Cisco, NASA Plan 'Planetary Skin' For Monitoring Earth Climate 95
Slatterz writes "Cisco has inked a deal with NASA to build a new global system for tracking climate change. Dubbed 'Planetary Skin,' the network platform will connect a number of sensor and recording units throughout the planet in an effort to gather data for monitoring and tracking changes to the global climate. The company plans to begin building the system next year with a program called 'Rainforest Skin' which will track both climate change and deforestation in rainforest environments. Eventually, the company plans to take the system throughout the planet and create a global network of data-collecting systems for the project. A podcast and a video explain the project in further detail."
Rare metals scattered everywhere (Score:1, Insightful)
These sensors use trace amounts of rare metals which may be harmful to the environment in which they are used. Sensors, in the volumes given in the article, will bring large amounts of these metals with them when considered in aggregate.
You can't measure the environment without also impacting it in some way. Nature has its own "wave function" which is collapsed when we start trying to measure it in any statistically significant manner.
Satellite tracking is a much better idea, but one that won't make any mon
Re: (Score:1)
Satellite tracking is a much better idea.
True. I'd hate to be the guy running the CAT5 for this project!
Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
These sensors use trace amounts of rare metals which may be harmful to the environment in which they are used. Sensors, in the volumes given in the article, will bring large amounts of these metals with them when considered in aggregate.
Relax, there is nothing more safe and secure in the middle of a police free rain forest where illegal logging occurs than expensive and unattended solar panels. Who'd take such a useless and expensive device to sell or use for electricity? Certainly not the loggers or itinerant farmers...
Just throw up some more satellites already. Take a thermo-graphic picture, let the earth spin for 12 hours, and repeat. There you go, a global temperature sample. Repeat for a year, there's your global annual average temperature sample. Compare them for ten years and you have an unambiguous trend.
Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Good god, man, stop trying to drag quantum physics where it isn't supposed to go. I mean, appealing to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is one thing; it's plenty silly, since small quantities of rare metal from when the (nicely ruggedized) devices finally rot away will affect the environment in a nonzero manner, but it is not likely to affect the environment in any way that they are going to be measuring.
The "wave function" bit is totally bogus, however. Nature doesn't actually exist in multiple conflicting states which then collapse into one when "observed": as a macroscopic system, the kind of particle interactions which lead to observation and collapse are already happening all the darned time.
Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
You may have an interesting definition of significant change. The satellite data for temperatures shows an increase [wikipedia.org] that is quite notable.
Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
Most reconstructions of temperatures over the last millenium (and that includes many more than those offered by Mann and Bradley) show that the current observed warming is significant in terms of the rate at which it has occurred. Indeed, most show the current warming over the last 100 years as outside the range of reconstructed temperatures over the last millenium [wikimedia.org].
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
Of course the land based records attempt to take such effects into account, but aside from that we also have the ocean temperature records (which agree closely with the land based records), and several studies which all conclude that UHI effects don't cause the warming observed: [Parker 2004], [Parker 2006] [doi.org], [Peterson 2003] [doi.org]. Not to mention that if we go back to the question of satellite temperatures we see that they show no significant difference in trend to land based observations [wikipedia.org].
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age
Mention of the Vikings on Greenland wrt the medieval warm period being very warm is deceptive. If you actually look at where the viking settlements were (Eastern Settlement [wikipedia.org], Western Settlement [wikipedia.org]), and then check satellite imagery of those areas (Eastern Settlement [google.com], Western Settlement [google.com]), you'll see that they are in sheltered fjords that are naturally quite green and suitable for farming. Some photos of the Viking ruins will confirm this (eg. this [rudyfoto.com], or this [rudyfoto.com]).
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
Of course, as noted earlier, the Mann, Bradley, Hughes temperature reconstruction of 1998 is far from the only such effort. The others produced qualitatively similar results [wikimedia.org]. Further, while there has been dispute of the original 1998 piece, the National Academy of Science report on the subject concluded tha
Re: (Score:2)
And AC's who mod-up their own list of unsupported assetions and ad-homs are trolls.
Please don't do this so early in the morning. (Score:2)
We can worry about the summary later. When we've all had more coffee.
NASA plan s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Note to self (again): Do not post until adequate caffeine levels established.
Oblig for Sunday Morning (Score:5, Funny)
Will it run Linux?
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these...
In Soviet Russia, climate monitors your skin
We're sure to have an answer to climate change soon, now that NASA has some skin in the game...
1. notice the talk about climate change ....
2. get some skin in the game
3.
4. profit
If we could just terra-form this planet and make it suitable for.... oh wait, never-mind.
Seriously, what is the world going to do when they figure out that humans didn't do it, can't fix it, and we're in for 250 years of icy weather? Think about it. If they figure out that the flip of the magnetosphere will cause dramatic climate change, wtf are we supposed to do? Or, if that combined with the breeding patterns of small red crustaceans in the Mediterranean are causing global warming and the last breeding pair of such crustaceans was destroyed 24 months ago for a dinner meeting by the UN on climate control?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if that combined with the breeding patterns of small red crustaceans in the Mediterranean are causing global warming and the last breeding pair of such crustaceans was destroyed 24 months ago for a dinner meeting by the UN on climate control?
I recognized most of the memes, but this one seems new.
I, for one, welcome our small red crustacean climate-controlling overlords. ;)
Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning (Score:5, Funny)
>Cisco, NASA Plan "Planetary Skin'
I am actually pretty happy with the default theme. A lot of green, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that we can call this program 'green'?
Or are you saying that this is an cuil Islamic [wikipedia.org] effort to save the earth?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you explain that again, but with a car analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
errm... This is like the TPS for cars, but instead this monitors cow farts and dead trees?
Re: (Score:2)
Will it run Linux?
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these...
Wait, wait - Earthnet?
There's only one problem with this concept... (Score:4, Interesting)
The location of the sensors might result in anomalies extrapolated to larger areas. Case in point, Kenmore Square in Boston for many years had an air-quality monitoring station. Trouble is that it was mounted right at the confluence of a five road major intersection with a ton of often bumper-to-bumper traffic. Yet the data coming out of it was supposed to cover a much much wider area with comparatively little traffic. The net result was constant complaining in the media about high pollution levels. The uninformed public reads that but doesn't know where the sensor was so the assume the pollution level is the same everywhere. IMHO, what we're likely to "discover" is the obvious i.e. that pollution levels and greenhouse gas levels are highest in and downwind of major cities.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Urban heat island's and GIGO. (Score:4, Informative)
Those silly climatologists have a name for it, it's called the Urban Heat Island [wikipedia.org], they have known about it for decades. Here is an embedded movie [earthsimulator.org.uk] (scroll down a bit past the still picture) from Japan's Earth simulator [youtube.com]. It shows the garbage that emeges from the physical and chemical equations in their high resolution finite element models [wikipedia.org], the garbage comes complete with jet-streams and cyclones forming in the right places.
Questionable quality (Score:1, Interesting)
As if SurfaceStations.Org [surfacestations.org] didn't have enough fun looking at all the existing poor weather stations, here comes a whole new batch of odd locations to look at.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These days, you need a lot of scientific research as well as expert advice to get a grip of simple concepts like "Don't shit where you eat". Secondly, it is much more convinient to fence off oneself from presumably necessary actions that will reduce the likelihood of being re-elected by 'fence-research'.
CC.
Re: (Score:1)
That's only because it can take a lot of work to convince people that:
The Hand That Feeds (Score:1)
Re-calibrate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We will then have to attempt to understand why the ice caps are melting and the world isn't heating up.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Better yet, what if the new system provides conclusive evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old? What will those know-it-all scientists do then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They will just use the same old argument they already use.
"while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Then they will get their money from the government and our taxes will be raised a bit more. Everybody else is getting 700 billion, why not Cisco and the climatologists. :(
Heh heh, that sounds like a band name "Cisco And The Climatologists"
Re: (Score:2)
Imperfect does not mean useless.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They will just use the same old argument they already use. "while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Imperfect does not mean useless.
NO, imperfect does not mean useless, but imperfect can mean inaccurate. In science, accuracy is a big deal. Otherwise we are just following a hunch, and that is fine in the beginning, but to base political and social policy on a hunch is too much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the best science available says with 95% certainty that humans are resposible for greater than 50% of the observed warming. Who's political hunch would we be following if we continued with BAU?
Re: (Score:1)
But your "best science available" comes from people with a pro-warming agenda.
I am not saying that they are wrong, I am just saying that they only get money if they keep shouting that the earth is doomed and it is human error.
So yes, they might be right, but why should anyone trust them?
The Global Warming crowd has been saying the same thing about the scientist on the opposite side of the issue for years, so it is only right that these scientists are questioned on their ethics as well now that they are rece
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about grants and "pro-warming agendas" is simply dragging around red-herrings [wikipedia.org] since both "sides" recieve grants and both have their political backers (including your own political posts).
Science is based on evidence not "facts" and as the sayi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no hard evidence that god doesn't exist, but that does not mean he does.
I did mean evidence when I said facts, since facts are derived from evidence. I will concede on that point as evidence is a better term to use when being precise.
I also agree that the grant motivated agendas is a red hearing since both sides do it.
But that doesn't make it any more ethical does it?
Is there no way to eliminate this ethical dilemma of monetary motivators in science?
Should we not work to eliminate it?
I think we are b
Re: (Score:2)
"Is there no way to eliminate this ethical dilemma of monetary motivators in science? Should we not work to eliminate it?
Unfortunately when large sums of money (or fame) are concerned, no (re:tabacco "scientists"). However we can work towards limiting it's e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the way you think in that thread, had I seen it in time I would have chipped in with the gravity thing and also pointed out that the theory behind the rising acidity in the oc
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In otherwords: Assuming pressure is consta
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Most of Slashdot must be still hung over from last night. Not only are there less than 100 posts, you were modded insightful.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks (Score:3, Informative)
It's your perogative to keep repeating the endless list of misinformation [skepticalscience.com] from George Will, Andrew Bolt, Dr Ball and oth
Broken link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a phycological phenomena called "projection" and that comment would seem to indicate you are suffering from it, the good news is it can be treated with a heathly dose of self-skepticisim.
You failed miserably to agrue the science, you did not comment on the NAS testimony I pointed to, and now you send me a political hit piece from the "freerepublic". Take a good look at your link, do you see any links to references, sources, papers,
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of us worry about the irrationality of human beings when we think of this topic. I remain skeptic but the only thing I know is that I do not know. I error on the side of caution and take the argument seriously, I need very little motivation to give up things that could be harmful to our environment. I ride a bicycle to work, I take care of my neighborhood, and live as cleanly as I feel reasonable.
That all being said, it behooves the scientific community to convince the public not that their e
Re: (Score:2)
Ruined the plot! (Score:3, Funny)
The entire earth is a skin job??? Season 4 officially sucks.
Today its a skin.... (Score:1)
What on Earth for? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On another note, I can't get out of my head that this sounds mankind actualizing Gaia Theory [wikipedia.org]. I'm not saying this in a teleological fashion, as in "the purpose of mankind is to pro
It will take a long time (Score:2)
Yet more officious government snooping! (Score:2)
First it was weather stations everywhere, recording the temperature, air pressure, and rainfall; then it was CCTV all over the place; and now they're planning to install recorders to monitor the health of the biosphere. Bastards. Anybody would think that the government wanted to have data upon which to base its decisions.
The Bush administration wouldn't have stood for all this wasteful government spending on the so-called "environment." They called that nonsense "reality-based decision-making" and wanted no
Re: (Score:2)
What ever happened to making policy based on gut feelings ...
Given the continuing popularity of Rush Limbaugh, I'd say there's hope yet!
One Hopes... (Score:1)
Can you spell SkyNet? Big Brother? (Score:2)
Yikes! Their video is corporate government enviro-mental double speak gone wild and crazy! Big Brother will be implemented to enforce the bogus climate change politics of the likes of Al Gore! Yikes!!! Run for the hills, oh wait, Cisco is there with their planetary skin sensors monitoring you! The holier than thou crowd can control swarm after you to correct your 4% exhale of Carbon Dioxide in your breath foot print! They are after you since you didn't get your lungs downgraded to 1% carbon exhales!
Planetar
Re: (Score:2)
Scary SkyNet Battlefield Earth Video is here: http://www.planetaryskin.org//mov/Planetary_Skins.mov [planetaryskin.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"In an effort to transition to a sustainable economy the planetary skin concept proposes a unifying approach to monitoring, measuring, and managing rural environments, rural to urban interconnects, and urban environments. Planetary Skin unifies a distributed nervous system of networked ground, sea, air and space based sensors, machines, and humans all into a cognitive decision space for trusted communities." - Planetary Skin Promo Video on Taking Over the World.
Yeah, and just who is in that "trusted communi
Push Science (Score:2)
Note the heavy use of the word "manage". These folk have already assumed what their sensors are going to tell them. I wonder whether the sensors will be allowed to disagree. With all that management it's unlikely that any of us will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will sensor raw data be available to all? (Score:2)
or will transmissions from these things be encrypted and only decryptable by NASA, which will "cook" or otherwise "warm up" (ahem) the data before it's made available for public consumption?