Slashdot Mirror


Cisco, NASA Plan 'Planetary Skin' For Monitoring Earth Climate

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."

95 comments

  1. Rare metals scattered everywhere by BadAnalogyGuy · · 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 money for Cisco.

    1. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

      Satellite tracking is a much better idea.

      True. I'd hate to be the guy running the CAT5 for this project!

    2. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Coryoth · · 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 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.

      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], [Peterson 2003]. 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.

      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, Western Settlement), and then check satellite imagery of those areas (Eastern Settlement, Western Settlement), 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, or this).

      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. Further, while there has been dispute of the original 1998 piece, the National Academy of Science report on the subject concluded tha

    5. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kept looking for the punch line but it never came! Let me add one:

      FACT: Anonymous Cowards take themselves too seriously.

    6. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wikipedia is a steaming pile of leftwing crap. People who quote wikipedia are idiots.

    7. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Wikipedia is a steaming pile of leftwing crap. People who quote wikipedia are idiots."

      And AC's who mod-up their own list of unsupported assetions and ad-homs are trolls.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Rare metals scattered everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may not seem so well informed as you, but from what I learned in grade 10 geopraphy many years ago is temperature variations over a thousand years are tiddlywinks. I also believe I was told we've been receding from an ice age for 14 000 years at least. You'd expect temperatures to be getting warmer.

      I don't argue that temperatures are rising, or falling, or staying the same. I'm saying that we need several hundred thousand years of data to say anything with any certainty. These 1000 year-span studies are a flash in the pan geologically, scientifically nothing more than hypothesis, and culturally nothing more than humans wanting to feel like we've actually affected anything in this universe.

      In the next 1000 years I'm sure the sea level could rise a meter, or the world average temperature could drop a whole degree. How can we predict a planet that gave birth to us when we can't even predict our own economy (which is orders of magnitude less complex than a couple billion years of planetary evolution)?

  2. Please don't do this so early in the morning. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Look, I know we all lost an hour of sleep last night, but can the HEADLINES at least be free of major typos.

    We can worry about the summary later. When we've all had more coffee.

    NASA plan s

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Please don't do this so early in the morning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are incorrect. Cisco, NASA plan, ie, THEY plan.

    2. Re:Please don't do this so early in the morning. by paimin · · Score: 1

      Go have some coffee and read it again.

      --
      Facebook is the new AOL
    3. Re:Please don't do this so early in the morning. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      That worked! It finally made sense.

      Note to self (again): Do not post until adequate caffeine levels established.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Oblig for Sunday Morning by zappepcs · · 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?

    1. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by vux984 · · Score: 1

      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. ;)

    2. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by neapolitan · · Score: 4, Funny

      >Cisco, NASA Plan "Planetary Skin'

      I am actually pretty happy with the default theme. A lot of green, though.

      --
      Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
    3. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that we can call this program 'green'?

      Or are you saying that this is an cuil Islamic effort to save the earth?

    4. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:

      I for one, welcome our new skin monitoring planet overlords!

    5. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 1

      Could you explain that again, but with a car analogy?

    6. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      errm... This is like the TPS for cars, but instead this monitors cow farts and dead trees?

    7. Re:Oblig for Sunday Morning by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Will it run Linux?

      Imagine a beowolf cluster of these...

      Wait, wait - Earthnet?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  4. There's only one problem with this concept... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:There's only one problem with this concept... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Let's not forget about the sensors that are already near black asphalt parking lots, tar covered rooftops, and down wind from a rooftop heat exchanger.

      Remember all you climatologists. In the world of computing, it's garbage in, garbage out.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  5. Point being? by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

    How will that help fix the underlying problems, such as inefficient use of energy, lack of consciousness about energy preservation, pollution, etc...?
    A more constructive approach would be building a network recording the biggest pollutants, both on individual, regional and international scale, and then using this data to do lots of exciting things like getting the public's opinion on it, thereby pressuring the entities, whether they're factories or those working on deploying alternative energy sources, into working better and seeing who's doing more progress.
    Competition is a good thing, and even better when put into a useful context.

    1. Re:Point being? by foobsr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How will that help fix the underlying problems,

      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.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Point being? by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

      Precisely my point. Sometimes I think that being obvious only aggravates the situation. So getting on the train of change that's quiet, but with momentum should be that the 2.0 of democracy today. Then again, direct public action, has never been 'too much' when it comes to defending the right to breathe...

      Thanks for the reply.

    3. Re:Point being? by Monkeybaister · · Score: 1

      That's only because it can take a lot of work to convince people that:

      1. Yes, that is shit.
      2. Yes, you do eat there
  6. The Hand That Feeds by castorvx · · Score: 1

    Network engineers, start lining up for your CCPSPs.

  7. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA should colonize space,not waste money on such nonsense.

  8. Re-calibrate? by zwede · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So once this system is online and does not find any signs of warming, what then? Will it have provisions to be "re-calibrated" so the results match the "scientific consensus"?

    1. Re:Re-calibrate? by Yacoby · · Score: 3, Informative

      We will then have to attempt to understand why the ice caps are melting and the world isn't heating up.

    2. Re:Re-calibrate? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    3. Re:Re-calibrate? by Janeshat · · 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"

    4. Re:Re-calibrate? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Re-calibrate? by zwede · · Score: 1

      Oh? Already forgot how the used October data from Siberia for the November average temp calculation "by mistake". How about the infamous hockey stick graph that totally ignored the medieval warming period? And then there was the Alaska size part of the ocean that was supposed to be open water but when you looked at the raw satellite image was covered in ice? ...and the list goes on...

    6. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Who cares how old the Earth is, we could use this network for something practical, like warning the captains of ships that are sailing too close to the edge...

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · 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."

      Imperfect does not mean useless.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Re-calibrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So once this system is online and does not find any signs of warming, what then? Will it have provisions to be "re-calibrated" so the results match the "scientific consensus"?

      Did Bush stop shouting "Terrorism" when everyone knew he was full of shit? "Climate change! Climate change! Climate CHANGE you can believe in... whoops... Boogy boogy boogy!!! Fear the evil climate change!!!"

    9. Re:Re-calibrate? by Janeshat · · 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.

    10. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "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."

      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?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Re-calibrate? by Janeshat · · 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 receiving the government grants.

      Besides, it shouldn't be about trust at all. It should be about facts, and they just don't have enough, no matter what statistics you quote from one group of scientists that study only one aspect of science.

    12. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "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 receiving the government grants. "

      Talking about grants and "pro-warming agendas" is simply dragging around red-herrings 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 saying goes, "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence". I have watched the genuine skeptical arguments fall one by one over the last 25+yrs (including many of my own) and I now understand the subject in considerable depth. So let's start with something basic, do you have any credible evidence that disputes the "consensus", ie: Evidence that...

      1. The Earth is not warming.

      2. Humans are not resposnisble for the majority of the observed warming.

      3. The consequences of AGW will not get worse the longer we ignore it.

      And remeber that the evidence needs to avoid political trolling and be at least as extrodinary as the evidence for AGW that goes all the way back to Fourier in the 1820's. Since the scientific institutions of some 300 odd nations that represent the full spectrum of politics support the basic findings of the IPCC I'm not sure where you will find such evidence, but I'm willing to listen if you have something, anything?

      If you don't have anything then we can talk about politics, ie: what solutions heve been proposed, what are the costs to the economy, who would/wouldn't benifit from them, etc.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Re-calibrate? by Janeshat · · 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 both interested in seeking the best evidence available. I am just more skeptical of mankind. I see skeptics as well as scientists with real opposing theories as a good thing in any type of science.

      I just fear that this science is getting used by political agendas and has accumulated an almost religious following of zealots.

      I also distrust statistical data and computer models that are based on such data, especially when the data is retrieved from questionable sources.

      I am not going to bring a bunch of names and opposing evidence into this argument. We both know there is real science on both sides of the issue. Sure there is a majority of one type of scientist that believes your theories and they might be right, but the other side might be right as well at this point.

      My argument is mainly that the "skeptics" as you call them (I prefer to call them scientists with opposing theories) are not getting the funding and that this is anti-scientific.

    14. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ok, you have some fair and reasonable points and I think you should follow your skepticisim to where ever it leads, what follows is mainly just my opinion. OTOH I am quite capable of backing up the assertions I make if you want to talk specifics...

      "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 effects by eductaing ourselves on the basic issues and insisting on peer-reviewed publications including the data sources that goes with them. As in the case of tabacco "scientists, science will eventually expose the psudeo-skeptics for what they are.

      I see skeptics as well as scientists with real opposing theories as a good thing in any type of science.

      Skepticisim is the foundation apon which science is built. IMHO the term "non-skeptical scientist" is an oxymoron. I am usually very careful about labeling someone a skeptic as opposed to a psudeo-skeptic, I believe from your responses that, like myself, you are the former.

      "I just fear that this science is getting used by political agendas and has accumulated an almost religious following of zealots."

      Yes, there are "alarmists" of both the ecological and economic variety, educating oneself on the science and proposed solutions will assist in spotting them. I think an international treaty implementing a cap and trade system is the best solution I have heard because it's basic mechanisim is easy to understand and firmly based in the "free market philosophy".

      "I also distrust statistical data and computer models that are based on such data, especially when the data is retrieved from questionable sources"

      Unfortunately there is no other way to analyse historical records and proxies other than with statistics and even if you get the stats right you then need to justify any extrapolation you make from them by other means, I belive the IPCC reports do this in a convincing manner. Computer models used for investigating the climate do not rely on statistics they use finite element analysis a method that is invaluable in a huge range of subjects, particularly fluid dynamics (ie: atmosphere and oceans are both treated as "fluids"). A nice visualization of a baseline for such a model from Japan's "Earth Simulator" can be seen here (scroll down past the still picture to see the embeded movie).

      "My argument is mainly that the "skeptics" as you call them (I prefer to call them scientists with opposing theories) are not getting the funding and that this is anti-scientific."

      I agree it would be unscientific if it were true. My argument is that these so called unfunded theories have already been debunked and that the "debate" in the mass-media is in the main manafactured by certain opinion columnists. I'm not saying there isn't a huge amount of genuine skeptical argument about things such as clouds, areosols, biological feedbacks, the behaviour of glaciers, ice shelves, etc, etc. However this does not change what is already known, what it does over the long term is narrow the error bars. In fact many of the people/institutions on both sides of those genuine debates are the same people/institutions the IPCC draws it's evidence from and none of them dispute the much maligned "consensus", although many of them sorely wish they could.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Re-calibrate? by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      Sounds like this being just can't wait for it to be too late too act - maybe they don't have to wait that long.

    16. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Not sure I can parse your comment but I noticed you had a long thread with someone in my post on bushfires. I agree with the thrust of your argument in that thread but would just like to point out that gravity is indeed used in climate models to simulate atmospheric pressure amoung other things (string theory, not so much ;).

      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 oceans has nothing to do with acid rain (sulphuric acid) but it does have alot to do with C02, (carbonic acid, H2CO3 = H2O + CO2). It goes without saying that burning coal emmits both sulphur and CO2 - whoops I just said it! :)

      Many people think that climate models are a some sort of excell spreadsheet where scientists twiddle numbers until things come out the way Al Gore wants them to. If you're interested have a look at some of my other comments in this thread and you will find some ammunition to dispel this misconception. OTOH I realise I may be "telling you how to suck eggs" and you may already understand chemistry/physics and they way they are used in finite element models to simulate climate.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Re-calibrate? by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      If you simulate gravity with anything other than Newton for atmospheric pressure, don't forget to check all butterfly wings along the way.

    18. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should pull their wings off, spherical butterfies would be much easier to model. ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:Re-calibrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      PS: Just in case you were serious about the butterflies. Yes chaos is a problem with numerical analysis (re: the three body problem in Newtonian gravity). It does make weather 'unpredictable' on time scales longer than a week or so and that is how it was discovered in the first place. However in the case of climate the time scale is in the order of centuries/millenia, which comes back to what you were saying about levels of certainty in all models, even Newton's.

      In otherwords: Assuming pressure is constant, I can't tell where the first bubbles will appear when I boil a kettle but I can tell what the temprature of the water will be when they do.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  9. Ruined the plot! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

    The entire earth is a skin job??? Season 4 officially sucks.

  10. Today its a skin.... by rshol · · Score: 1

    ....tomorrow a truly giant casemod.

  11. What on Earth for? by kyle5t · · Score: 1

    Cisco's expertise in "data handling"? What could possibly be so complicated about a network of sensors that NASA (the people who built the Shuttle) have to contract out to Cisco to pull it off. Oh yeah, Depression-era government spending.

    1. Re:What on Earth for? by shawb · · Score: 1

      The shuttle was manufactured by private companies... Wikipedia lists United Space ALliance, Thiokol, Alliant Techsystems, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell and Boeing for various parts. NASA, like the rest of the U.S. government, bids out a large portion of their work. Just like the Air Force doesn't actually build their own planes.

      On another note, I can't get out of my head that this sounds mankind actualizing Gaia Theory. I'm not saying this in a teleological fashion, as in "the purpose of mankind is to produce the sensory systems of Gaia" but that, combined with the vast networked computing system we have created (which on some accounts is on the same level of complexity as a human brain) we could indeed be engineering a global consciousness.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  12. It will take a long time by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    As Dr. Pope of the UK Met Office pointed out, people are very confused between climate (long term variation) and weather (relatively short term variation, which can still extend over periods of maybe 30 years.) Measuring climate change takes a long time and needs standards of reference that go a long way back - which is why things like dendrochronology (dating from tree rings and noting how they vary from year to year) is so valuable, or taking ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. On another note, that's why we have to persist with an Arctic ice tracking technology that has flaws - because even with the flaws it should be internally consistent over time. Changing the methodology makes the history useless.

    So when this network of sensors is connected up, how long will it be before they actually provide any useful information about climate change as distinct from weather variation?

    Which is not to knock the idea. Someone has to do it. It used to be the mark of a really advanced society that it planned for the long term - like British aristocrats planting trees to be felled by their great-grandchildren.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  13. A better solution by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

    I'd simply just plant more flowers everywhere - would sure smell better, cost less, and have a real measurable fucking effect on the climate (and the general atmosphere). Happy 8th March, Cisco!

  14. Yet more officious government snooping! by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    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 nothing to do with it. What ever happened to making policy based on gut feelings and the things a bunch of dead Hebrew poets and historians said a couple of thousand years ago?

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Yet more officious government snooping! by value_added · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to making policy based on gut feelings ...

      Given the continuing popularity of Rush Limbaugh, I'd say there's hope yet!

    2. Re:Yet more officious government snooping! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama keeps trashing economy sectors and spreading doom and gloom then you won't have to worry. their won't be any evil industry in America to make CO2. Of course none of you will be employed either.

    3. Re:Yet more officious government snooping! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course none of you will be employed either.

      Wait didn't you accuse Obama of spreading doom and gloom 2 sentences earlier?

  15. Please don't do this so early in the morning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I know we all lost an hour of sleep last night, but can the COMMENTS CORRECTING THE HEADLINES at least be free of major typos.

    We can worry about the memes later. When we've all had more coffee.

    Cisco, NASA plan

  16. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our climate-change monitoring overlords.

  17. Questionable quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As if 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.

  18. Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Temperature sensors will be places in Walmart parking lots, next to AC fans and other heat sources no doubt. Right next to the existing ones.

  19. suspect agendas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have a problem with the fact that almost all climate scientists that cry "OMGZ were all gonna die" get their grant money because of global warming fearmongering. Scientists that disagree with global warming almost never get their grant money from that area. So while they are not climatologists and study other areas of science, their research is less biased because global warming does not give them a salary. Since Global Warming is all statistical data and computer models that can be easily manipulated to suit the facts, I wonder if these climatologists are actually trying to find a C02 based global warming trend when there really isn't one. There is no doubt that the numbers show a warming trend, but if it is because of something we can't fix, like the sun, then they do not get their money and have to go find a real job. It is like the pharmaceutical company that cures cancer but holds it back because they can make more money selling treatments. Can we really trust this group of scientists?

  20. *SIGH* More taxpayer dollars wasted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    propping up religion for atheists. The U.S.'s financial house is on fire, but we apparently have plenty of money to throw at NASA & Cisco to investigate something we already know: the Earth's climate is changing. Tell me when the Earth's climate HASN'T been changing. Half of this continent used to be under a freaking glacier.

  21. Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The planet is warming, the planet is warming..."-- one lantern by land, two by sea.

    "Boss... da CO2, da CO2!"-- That you tatoo, I see it.

    "The debate is over, now please by my company's carbon offsets... (I need a new SUV)"-- Algorus minimus.

    "No CEO taking taxpayer money should earn more than 500K a year... (not mentioning the postmaster General makes $800K and is losing money)"-- The messiah.

    1. Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please report to the Ministry of Truth. Your lack of blind allegiance to our Great Leaders is concerning, to say the least.

  22. One Hopes... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    ...that this sensor net will have more care in its placement then the existing sensors do. Their poor placement and maintenance are why you can't trust the ground numbers the Warmites love so much at all.

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  23. Can you spell SkyNet? Big Brother? by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    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!

    Planetary Skin is no less that the Total Information Awareness Grid/Matrix needed for the USA to combine with their Flying Death Machines to Control the World with the Threat of Death at Any Moment From the SkyNet.

    Let's hope the skin gets a rash.

    1. Re:Can you spell SkyNet? Big Brother? by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Scary SkyNet Battlefield Earth Video is here: http://www.planetaryskin.org//mov/Planetary_Skins.mov

    2. Re:Can you spell SkyNet? Big Brother? by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      "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 community" making the decisions? Not you or I that is for sure.

      What exactly are those machines? The USA Air Force Predators?

  24. Push Science by thethibs · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    1. Re:Push Science by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      While the CEO speak in the video makes me want to puke, I don't see how the word "manage" implies a global conspiracy to...err...to do what?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Push Science by thethibs · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about a conspiracy? Does the phrase "common cause" mean nothing?

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    3. Re:Push Science by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      Maybe, to take trillions of dollars from those who earn them, and redesign the global economy to one with centralized planning of major industries?

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
  25. Will sensor raw data be available to all? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  26. Re:I spend too much time on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grandparent IS a copy and paste argument with no relation to the actual topic of the article here.

  27. Urban heat island's and GIGO. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Let's not forget about the sensors that are already near black asphalt parking lots, tar covered rooftops, and down wind from a rooftop heat exchanger. Remember all you climatologists. In the world of computing, it's garbage in, garbage out.

    Those silly climatologists have a name for it, it's called the Urban Heat Island, they have known about it for decades. Here is an embedded movie (scroll down a bit past the still picture) from Japan's Earth simulator. It shows the garbage that emeges from the physical and chemical equations in their high resolution finite element models, the garbage comes complete with jet-streams and cyclones forming in the right places.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  28. www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    global warming is a hoax!!!!

    www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog

  29. Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Oh? Already forgot how the used October data from Siberia for the November average temp calculation "by mistake". How about the infamous hockey stick graph that totally ignored the medieval warming period? And then there was the Alaska size part of the ocean that was supposed to be open water but when you looked at the raw satellite image was covered in ice? ...and the list goes on..."

    It's your perogative to keep repeating the endless list of misinformation from George Will, Andrew Bolt, Dr Ball and other like-minded opinion columnists. However the misinformation you have been fed about Mann is based on the NAS testimony to the senate which if you actually read it does not debunk Mann's hockey stick. Mann did not ignore the MWP, what he said was that the world was now warmer than the during the MWP, the overwhelming majority of published reconstructions agree with him.

    The meat of the testiomony: "We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities.

    Does your bullshit detector not sound an alarm when none of the psuedo-skeptics that have misinformed you ever point to the sources they base their claims on. Does your bullshit detector not go off the scale when it hears the senate wanted to "verify the claims" of one scientific paper, as if it were the only thing that AGW is based on? How about you and others who believe George and his mates actually look at the accuracy of Mann's 1998 forceasts rather than simply regurgitating the bullshit that the opinion columns spoon feed you.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by zwede · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my bullshit detector goes off every time I hear Hansen and his cronies going on about doom this and doom that. Funny how the the only thing that will save us is carbon credits and funneling tons of grant money to his buddies.

    2. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by zwede · · Score: 1

      Oh, and "warmer now than the MWP"??? Back then you have farmers on Greenland for crying out loud!

    3. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I see you are unwilling to look at evidence that refutes your dogma, please carry on making a fool of yourself.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by zwede · · Score: 1

      You're obviously a true believer and as such beyond reason. But still, here's a very good article about the history of the man-made global warming myth: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2176707/posts

    5. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      "dramatic turn toward a colder climate" - my BS detector exploded.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "You're obviously a true believer and as such beyond reason."

      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, even other opinions? - Ask yourself why not? Ask yourself why I haven't answered with a similar hit piece from a left-wing rag or some drivel from greenpeace?

      If you don't understand even the basics of the science and are unwilling to look at contra-evidence then what's the point arguing about the politics surrounding it? Do you know what the definition of scientific skepticisim is? - Do you have a methodology that we could use to determine what the science actually says, or have you just made up your mind that the "freerepublic" has all the answers and anyone who disagrees with that page full of conspiracy theories is "beyond reason"?

      While you mull that over ask yourself a political question that a genuine skeptic might ask: The basic findings of the IPCC are accepted by the scientific institutions of some 300 odd nations, the entire spectum of politics is represented by those institutions, do you not find this strange if, as your link says, it's all an "Al Gore scam"?

      By the way if you want to label me a socialist go right ahead and make another mistake. I'm no more interested in political dogma than I'm interested in religious dogma (same thing really - ie: someone has all the answers). Contemplate my sig, practice some self skepticisim and unlock the political cage you are in, the world will suddenly make a whole lot more sense.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      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 evidence is correct, but that they are not falling prey to "group think" and social stigmas regarding the issue. That's where the concern comes from. You can't blame people for being skeptical of anything that resembles a social movement.

      The good news is, even if we don't know the eyes have been opened around the globe. People realize that simply exploiting the environment without considering consequences doesn't work well long-term. This is being recognized by the average citizen around the globe and the end result will hopefully be a cleaner global community.

    8. Re:Bullshit detectors and hockey-sticks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm not a scientist, unless computer scientist counts. If scientists follow the scientific method then by default "group think" is minimised as much as humanly possible. Many scientists take it for granted that people undersatnd this but I tend to agree with Sagan, Dawkins and others in that the philosophy of science is not mentioned at school let alone taught. As a personal anecdote I dropped out of HS in '76 and gained a BSc in '91, in both cases science was taught as if it were a dictionary of factoids that we can pick and choose from to suit our needs. Oddly enough the way I became aware of skepticisims central role in science was by reading a small book written by a magician in the early 80's. Of course the problem with communicating this to the public is that you can end up looking like a humourless obsessive compulsive (re: Dawkins and Randi).

      "I remain skeptic but the only thing I know is that I do not know."

      Yep, the Universe is mainly hydrogen and ignorance, and we can't be certain about the hydrogen.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  30. Broken link by TapeCutter · · Score: 1
    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  31. Get professional help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stop astroturfing on slashdot.

    Posting AC as I'm guessing you're the retaliating kind.