someone to plant the tree for me.  At the end of the day, a tree is planted and that’s a good thing.
     
    Capitalism is not bad, people are.
     
    Stevo (world saver)

    0
    #187579

    Kluttz
    Member

    Fine – quantify how carbon credits have had any measurable effect on net greenhouse reduction. 

    0
    #187580

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I read somewhere we in the West have to make restitution for all the CO2 we created. What about the fluorescent tube, LEDs, LCDs, etc. I reckon we’re in credit and the cheating Tiger economies owe us!In my opinion the best Ponzi scheme is fiat money, with the global warming scam a second best:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHF4PftnkBY

    0
    #187582

    Stevo
    Member

    That’s way too hard for a simpleton like me to prove.   No energy to even wiki it.
     
    My opinion – Someone probably had good intentions – someone else saw an opportunity to exploit and now people are cold on the idea.  Proving an idea “good” or “bad” comes down to how you set up the criteria.
     
    I’ll plant a tree for you, it will make me feel better.
     
    Stevo

    0
    #187583

    Mikel
    Member

    I tried the pipe only I thought the exhaust of a semi would be more
    robust. Kind of like hash instead of, oh never mind.The diesel had a lovely bouquet with hints of creosote. I think I’ll do it
    again.You did have me in mind for your suggestion, right?

    0
    #187586

    Stevo
    Member

    You were not top two, but you made the list.
    Stevo
    Ps.  I would have thought there were more tree huggers then me out there.  That’s why I don’t hang out with engineers.
     

    0
    #187588

    Mikel
    Member

    Those aren’t engineers. They are republicans. Engineers aren’t
    that dumb

    0
    #187589

    Kluttz
    Member

    I’m an unabashed tree-hugger.  But I’m also pro-realism, pro-pragmatism & pro-data-based-analysis
    Nuclear power is better for the environment than wind or solar.
    Bio-fuels are horrific for the environment (and the economy).
    Paper usage results in increased forestation.
    Innovation is far more beneficial for the environment than conservation. 
    Carbon credits may make us feel good about ourselves, but most likely contribute to increases in greenhouse emissions.
     

    0
    #187592

    Taylor
    Participant

    Careful Stan, Huge Democratic push for this crap.
    Stevo, Its not about planting tree’s, its about planting Tree’s in the right places.
     

    0
    #187597

    bbusa
    Participant

    ChadDoes anyone have an idea , by how much the emission needs to cut to take the earth back to its “pre warming” stage ? And if planting trees is the solution ( which i don’t think is the only one) how many trees do we need to plant to achieve this target ?We seem to have a case of regression here ( not a simple linear one as you suggest!)God knows how many million dollars have been spent for the Copenhagen Summit ! We could have used that money to plant some trees !bbusa

    0
    #187598

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think you’ll find the answer on this Austin, Texas website:http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-questions/

    0
    #187599

    bbusa
    Participant

    Andy UGreat piece of info !Thanksbbusa

    0
    #187600

    Severino
    Participant

    The truth is with us on it this planet is doomed.  I blame Fox News…

    0
    #187603

    bbusa
    Participant

    AndyIt makes great reading. I liked the pot shot at Al Gore. “The only place where ice is melting is in his martini” !bbusa

    0
    #187604

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yes, he can be funny – even for a toff :-)

    0
    #187607

    Taylor
    Participant

    This what I know about the subject, and its not much, but enough to have a real sense of what is going on. Since the beginning of time the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling, 5 times to be exact, and we are now in the 5th warming cycle. This has been proven time and again by ice core samples, carbon dating, and radio spectrograph chromography. The graphs from this study are pretty clear, each time the earth has warmed it reaches a point by which it begins to warm rapidly and then plataues, and again overtime begins to cool. This may be some eliptical motion of the Earths orbit around the Sun or the Moons Elipitical orbit around the Earth, or some other planetary force.
    The question becomes, “Is man contributing to making the earth warm quicker than it already would have?” As a person that requires more data, I cannot draw that conclusion, nor can any other scientist. YES, the earth is warming, The Earth has been warming for the last xxx number of years, is man excellerating the process, maybe. Not enough evidence to prove either way. What I do know, is that based on the Ice core samples, there is no stopping it. It is going to happen and no amount reduction in emissions will even slow it down. It is part of the Earths natural cycle and has been for the past Billions of years.
    Do you know that Cows contribute a huge amount of harmful gases to global warming.

    0
    #187608

    Robert Butler
    Participant

     One of the things I’ve repeatedly emphasized on this forum and at my place of work is the value of plotting the data.  Without a meaningful graph of the data in front of you it is far too easy to be misled by words attempting to describe what is going on.   I don’t mean to single you out for attention but the sentence in your recent post “Since the beginning of time the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling, 5 times to be exact, and we are now in the 5th warming cycle” exemplifies this error and variations on its theme are a standard part of most of the anti-global warming arguments. 
      When you actually look at temperature plots which incorporate actual and proxy temperature measurements and their associated confidence bands it is evident that the most recent “warming cycle” is completely at odds with any prior measurements (actual or proxy) of warming trends.  In addition, the current spike in temperatures has punched through all of the confidence bands associated with prior measurements/estimates.
      There are roughly a dozen climate models that have been built to “explain” this data.  If we ignore the unproven claim that all or part of this data has been “made up” what we are left with is the fact that none of the models can provide a fit to the data without invoking the impact of humanity. This is true regardless of which side of the “debate” you favor and at the end of the day this is the main reason why climatologist think the concept called “global warming” is real.
      If you are looking for up to date plots of the data I’d recommend checking Scientific American.  Two or three months ago they published the most recent version of this graph.  The little ice age and the medieval warming trend are quite evident and the recent run up in global temperature dwarfs both of them.  If you go back about a year or so you can also find an article in Scientific American that discussed the various models.  The article provided excellent graphical representations of the various models and their failure to fit the data when the impact of humanity was ignored.

    0
    #187609

    Stevo
    Member

    CV –
     
    I’m assuming that your last “cow” comment was somewhat sarcastic.  But you hear this argument over and over.  The cattle industry is a man made problem.
     
    Stevo
     
    Ps.  I’m not saying that I’m going to change my habits.  I like pulling out old growth forests in my hummer.  And dang it! That’s my right!!  My grandpa wasn’t in Germany fighting for me to act responsibly.
     
    Pss.  Is it wrong to have the Ps. Longer then the message?

    0
    #187610

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Robert,It might depend on what data set you plot and look at. Here is a link to a different dataset and plot:http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfmApparently, there are two new reports from Copenhagen today.1. Russian scientists claim CRU falsified Russian data.
    2. Escort agencies and prostitutes in Copenhagen are reporting brisk business.I think the latter says it all.Andy

    0
    #187611

    Stevo
    Member

    Isn’t Darth over there this month?  Could that explain the upturn?
    Stevo

    0
    #187612

    luke
    Participant
    #187615

    Taylor
    Participant

    Robert, this can be debated all day long, all around the world. I agree global warming is happening, what I don’t agree with is that Humans are the sole cause of it, the data simply is it not there. Yes its true, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the highest ever recorded and the spike is almost vertical. But has that spike correlated to temperature change spike?
    Starting on the left-hand side of the graph at about 140,000 years ago, the climate was about 6 C colder than it is today – an ice age period. Then at about 130,000 years ago, there was a quite rapid warming period until about 125,000 years ago, when the climate was, perhaps, 1 C or 2 C warmer than today – an inter-glacial period. From 120,000 to about 20,000 years ago, there was a long period of cooling temperatures, known as the last Great Ice Age. From about 18,000 or 19,000 years ago to about 15,000 years ago, the climate went through another warming period to the next inter-glacial, – the one we are now in.

    So sometime about 20,000 years ago, long before man started the first engine or put up the first factory, the Earth started to warm.
    This is not an Anti-Global warming argument, and I agree, we need to take measures to ensure we keep mother Earth Green and we clean up our act. My point is, this started long before we had anything to do with it.
    This paste about the data explains my point and why so many are skeptical.

    One important error is due to the large variability in the the land and ocean temperature from region to region and month to month. Temperatures on land vary up to approximately 15-20 degrees C during the day at mid latitudes, and by up to approximately 50 degrees C from summer to winter. Over the oceans, the range is much smaller, approximately 7 degrees C from summer to winter.
    The biggest error in the calculation is called the sampling error. We do not have enough measurements to determine if temperature is changing before about 1850, and we barely have enough even today. The error leads to some the year-to-year variability in the plot of global averaged surface temperature as as a function of time. Also read about the sampling error in oceanography (scroll down to find the box on sampling error.
    Smith and Reynolds report that the 95% confidence uncertainty for the near-global average is 0.48C or more in the nineteenth century, near 0.28C for the first half of the twentieth century, and 0.18C or less after 1950.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Admittingly, I have not seen the scientific american graphs, so I cannot comment on them. However, It does not change the fact that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years, and the thought that we can somehow change that, is just plain arrogant.

    0
    #187617

    Robert Butler
    Participant

      It’s an interesting accusation and the article certainly is loaded with all of the usual superlatives, however it is just that – an accusation – no proof. If the data was, in fact, cherry picked/falsified  then obviously someone other than the supposed group of individuals who are “controlling things” has to have all of the data in order to know this – where is their graph and their analysis and their demonstration that there are no trends out of the ordinary? 
      I’ll wait for the Scientific American article (yes, I know, “they” control the scientific outlets so I’ll never hear about it.) The problem I have with articles such as the one cited above and others cited in this thread is they closely match, in word and deed, the verbiage and actions one associates with people who promote the notion of a creation/evolution “debate”. 
       Obviously, I don’t have access to all data and all analysis from everywhere but what I do have is a great deal of experience in the world of scientific research, writing, and peer review.  The whole scientific process, contrary to the popular press, makes your typical right wing extremist look like a flaming anarchist 
       Do mistakes get through? Can politics play a role?  Sure – remember polywater and n-rays and what about the medical professions deliberate downplaying of the dangers of X-rays (remember x-ray dermatitis) or the Tuskegee “experiments” here in the U.S. 
      Can you play that game on a international level for a long period of time – I don’t think so. A scientist may be politically blocked from a few peer reviewed journals. People do play politics with science (T.D. Lysenko comes to mind) and data has been falsified. But the half life of these things in the international scientific arena is very short. 
       If there really is anything of substance to the “climategate” e-mails, the current Russian claims or anything else that would genuinely demonstrate wholesale falsification of data and results it will be a first because it will mean thousands of scientists in countries all around the world deliberately manufactured/cooked data (and managed to do it all in the same way), wasted their careers (this work has been going on since at least the 80’s), their funding, and their reputations. It will also mean editors of scientific journals and the army of individuals (such as myself) who do peer review agreed to enter into and maintain this grand conspiracy of falsehoods for …..what? 

    0
    #187619

    Stevo
    Member

    Stevo’s thoughts –
     

    Who hasn’t falsified data – “No baby, a long island ice tea has the same amount of alcohol as a light beer.”
    These arguments always end in a pi$$ing contest – “My data set can beat up your data set” or “my source list is bigger then yours”
    Seemingly intelligent people quote the internet (or Fox news and MSNBC) as fact.  “Glen Beck read on Wikipedia that Stan is allergic to light and his skin is made of butterfly wings.”
     
    Stevo
     
    Ps.  Point 3 might be true.

    0
    #187620

    Taylor
    Participant

    Chads Thoughts

    Ive used that line
    My dad can also beat up your dad
    How do you explain the thong? Butterfly wings? Seriously?
     
    Chad Vader
    Ps. No Graphs needed at this point, Stevo has proved all! Viva La Stevo

    0
    #187625

    bbusa
    Participant

    RobertWhichever way you argue , how can you justify ‘buying and selling carbon credits’ to combat global warming ? Is this not the outcome of thousand of scientists ( if at all that is true) .At the end of the day , the earth will get warmer and a few people ( auditing & certifying companies , businessmen etc ) will get richerbbusa

    0
    #187627

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Robert,You raise some excellent questions:The implication seems to be whether or not there could ever be:a data tyranny
    a publications tyranny
    a news tyranny
    a TV tyranny
    a money tyrannyHaving seen a data tyranny at a research laboratory in Cambridge, I don’t exclude any items on the list.When people are asleep and take no interest in how they’re governed, anything can happen.Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #187642

    Putnam
    Participant

    “the planet is doomed”…Have you checked out the size of this rock?  Have you looked at the percentage of the total mass we make up?  This planet will be just fine regardless of the global warming discussion.  The surface composition may alter, but the planet is going to be just fine.
    Another thought, has anyone here ever looked into how global temperature data is calculated?  Anyone ever looked into how GISS and other organizations deal with the raw data, data gaps, and come up with the global average? (It’s interesting, but may take a little digging…)  If Six Sigma were going to have an impact on the overall topic of “Climate Change”, wouldn’t one of the first steps be to evaluate how the data is collected, handled, and merged?  A little MSA for the masses?
    As was mentioned by a previous poster, knowledge of the data variability would provide an understanding of the confidence interval for global / regional temperatures.  We could then assist in determining whether warming is / is not happening and whether the proposed Improvements will have an impact or are cost justified. 
    Assuming everything went well, Six Sigma could propose a Control process to maintain whatever temperature was agreed upon, with alerts and action steps.
    Six Sigma could be readily and constructively applied to climate science.
    Then again, it’s a damn big rock that’s been around for a lot longer than we have and the climate has demonstrated significant fluctuations over the eons that can not be attributed to man.  That we’re considering ways to modulate Earth’s exterior temperature to a +/- 2C (or less) range around a loosely quantified “average” requires at least one thing – hubris – in mass quantities.

    0
    #187644

    Rider
    Participant

    Overpopulation
    Starvation
    Nuclear destruction
    Biological destruction
    Global Cooling
    Global Warming
    Blah
    Blah
    Blah”This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park prologue.

    0
    #187656

    Don Strayer
    Participant

    Data can be presented in manipulative ways.  Give me the raw data and the margin of error.  Unfortunately no one has more than fragments of data prior to modern history and they say little or nothing about the calibration of their measurement systems.  We in the SS community should rightfully find it suspect.
    One thing I do know is that carbon trading redistributes wealth.  Whether it will have any impact on global warming or not, who would benefit from that?  Follow the money.

    0
    #187657

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Don,While I don’t disagree with your conclusions I think the cause is far more invidious. Did you catch the recent Ventura program?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOYwur6T6tc

    0
    #187663

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    As has been noted we could spend forever going back and forth on this topic.  A number of the posts to this thread have focused on the issue of data and data validity – for example 
      “Data can be presented in manipulative ways.  Give me the raw data and the margin of error.  Unfortunately no one has more than fragments of data prior to modern history and they say little or nothing about the calibration of their measurement systems.  We in the SS community should rightfully find it suspect.”
      “Another thought, has anyone here ever looked into how global temperature data is calculated?  Anyone ever looked into how GISS and other organizations deal with the raw data, data gaps, and come up with the global average? (It’s interesting, but may take a little digging…)  If Six Sigma were going to have an impact on the overall topic of “Climate Change”, wouldn’t one of the first steps be to evaluate how the data is collected, handled, and merged?  A little MSA for the masses?”
     “As was mentioned by a previous poster, knowledge of the data variability would provide an understanding of the confidence interval for global / regional temperatures.  We could then assist in determining whether warming is / is not happening and whether the proposed Improvements will have an impact or are cost justified. ”
     “The biggest error in the calculation is called the sampling error. We do not have enough measurements to determine if temperature is changing before about 1850, and we barely have enough even today. The error leads to some the year-to-year variability in the plot of global averaged surface temperature as as a function of time.”
     
       I don’t expect to change your mind and, I’m sure, you don’t expect to change mine.  However, since the issue of data treatment/validity is a recurrent theme and it is part and parcel of things that should be of concern to a six sigma professional I’ll offer the following:
      There are far more than fragments of data and the search for additional data is a continuous and  ongoing process.  I don’t know who the individuals are who are refusing to say “little or nothing about the calibration of their measurement systems” but I do know if you take the time to really look at the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject you will find a great deal concerning these issues and the various ways scientists have addressed them. 
      The dismay concerning the lack of “accurate measurements” i.e. calibrated thermometer temperature readings is interesting and, contrary to what you might have seen on the net or TV, it is one shared by climatologists working on this problem.  However, everything I’ve read indicates they have responded to this issue in exactly the same way any good six sigma professional would: they’ve made the best of it through proxy measurements/estimates, they have been careful to note the errors associated with these proxies, they are continually working to improve/extend them, and they have used what they have to get on with trying to answer a question.  
      If you really wish to understand what has been done you will have to operate like a six sigma professional and actually go down on the line and talk to the people doing the work (i.e. look up the papers, read and understand them).  Hanging around the water cooler (youtube, whatsupwiththat.com   http://www.infowars.com, Ventura, etc.) isn’t going to help you understand what has and has not been done.
      A good starting point would be the recent graph I mentioned in an earlier post. It can be found on page 22 of the November 2009 issue of Scientific American.  The graph covers the last 1000 years and illustrates temperature data and the error associated with the measurements/estimates.  In the footer the graph clearly notes the data is from thermometers, tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records.
        I’d also recommend reading the “book” What we Know About Climate Change by Kerry Emanuel.  I put the word “book” in quotes because it is a very thin volume – about the size of a pocketbook paperback and it is all of 85 pages long.  For the purposes of this thread there are two short sections I think are worth quoting:
     
      “An important and difficult issue in detecting anthropogenic climate change is telling the difference between natural climate variations – both free and forced – and those that are forced by our own activities.  One way to tell the difference is to make use of the fact that the increase in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols dates back only to the industrial revolution of the 19th century: before that, the human influence is probably small. If we can estimate how climate changed before this time, we will have some idea of how the system varies naturally.
      Unfortunately, detailed measurements of climate did not themselves really begin in earnest until the 19th century: but there are “proxies” for quantities like temperature recorded in, for example, tree rings, ocean and lake plankton, pollen, and corals.
      Plotting the global mean temperature derived from actual measurements and from proxies going back a thousand years or more reveals that the recent upturn in global temperature is truly unprecedented: the graph of temperature with time shows a characteristic hockey-stick shape, with the business end of the stick representing the upswing of the last 50 years or so. But proxies are imperfect and associated with large margins of error, so any hockey-stick trends of the past may be masked, though the recent upturn stands above even a liberal estimate of such errors.”
      …the rest of the chapter is a discussion of attempts to model this data, the issues surrounding the various models, their pluses and minuses, the results of their simulations, and at the end of the chapter he says, “This exercise has been repeated using many different climate models with the same qualitative result: one cannot simulate the evolution of the climate over the last 30 years without including in the simulations mankind’s influence on sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases. This, in a nutshell, is why almost all climate scientist today believe that man’s influence on climate has emerged from the background noise of natural variability.”
         As for the other aspect of data quality – outright manipulation – it is worth noting what Emanuel has to say about individuals playing games with data.
      “…in 1988, James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, set off a firestorm of controversy by testifying before Congress that he was virtually certain that a global-warming signal had emerged from the background climate variability. At that time, less was known about natural climate variability before the beginning of systematic instrumental records in the 19th century, and only a handful of global climate simulations had been performed.  Most scientists were deeply skeptical of Hansen’s claims; I certainly was. It is important to interpret the word “skeptical” literally here: it was not that we were sure of the opposite, merely that we thought the jury was out.
      At roughly this time, radical environmental groups and a handful of scientists influenced by them leapt into the fray with rather obvious ulterior motives. This jumpstarted the politicization of the issue, and conservative groups, financed by auto makers and big oil, responded with counterattacks. This also marked the onset of an interesting and disturbing phenomenon that continues to this day: a very small number of climate scientists adopted dogmatic positions, and in so doing lost credibility among the vast majority who remained committed to an unbiased search for answers.
      On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientist to deliberately exaggerate their findings to galvanize an apathetic public, an idea that, fortunately, failed in the scientific arena but took root in Hollywood, culminating in the 2004 release of “The Day After Tomorrow”. On the right, the search began for negative feedbacks that would counter increasing greenhouse gasses; imaginative ideas emerged, but they have largely failed the acid test of comparison to observations.
      But as the dogmatists grew increasingly alienated from the scientific mainstream they were embraced by political groups and journalists, who thrust them into the limelight.  This produced a gross distortion in the public perception of the scientific debate. Ever eager for the drama of competing dogmas, the media largely ignored mainstream scientists, whose hesitations did not make good copy.”
      Obviously if you choose to interpret the above citations as proof of the belief that the bad guys secretly won and there really is some multiple decades long grand conspiracy of worldwide information manipulation and suppression and that Emanuel is a card carrying member of that conspiracy and therefore everything I’ve offered in this and the other posts to this thread is hogwash …well it’s a free country and you can believe as you wish.
      The last part of the title of this thread concerns carbon credits.  I don’t know enough about that issue to comment.  My interest in posting to this topic was to address the issues of data quality and investigator integrity and I’ve confined my comments to those issues.

    0
    #187664

    bbusa
    Participant

    RobertAs ever , your posts are very informative and balanced . As I am writing this , they are planning the next global meet in Mexico , as this one ( Copenhagen) has generated more HEAT than LIGHT !I am not sure if the scientific community is in control of whatever is happeningbbusa

    0
    #187665

    Anonymous
    Guest

    My field isn’t climatology – all I know is I’ve seen data tyranny first hand in another field where there was a lot of money at stake.As for man-made global warming, I don’t need to look at any of the 2,500 article debunking it because I worked on thermal imager performance for several years.

    0
    #187666

    Severino
    Participant

    Michael Crichton was a good author, but that doesn’t make him right.
    I shall revise my statement:  “With us here life on this planet as we know it is doomed…”
    The good news is the Vogons should be here to build a bypass shortly.

    0
    #187671

    luke
    Participant
    #187673

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Hey Luke,
    Hope you and the family are having a good Holiday Season. The link you provided is no good.

    0
    #187676

    Taylor
    Participant

    While this is very informative read, I still cannot see how anyone with a mind for statistics can draw conclusions based the data as presented. I compare the current data we have to taking a one hour SPC chart and saying yep the process has been in control for the past ten years.
    There is data which shows trends of warming and cooling for the past hundreds of thousands of years of which we have limited data, but still enough to make trends possible. Only in the last 50-75 years do we start to have data which can be used to improve confidence. Even with improved data gathering, the “Model” of trends is still the same. Regardless of mans increased GHG on Earth, the trend of temperature has not increased with the increased ability to measure or the increased affect of GHG on temperature.
    While again, I will assert, I agree the Earth is warming, What I don’t agree with is the supposed effect of GHG’s on that process. There are simply too many variables at work.
    I recently purchased the DVD series Planet Earth on Blueray disc. In this video is a section on the earths “Green Belts”. I highly recommend the series.
    Robert, I don’t really understand your affection with Scientific American. Although I don’t really subscribe to conspiracy theories, I don’t think the data they present is any different. The historical trends prove the Earth has gone through warming and cooling. Those Models may not have the accuracy, but still have enough resolution to prove They exist. It will take many years of Global monitoring to detect man’s affect.
    I do find it interesting that in the last 10 years data trends show a stable or decline in global temperature. This does not coincide with any GHG data at all. So how is this explained?  Our Earth is the perfect definition of balance in the Universe. If ever there was a perfect definition in Physics, Earth would be it. If she gets out of balance, she will get herself back in balance, either through Hurricanes, which churn up the ocean, or by Volcanoes spueing ash and ozone into the atmosphere or a gazillion other events to small for us to recognize.
    Again we need to all do our part to recycle, be smart with our energy use and do what we can to restrict our affect on the Earth.
    I recycle where I can, I have my whole work shop running on Solar and wind power, all my major appliances in my house are on Solar, I have Hydrogen generator on my 94 Jeep grand cherokee that gets me 35 mpg and I set up a recycle system at my place of work for employees to help recycle from home and work. I could probably do more, but what if everyone did what I have done?
    What Have each of you done? I’m always looking for ideas.

    0
    #187681

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    You asked:
    “I still cannot see how anyone with a mind for statistics can draw conclusions based the data as presented. I compare the current data we have to taking a one hour SPC chart and saying yep the process has been in control for the past ten years.”
       Let me try to answer:
       If we restrict ourselves to just the data which involves actual calibrated temperature measurements then, indeed, we are limited to around 150 years and that would certainly amount to 1 hour on as SPC chart.  To keep with the factory analogy the SPC data we have for the time prior to the 19th century was made using a different measuring system.  These measurements are “proxies” and they go back as far as you want to go.  If we “recalibrate” the old measurement system so that it matches measurements made with the new system then, as Emanuel noted,  the results of the  earlier system will have very large errors when expressed in the “new” measurements. However, when the data is plotted (yearly proxy averages plus the most generous estimates of error associated with them plus the measurements from the “new” system) the end result is as Emanuel stated – a run up in temperature that is not in evidence anywhere else on the graph and a run up which has punched through those generous confidence bands associated with measurements made using the earlier system.  As a statistician, when I’m confronted with a signal that has exceeded such bounds I can only conclude I’m looking at special cause variation.   From this, the issues associated with modeling as outlined by Emanuel, necessarily follow.
      I suppose one could question the idea of combining new and old data where careful efforts have been made to make the two match, however, this is a fairly common problem and one that is not limited to climatologists.  Almost any meta analysis in any field where data exists for more than a few years has to deal with this issue.
      As for citing Scientific American – the only reason I did this was to minimize the search for the graph should anyone be interested in looking at it.  Many libraries subscribe to the magazine and even if they don’t they can get it through interlibrary loan.
     

    0
    #187689

    Anonymous
    Guest

    We recycle everything we can, including food waste. Not because of any EU-UN-NWO coercion, or concerns about more or less IR-transparent CO2 (0.054 W/Ms); only because it seems to be the right thing for us to do as individuals living in a community.What is of grave concern to us, is the trend towards diminished individual rights in favour of collective rights. To our mind, we favour a balance somewhere between the two – sometimes called a third way – perhaps along Swiss lines.Indeed, focussing on individuals was one of the original break through concepts in Motorola’s Six Sigma – the use individuals instead of run averages to interpret sources of variation (Multi-vari.) If anyone doubts this they can research themselves, perhaps by visiting the Mario-Perez Wilson’s site, which portrays an accurate description of Motorola’s techniques.In mu veiw, the reason the Multi-vari approach was so effective is because most semiconductor processes are not homogeneous. Indeed there is no rational reason to expect them to comprise a single variance, what with gases coming into the furncace through the jungle, depeleting down the tube, and exiting under low pressure at the scavenger box.In the USA, you already have a third way as described in the Texas Constitution! I’m not sure about the other States, but there are some interesting discussions as to whether succession is legal or not.I hope not to offend anyone and the foregoing is just my opinion …Compliments of the Season one and all.

    0
    #187695

    Stevo
    Member

    Andy,
     
    You didn’t offend me.  In fact, I didn’t understand anything you just said.  What I do like about posts like this is:  It’s hard to tell if you have vision and great insight or just a nut case.
     
    Happy “whatever you celebrate”,
     
    Stevo

    0
    #187696

    Mikel
    Member

    The only problem is Texas’s third way is we have the right to screw up
    everything and we really couldn’t care less about the larger
    community called the US and the world.

    0
    #187697

    Rider
    Participant

    Stan,Please expand on your last post if you would. I cannot ascertain the tone of the comment; pro, con, or indifferent with regard to Texas. Ghost Rider

    0
    #187699

    Mikel
    Member

    Depends on if you are a Texan, doesn’t it?

    0
    #187700

    Rider
    Participant

    Well said, Sir. I should suppose that it just might at that.

    0
    #187703

    Mikel
    Member

    I will tell you that I don’t much worry about what people think or
    about stupid laws (within reason – I don’t care for jail). I don’t believe
    in victimless crimes (justified by some fools view of morality).I do what I think is right which would fit just fine in the Republic of
    Texas (or the Conch Republic for that matter). My favorite song of all time is “Oh Well” by Fleetwood Mac. I think that
    says it all.

    0
    #187705

    Rider
    Participant

    It does. I’ve not heard “Oh Well” before and such is my loss. Should you have need, perhaps you might quote the famed David Crockett, “You can all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” We have room.True to my roots, if I may add, my favorite line in music comes from Waylon Jennings’s song “Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Cowboys” Them that don’t know him won’t like him and them that do,
    Sometimes won’t know how to take him.
    He ain’t wrong, he’s just different but his pride won’t let him,
    Do things to make you think he’s right.Ghost Rider

    0
    #187723

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    Stan:  And who lead the Conch Republic revolt?  wink, wink!
    Viva la Conch!

    0
    #187725

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I liken myself to the fool who can’t remember the question: for whom does the grail serve.I directed my previous post to the general question of Right versus Good and more particularly to Individualism versus Collectivism, and whether or not it is OK to sacrifice a few for the greater good.Andy

    0
    #187727

    Severino
    Participant

    You’re right, it says it all….   it says, “You’re old!!!” 
     
    …. jk.

    0
    #187731

    Mikel
    Member

    The alternative to being old is not one I will chose. It will have to chose me.Some of the old English Blues scene is still pretty nice music. You
    should try some Mac from the Peter Green days.

    0
    #187735

    MrMHead
    Participant

    Re “Oh Well” by Fleetwood MacAre you referring to the lines:
    “I can’t help about the shape I’m in.
    I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty, and my legs are thin”?

    0
    #187737

    Putnam
    Participant

    The MET office in the UK just released a partial climate data set and two PERL programs so that people can evaluate the data on their own. 
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html
    One or two problems remain.  This data set has “some” adjusted data and some raw data, but they don’t know/say which are which.  The raw data set may be lost or may require up to three years to rebuild.  There’s also the issue with the missing program code for doing the adjustments.
     

    0
    #187738

    Rider
    Participant

    “There are four lights.”Ghost Rider

    0
    #187740

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Anyone interested in a decent weather forcast based on an application of physics can find on here:http://www.weatheraction.com/resource/data/wact1/docs/BILR0908AUG30dFullDetailincMapsGraphs.doc.pdfApologies if you’ve seen it before.

    0
    #187749

    Mikel
    Member

    Kind of had the whole thing in mind -I can’t help about the shape I’m in
    I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty and my legs are thin
    But don’t ask me what I think of you
    I might not give the answer that you want me toOh wellNow, when I talked to God I knew he’d understandHappy Holidays – go join in the food fight Darth is trying to brew
    up.
    He said, “Stick by me and I’ll be your guiding hand
    But don’t ask me what I think of you
    I might not give the answer that you want me to”Oh wellWritten by Peter Green

    0
    #187750

    Rider
    Participant

    Perhaps I should include the lyrics to “Oh Well” in some of my reports. It does seem that too often “I might not give the answer that they want me to.” When I get started with SS, I’m sure it’ll be worse still.Ghost Rider

    0
    #187772

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Here is a better link covering the USA:http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews09No103.pdf

    0
Viewing 63 posts - 1 through 63 (of 63 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.