Global Warming and Business Intelligence

  • OptimalDevelopment

    Old Hand

    Points: 399

    cgreen (2/12/2009)


    I read about global warming in book about the solar system from the 70s - I don't think Al Gore invented it!

    the predicted rate of change is about 50 times faster than the warming which brought an end to the last major ice age which, up to that point, was itself the largest sustained natural change in climate for the past 100 000 years

    Doesn't seem too "normal" for me, if we look at the last 100,000 years anyway...

    Whether carbon credits is a good idea or not, it doesn't stop the fact that the world is warming up. I'm going to try and do my bit anyway (insulate my house, not make unnecessary journeys in my car, recycle stuff), even if you can't be bothered 😉

    I also read about global cooling in the 1970's. In fact, it was drilling into our brains by our wonderful public schools. Do what you wish, if it make you feel good because like religion - what you do is your business. Dont force me to "believe" or anyone else to.. There are way too many variables. They cant predict whether its going to rain tomorrow with any level of accuracy. These are scientists who want nothing more than more grant money for their careers. As software developers, we should be as worried about outsourcing and the way we are treated by corporate America as much as these people are worried about their own careers.

  • zoobly

    Old Hand

    Points: 343

    *wonders* is global warming the earth's way of shaking us off?

    The earth will be here for billions of years global warming or no. I am merely concerned for your/other people's offspring.

  • scottymk

    SSC Veteran

    Points: 255

    As this has gone from a 'Business Intelligence' debate to a 'Climate Change Debate' I'll put in a view.

    I agree with the previous comment of "No we should get our selves off dirty burning fuels just because the same reason you want a clean house. Nice to come home too. "

    Driving is only hampered by pollution, if you go the way your president is aiming then Driving loses its big bad Devil and all (in that limited scope) is cool.

    After visiting various Asian Capitals (and LA 😉 ) anything that gets rid of the smog has got to be good..

    As for the Business Intelligence Debate, surely if you have two options and one is not going to cause any damage in its implementation whether it is evidentially supported or not (and saves resources and money).. why not give it a blast??

  • OptimalDevelopment

    Old Hand

    Points: 399

    Yes, I found that back in 2007 here too:

    http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog/2007/03/06/the-great-global-warming-swindle-to-air-on-uks-channel-4/

    The sun is our primary source of climate issues. I'd like to see these arrogant people consider tweaking the sun's output. 😉

    cgreen (2/12/2009)


    Here in the UK, the most prominant documentary we have seen arguing the case against global warming and which relied heavily on the sunspot argument was shown on channel 4 in 2007

    However, 37 senior scientists reported the makers of this documentary reported to Ofcom (the regulatory body) for falsifying the data for graphs and misrepresenting scientists.

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2007-05/msg00886.html

    However, they were not able to prosecute because only a news programme is required to be 'factual'.

    I would have thought there would be more political pressure AGAINST global warming as the government is lobbied by companies that don't want to clean up after themselves or spend money on lower carbon technolgies... I read the New Scientist every week and nearly all the studies show that global warming is real and is happening. Are you saying that the scientist that publish in this magazine are part of some government plot????

    Unfortunately, good science is taking a back seat to--no, getting stuffed into the trunk--when it comes to the political agendas being promulgated by devotees of global capitalism.

    Your children (if you have any - not planning on having any myself so I don't really have any agenda here) are going to bear the brunt of our inactions. Is it enough to just hope global warming isn't happening or should we try to do what we can to minimise it's effects now before various tipping points are reached which will cause warming costing future generations $$$$$$$$$$ (or ££££££££££)?

    We spend billions on insurance, would it not be prudent (as a kind of insurance for future generations) to spend some cash on keeping the planet hospitable and able to provide food?

    Just some thoughts anyway...

  • OptimalDevelopment

    Old Hand

    Points: 399

    cgreen (2/12/2009)


    *wonders* is global warming the earth's way of shaking us off?

    The earth will be here for billions of years global warming or no. I am merely concerned for your/other people's offspring.

    We'll adapt. If we dont, then we move on into history. It time to stop play God and just realize this is not in our hands. We cant tweak the climate any more than we could move the moon at any time just to produce the tides we want, when we want. It arrogant to think we could. Clean the environment? Yes. Do it under the disguise of this so-called "global warming", no way.

  • WI-DBA

    SSCrazy

    Points: 2110

    Oddly enough, the data coming out of our data warehouse and the data coming out about human induced global warming would seem to have the same accuracy.

    Be skeptical when so many people in the same field disagree with one another. And the media dutifully only reports one side.

    A better way that requires no alarmist rhetoric, no shutting down of industrialized nations:

    Be a conservationist, a gardener, a hunter, a gatherer. Drink locally made beer too! (an ideal scenario if you live in Southern Germany, or Belgium, or Wisconsin)

    Cheers
    http://twitter.com/widba
    http://widba.blogspot.com/

  • Steve S.-542474

    SSC-Addicted

    Points: 425

    -random thoughts-

    If Al Gore invented the internet, then it stands to reason that he invented Global Warming, as well.

    Being carbon-concious is sort of like morality, you don't have to be religious to have high moral standards; you do it because its the right thing to do regardless of the "truth" of the bigger picture.

    Business Intelligence is collective human intelligence: not always correct but (hopefully) always improving, and its hard to learn without making mistakes. After all, as I recently read, an expert is someone who has made every possible mistake in a very narrow field of endeavor.

    Cheers!

  • mhaskins

    Ten Centuries

    Points: 1145

    Well Steve,

    I would like to say that my car contributes to global warming, and having office space heated does to. We should all work from home in our jammies. Then we can cuddle ourselves in a blanket, turn the heat down and save the world without having to know how ugly our boss looks every day.

    That's my agenda 😉

    Mia

    I have come to the conclusion that the top man has one principle responsibility: to provide an atmosphere in which creative mavericks can do useful work.
    -- David M. Ogilvy

  • Andrey-320088

    SSC Enthusiast

    Points: 137

    When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?

    Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.

    Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.

    When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.

    When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen -- therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume -- and the water level stays the same.

  • Andrey-320088

    SSC Enthusiast

    Points: 137

    http://www.physorg.com/news102864888.html

    Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer

    New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.

    Now, any reasonable person (not Al Gorians) would ask why was Earth warmer?

    Who was warming the Earth back then?

    Maybe, just maybe it has something do with Earth's Core which we don't understand?

    Should we try to cool Earth's Core? That would certainly create a huge industry and lot of jobs...:)

  • Andrey-320088

    SSC Enthusiast

    Points: 137

    Editor,

    What kind of Porsche do you have? Can you post a picture?

    Thanks.

  • clees

    Newbie

    Points: 5

    Maybe Ruf has helped you to resolve your Porsche dilemma...

    http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/10/rufs-electric-porsche-breaks-cover/

  • divison

    SSC Veteran

    Points: 277

    AspiringGeek (2/12/2009)


    The next [article] is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:

    The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming

    http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

    I invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:

    Is global warming happening?

    Is it anthropogenic?

    Can we do anything about it?

    Should we?

    The abstract: Crichton's "detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease."

    To those who think the global financial crisis is serious, or those in the US who are aware of the pending Social Security & Medicare crises, all three combined pale in comparison to the cost of remediating so-called global warming.

    There are two different questions that stand out for me, here:

    1) The integrity of science, which is a concern I share with Michael [and probably you],

    2) The basis of choice, in the face of risk.

    Re' (1) -- Michael's seemed most concerned about how it compromises the integrity and credibility of science in society, when something is declared to be "proven", before it really is. Like "nuclear winter", global warming has so many variables to evaluate, most of which we cannot test, that "proof" is impractical, if even possible. To then say it's "proven" impacts us all.

    But... like "nuclear winter"... what's the price of taking the risk?

    A massive chuck of Antartica fell into the ocean. The global warming analysts predicted this. As far as I'm concerned, they still don't have "proof" of global warming... but they do have "evidence".

    Besides, if we invest in solar/wind/geothermal, we'll still have costs of maintenance (like we do now), without the costs of fuel. ROI?

    Thanks for thinking for yourself 🙂

    -- Doug Ivison

    http://www.SureSource.com

  • GA Programmer

    Old Hand

    Points: 327

    Fantastic article today Steve!

    The line "Computers help us get more work done, but they also allow us to make mistakes very, very fast" was dead on.

  • Andy Lennon

    SSCrazy

    Points: 2354

    Global Warming is a touchy subject because it's virtually impossible to have conclusive evidence that proves or disproves its existence.

    Those who advocate action to attempt to remedy the (apparent) situation can lend weight to their arguments by pointing out that, if they're right and we do nothing, later generations will be "totally screwed"

    On the other hand, those who believe that the big GW is a farce can always find a sympathetic ear, since it's easy to ignore a problem that won't be apparent for generations (if ever) when there are much more real difficulties in our world today (poverty, disease, war, etc.)

    Although using business intelligence to investigate and model global warming may seem like a good idea, it also introduces the very real risk of over-interpretation. if an analysis is done, it is expected that there will be conclusions. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to verify anything with such a small pool of data (150 years worth of weather data to identify trends that last thousands of years?). It seems sometimes that people get so caught up in how useful and powerful BI can be that they forget basic rules of statistics.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 96 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply