Friday, August 31, 2012

Technology's Promise: Transition to a Sustainble Wold - Global Warming

My analysis on a forecast from the text Technology’s Promise, is that what we see here is I believe a Social enigma.  Scientists want to do the right thing but politically they are being strangled by the threat of losing funding by going against a politically charged issue.  This being a highly charged debate is something that can only be settled by removing the monetary gains pursued by some individuals and letting scientists proceed with studies using new technological advancements that are not biased or socially coerced. 
Global Warming – caused by the human producing an increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. 
This term has always bothered me.  Being associated with meteorology for over 20 years I am strongly against this term.  I agree that there is climate change it is a cycle that the earth goes through and not really influenced directly by mankind inducing CO2 into the atmosphere. I do however agree that mankind does cause pollution and we need to do something about it, but not global warming.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s Department of Meteorology states the following:
“Carbon dioxide has little to do with global warming
A)   this is certainly not the hottest period in Earth's history
B) global warming has essentially nothing to do with carbon dioxide
C) the global warming/CO2 charts show that warming occurs first and causes increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, the opposite of what we're told
D) 99% of all carbon dioxide is caused by decaying plants and ocean activity
E) human activity has pretty much no influence on global temperatures
F) cooler air, not warmer, causes increased floods and hurricanes
G) the ice caps are growing and shrinking like they always have, and the ozone layer is just fine
H) "Big Oil" is making a fortune from global warming hysteria, they love it
I) There were only about 1000 people on the IPCC panel, and many were lobbyists and politicians, not scientists”
The following video also gives a clearer picture of how politics played into the coining of the phrase Global Warming.  So I hope that around 2014 the nations will step back and take a better look at what is really happening around them and not listen to politicians and media which are trying to use this scare tactic to line their pockets.
The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)

Thursday, August 30, 2012

A forecast or prediction from the futurists and two forces that I believe will affect its success.

Still playing catch up on my posts.
Forecast #6:
Lunar-based solar power production was pioneered by David Criswell in 1985 as a way to meet future energy demands. The debate stands as to which is better, Lunar Based Solar power (LSPS) or Solar Power Satellite (SPS) pioneered by Peter Glaser in 1968  both of which energy can be more dependably and inexpensively gathered in Space than on Earth. This clean energy source is capable of delivering the 20 trillion watts of power a year that the Earth’s predicted 10 billion people will require by mid-century.

Two forces that could hinder the production of either of these innovations is.

Space Environmental issues

There is now a lot of space junk in orbit around the earth and adding more Satellites for the SPS system. We do not need to add to this

Figure 1 - Space Junk

The other force would be financial feasibility.
The cost of producing a lunar based system would be a hindrance.  1995 predicted costs came to about $1,098.00 per kW It will have most likely tripled in today’s cost. The materials, manpower and transportation costs in 1996 figures would be in the Billions.

Figure 2 : Lunar Base Solar Production System
Fig from David Criswell’s Solar Power via the Moon: 2002
G.L. Kulcinski, Nov 26, 2001, Lecture 35 Lunar Solar Power Station
David Criswell, 2002; Solar Power via the Moon,

Friday, August 24, 2012

Web Video & Global Innovation

Coming from a little behind in posting assignments :0) this TED talk is given by Chris Anderson on How web video powers global innovation.

Chris's very interesting talk is about how the web has created what he calls "Crowd Accelerated Innovation"

Take a look and see what you think.

This is a good example of how the forces of social media and technological innovation can be put to use as a somewhat educational venue.  Good in some aspects a little strange in others.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

My 30 second video on HWAPs

This weeks assignment was to produce a video of a future innovation.  I have worked with weather and computers for many years and I have been interested in holographics.

I have always envisioned combining the two sciences Holography and Meteorology.  The first picture in the video is of an SDHS system or Satellite Data Handling System. A system I helped pioneer 20 years ago for the DoD's Air Weather Service.

With the help of Iron Man and a little photoshop work, this 30 sec video will,  I hope, show you my vision of future weather analysis using holographic projection - Holographic Weather Analysis and Prediction system (HWAPs). How weather analysis and holographics have progressed and where I believe we could be in the future giving Meteorologists more information to provide more precise forecasts and longer lead times for severe weather warning.

Make your own photo slideshow at Animoto.

Friday, August 17, 2012

New Agora

The New Agora paper states that there are seven modules to the architecture of SDDP which are comprised of 31 component constraints as stated in Schreibman and Christakis’   New Agora: New Geometry of Languaging  and New Technology of Democracy: *The Structured Design Dialogue Process:

1. 6 Consensus Methods: (1) Nominal Group Technique (NGT), (2)
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), (3) DELPHI, (4) OPtions Field, (5)
Options Profile, and (6) Trade-off Analysis (Years 1972-1982);

2. 7 Language Patterns: (1) Eelemental observations; (3) Problématique,
(3) Influence tree-pattern, (4) OPtions field pattern, (5) OPtions
profile/scenario pattern, (6) Superposition pattern, and (7) Action plan
pattern (Years 1970-1980);

3. 3 Application Time Phases: (1) Discovery, (2) Designing, and (3) Action
(Years 1989-2001;

4. 3 Key Role Responsibilities: (1) Context—Inquiry Design Team, (2)
Content— Stakeholders/Designers, and (3) Process—Facilitation Team
(Years 1982-2002);

5. 4 Stages of Interactive Inquiry: (1) Definition or Anticipation, (2) Design
of Alternatives, (3) Decision, and (4) Action Planning (Years 1989-1995);

6. Collaborative Software and Facility (Years 1981-1995);

7. 6 Dialogue Laws: (1) Requisite Variety )Ashby), (2) Parsimony (Miller),
(3) Saliency (Boulding), (4) Meaning and Wisdom (Peirce, (5)
Authenticity and Autonomy (Tsivacou), and (6) Evolutionary Learning
(Dye) (Years 2001-2003).
This architecture is built around the basis of the following:

4 Axioms to Assure Sound Foundations for the Science:

·       COMPLEXITY: We live in a world that is very complex.  Most observers are confused.  Social systems design issues are strongly interconnected (Warfield).
·       PARSIMONY: Human cognition & attention is limited.  Human beings are usually overloaded in group design meetings leading to bad designs (Simon).
·       SALIENCY: The field of options in designing social systems is multidimensional. Salient synthesis is difficult (Boulding).
·       ENGAGEMENT: Disregarding the participation of the stakeholders in designing social systems is unethical, and the designs are bound to fail (Ozbekhan).
o   However Stakeholders tend to try and solve a problem before its complexity is fully understood, but how complex is complex?
The Situational Complexity Index is defined as
            DK (N-7) / R (R-1)  where D = (V-5) / (N-5)

N = Number of total observations by all observers
R = Number of observations INCLUDED IN THE PROBLEMATIQUE (Influence Map)
V = Number of observations with 1 or more votes
K = Number of DISTINCT links among observations
D = Divergence or “spread think” of importance votes

7 is the “Miller number” (7 ± 2) “which is the limited individual capacity for short-term processing of information” and 5 is the “Warfield  spread think number”

6 Methods to Build Consensus :

1)     Nominal Group Technique
2)     Interpretive Structural Modeling
3)     DELPHI
4)     Options Field
5)     Options Profile
6)     Trade-off Analysis  

7 Patterns of Graphic Language:

1)     Elemental Observation
2)     Problematique (A mess)
3)     Influence Tree (Root Cause Map)
4)     Options Field
5)     Options Profile / Scenario
6)     Superposition Pattern
7)     Action Plan Pattern  

4 Stages of Interactive Inquiry:

1)     Definition or Anticipation
2)     Design of Alternatives
3)     Decision
4)     Action Planning  

7 Laws of Effective Dialogue

1)     Requisite Variety (Ashby)
2)     Requisite Parsimony (Miller, Warfield)
3)     Requisite Saliency (Boulding)
4)     Requisite Meaning & Wisdom (Peirce)
5)     Requisite Authenticity & Autonomy (Tsivacou)
6)     Requisite Evolutionary Learning (Dye)
Schreibman and Christakis show 6 Laws of Dialogue but
Christakis added a 7th law in his presentation on Harnessing Collective Wisdom.
7)     Requisite Action (Laouris) 

My area of interest or innovation is in combining meteorology and holographic projection or Holographic Weather Analysis and Prediction system (HWAPs) as I call it.  Using the SDDP method I am considering on using the Delphi approach in building my consensus, with an options/scenario pattern of graphic language; definition and anticipation type inquiry and the requisite evolutionary learning.

New Agora Paper

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Delphi and NGT research models

We were asked to describe the characteristics and differences between the NGT and Delphi models of research. This is my take on the differences, which model I would use and why.

The Classical Delphi model uses the anonymity of the participants allowing them to freely express their opinions without undue social pressures of having to conform to others in the group with decisions bases on merit, rather than who proposes the idea. Whereas, the NGT method limits participants the opportunity to comment on issues that were not covered in surveys and uses focus groups to encourage participants with one or two members that hold strong opinions influencing others and stifling ideas and evaluating factors identified by learners as positive and negative points.

From the readings the NGT method is mainly directed towards the medical field evaluating medical courses. The Delphi method, working with qualitative and quantitative methods seems to be more suited to Information System (IS) research because of its fluidity in its discipline and its flexibility when knowledge about a task is limited. As for which method I would use from what I have read and think understand, the use of a modified Delphi in a closed or open collaboration would depend on the type of research one wants to accomplish. It seems that a closed collaboration would lead to a specific outcome for a specific study whereas an open collaboration would be used as sort of a brainstorming study to provide a generalized idea or direction in which to proceed.

A Modified Delphi Approach to a New Card Sorting Methodology

Monday, July 9, 2012

It has been a while but it looks like I will back online. Drop by from time to time and see what I will be doing in the next couple of months. It maybe interesting to a few of you, if you are interested in Socio-Technical Futuring, holographic projection and meteorology.