Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Study Suggests Buried Internet Infrastructure at Risk as Sea Levels Rise (eurekalert.org) 191
The study, conducted with Barford’s former student Ramakrishnan Durairajan, now of the University of Oregon, and Carol Barford, who directs UW-Madison’s Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, is the first assessment of risk of climate change to the internet. It suggests that by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. The most susceptible U.S. cities, according to the report, are New York, Miami and Seattle, but the effects would not be confined to those areas and would ripple across the internet, says Barford, potentially disrupting global communications.
Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:4, Insightful)
by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @02:49PM (#56958448)Stuff underground gets wet already, just in case you didn’t know about “rain” and such.Re:Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:5, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16, 2018 @02:59PM (#56958502)Getting wet is not the same as being submerged.
Take your water resistant watch sometime and go diving with it.
Re: Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous CowardAll OSP (Outside Plant) fiber optic cable is rated for full immersion. And since measured sea level rise is far less than 0.1 inches per year, in 100 years mean sea level will go up about 10 inches. Assuming it doesnt reverse itself. So move along, ignore the chicken littles.
Are they rated for immersion in SALT water?
Yes.
AGW will cause many serious problems. This isn’t one of them.
Stupid ignorant alarmism does nothing but provide ammunition to the denialists.
- I guess all those cables laid across the ocean floor must be DOOMED then…
- From the article: “Buried fiber optic cables are designed to be water-resistant, but unlike the marine cables that ferry data from continent to continent under the ocean, they are not waterproof.”
It’s Ok. There is no AGW so this will not happen.
Florida will not be submerged either.
Re:Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:5, Insightful)
by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@ear t h link.net> on Monday July 16, 2018 @08:30PM (#56960306)The cables under the ocean were placed there and intended to be submerged. The cables buried underground that are currently not underwater, is the point of the article.
We know how to manage underwater cables. We know how quickly the water will rise. We know how deep these cables are. Therefore we know where and when the cables would need to be replaced with submerged rated versions to keep operational. Given that maintenance and upgrades are a thing with any infrastructure that means that there is a budget for this. I understand that it’s quite possible for submerged rated cables to cost more than underground rated cables but that only means upgrades might be delayed, or the budget needs to be increased.
If the worst case of sea level rise is some people having their internet be on the blink as the upgrades are going into place then this is a non-problem. I’d be more concerned about things like subway tunnels and such being under water.
No, we don’t know how quickly the water will rise. We’ve got decent guesses. This is one of them.
I agree that upgrades of the infrastructure are an on-going need, but this is a statement that the upgrades in certain areas need to be designed differently, and may need to be done on an accelerated schedule.
It’s fine to disagree with what they say is going to happen, but it would be better to not misstate what they are saying. They aren’t saying “This is the worst that will happen”, they’re saying “This is
Did you read the words you quoted? “Most likely” doesn’t imply knowledge, it implies a “best guess”.
Re:Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:4, Insightful)
by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @04:06PM (#56958914)Stuff underground gets wet already, just in case you didn’t know about “rain” and such.
We should just get the Dutch to build the Internet infrastructure. Their whole country is more or less under water, and their Internet stills runs . . . along with everything else.
I think they have invented some kind of anti-gravity water control technology, and just are keeping it as a secret to themselves.
Re:Stuff underground gets wet already (Score:5, Informative)
by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:30PM (#56959500)Their whole country is more or less under water,
A large part of the country is below sea level. That’s not the same as underwater. Yes, there are parts that are underwater: the canals, for example.
I think they have invented some kind of anti-gravity water control technology,
It’s called a “pump”, and some of them are driven by windmills. They didn’t invent the pump, they just use a lot of them.
and just are keeping it as a secret to themselves.
Damn, now that I’ve told you, I’ll have to kill you.
We should just get the Dutch to build the Internet infrastructure.
Anyone could build infrastructure that can survive being submerged, Unfortunately, they didn’t plan for that: “When it was built 20-25 years ago, no thought was given to climate change.”
I would like to know about these “internet stills”, what kind of proof alcohol do they produce and how much does it cost?
It may run in some fashion, but it is horribly inefficient. They have to throw away the HEADs from all the web page requests or else they’ll go blind.
“Stuff underground gets wet already, just in case you didn’t know about “rain” and such.”
sigh. you obviously havent done much infrastructure planning if you dont know the difference between water resistant and water proof. from TFA:
Buried fiber optic cables are designed to be water-resistant, but unlike the marine cables that ferry data from continent to continent under the ocean, they are not waterproof.
Plus there is the whole “there is nothing worse for equipment than seawater” thing, which if you had eve
I’d like more information on what constitutes “water resistance” and what violates a water resistance claim.
My guess is anything buried in the ground anyplace other than a desert has some ability to withstand immersion in fresh water nearly indefinitely. A lot of low-lying areas can be prone to periodic flooding or other conditions which would amount to water immersion.
I’d guess that water pressure is probably a key variable — “water resistance” probably isn’t guaranteed for continuous immersion beyond 5-
Unless the conduit is breached you don’t have to worry about it, which is what this pretty much boils down to. Look at the fibre line hanging off a utility pole. Same stuff they bury in the ground and even then it’s usually a double conduit. The bigger danger is “shifting” of material in the ground and it breaking the conduit, in turn breaking the cable. We have this problem in Canada with winter freeze/thaw cycles where 4-6″+ movement in the ground is possible. It’s why we usually bury at 5.5-6.5′ the
- Most direct burial fiber optic cable is rated for IP68, which means direct water immersion (unlimited time) of at least 1 meter.
- by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *
“Stuff underground gets wet already, “
Still, you don’t need specialized divers to fix a problem. Yet.
Stuff underground gets wet already, just in case you didn’t know about “rain” and such.
That sounds like common sense until you actually see how infrastructure is designed. Most stuff underground most definitely does not get wet. Most of this stuff has many services that exist in order to keep it dry while underground.
A sump pump works great during a storm, not so much for draining an ocean. Also infrastructure typically doesn’t cope well at all with flood waters, so even heavy rain is a problem.
Salt water is a whole other level of environmental hazard for… just about anything utility-related that’s exposed to it.
silver lining (Score:5, Funny)
by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @02:49PM (#56958450)Less likely to be cut by a backhoe thenRe:silver lining (Score:5, Funny)
by Pinky’s Brain ( 1158667 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:16PM (#56958592)It’s not an issue, it’s been the reality of living near the sea for generations. The sea has steadily been rising for a long time.
There is also a very simple solution to stop the sea level rise accelerating near your shoreline, just put down a tidal gauge, it will scare the sea away to locations only observed by satellite and return your rise to the one from 100 years ago. Don’t ask me how it works, but it most definitely works.
It takes a lot of massaging to get to that from raw long term datasets like this :
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obta… [psmsl.org]
- That is just one station. That you can find one station with little acceleration is not surprising. In aggregate though, there is acceleration.
So 2 inches will flood out the Internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @01:07AM (#56961002) JournalExcept recently it’s been rising and is accelerating.
That graph looks scary until you look at the scales, and translate milimeters to inches.
It shows the sea level rising by 2 inches in the last century. It also looks very slightly bent up near the end.
Now how you get a error bands of less than +- 1/6 inch when measuring sea level beats me. But let’s assume their methodology works. And lets be generous and assume that bend is an exponential. It’s a pretty small bend, so let’s be REALLY generous and say that the extrapolated next two inches happen in 50 years rather than 100.
So a 2 inch sea level rise in 50 years will flood out the Internet in 10? It only takes (substantially less than) 2/5 of an inch of sea level rise to do it?
I think we need a MUCH scarier graph to support this panic.
let’s be REALLY generous and say that the extrapolated next two inches happen in 50 years rather than 100.
It’s currently rising at 3.2 mm/year, [nasa.gov] so even at the current rate we’ll see another 2 inches in less than 15 years. Not 100. Not even 50. 15.
But it’s the second order derivative that you need to worry about. Sea level rose about 0.5 feet over the last century. Half of that occurred in the last quarter century. Sea level rise will be measured in feet over the next century.
Many of the conduits at risk are already close to sea level and only a slight rise in ocean levels due to melting polar ice and t
It’s been pretty flat [wikimedia.org] for several thousands of years. Except recently it’s been rising and is accelerating. [csiro.au]
Someone’s really not a fan of the facts to have modded this down to 0. The Holocene data is from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. The more recent data is from CSIRO. The fact that sea level rise is accelerating may not be popular, but it should not be surprising. It’s a natural consequence of thermal expansion and melting land ice due to global warming.
So all the stuff above ground? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Revek ( 133289 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @02:50PM (#56958452) HomepageIs in no danger. These are some of the stupidest ideas I’ve seen lately. Its like the world is static to them and one tiny change triggers a “oh noes all is lost!” response
- And, the claims are blown out of proportion. I’ve been hearing warnings about rising sea water for around forty years, but the Sound in Seattle hasn’t risen any. It would be obvious since most of the seawall was built in 1934.
- by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16, 2018 @02:58PM (#56958492)
Why didn’t Obama stop this?
It’s because the Republican controlled Congress stopped him.
Demonstrably false, try again.
The only thing stopping the Democrats were other Democrats that valued staying in office more than implementing the DNC platform.
- “[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,”
https://www.investors.com/poli… [investors.com]
Obama’s a tool…
- Unless we are going to see sea levels rise by a multiple feet in a year I don’t see the problem. The sea is rising slowly so there will be plenty of warning before any termination point goes underwater so there is plenty of time to move the termination point to further inland so it’s safe(ish) from hurricanes and other issues associated with rising sea levels. Moving the people is going to be a much bigger issue.
Just in case anyone would like some actual data, NOAA has data for a great many tide gauges accessible on the internet. Here’s a l;ink to the chart of roughly 150 years worth of data for the gauge at the battery in New York City. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa…. [noaa.gov] They’ve even done a linear fit to the data — 11 inches a century. About 25% of apparent Sea Level Rise at The Battery is thought to be due to the site sinking a few inches a century. The rest is actual SLR.
Anyway, feel free to examine the dat
- Here’s global sea level [csiro.au]in which even a Slashdot editor could eyeball acceleration.
Engineers in New York City and Seattle probably…
We have more than your hunch to go on. The study referenced in the article suggests that “by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. “
But the sea level is only rising a few mm per year (Score:4, Insightful)
by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:08PM (#56958548)Specifically, averaging 3.2mm, according to Wikipedia. In 15 years, that’s only 48mm (less than 2 inches).
How’s that going to flood a bunch of stuff that’s not on some coral atoll in the South Pacific?
Specifically, averaging 3.2mm, according to Wikipedia. In 15 years, that’s only 48mm (less than 2 inches).
How’s that going to flood a bunch of stuff that’s not on some coral atoll in the South Pacific?
How Indeed!
Lunar and solar tides produce variations orders of magnitude larger than that daily. Three millimeters is below the grass of measurement noise from satellite data or floating buoys.Nobody’s concerned about normal waves hitting coasts 2 inches higher up. What does concern them is how the rise affects [fit.edu] the more extreme events; coastal floods from king tides and storm surges are getting worse, and more frequent – unusually high floods that only happened once a century (1% chance) are now happening [fit.edu] once a decade (10% chance).
These floods don’t just inundate streets and underground cables, they can contaminate coastal wetlands, aquifers, and farmland with salt. In flat coastal deltas, a sma
- by Nutria ( 679911 )
“Study Suggests Buried Internet Infrastructure ar Risk From More Frequent High Floods” would be a much more interesting and uncontroversial paper…
I dunno. Some people like it that wide.
- by Proudrooster ( 580120 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:10PM (#56958556) Homepage
If water is going to rise as predicted, the Internet infrastructure may be the least of the problems, especially if New York City is under sea level, unless the subway is converted into an underwater subway system.
- by Nutria ( 679911 )
Amsterdam figured it out, and so can New Amsterdam…
Re:What about the buildings, streets, homes, & (Score:4, Insightful)
by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:49PM (#56958812)If water is going to rise as predicted, the Internet infrastructure may be the least of the problems, especially if New York City is under sea level, unless the subway is converted into an underwater subway system.
Well, we have to have our priorities.
How will it affect download speeds and gaming latency? That’s what I want to know
- by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:33PM (#56958694) JournalWe are fundamentally incapable of long term planning. If we faced a scenario of nothing happening for 50 years and then everything happening at once, we’d be devastated. If things happen throughout the 50 years though, great. It is much easier to handle many little disasters than one big one when you can’t plan. It also helps to keep the issue in the public consciousness.
It makes no sense to plan for something that *might* happen 50-100 years for now when we don’t even fully understand what that something is, not to mention all of the other unforseen things that *will* happen during that time.
- Unless an asteroid strikes, yeah most things happen in a kind of dribble. So we are doing a good job of planning by doing nothing.
Not exactly. We can plan to not have to do anything – ever. Building codes and zoning should be planning for times on this scale and longer. When looking at 100 year scales, most costs should be avoidable by simply making sure that replacement infrastructure happening during that time take into account natural expectations. Coastal construction and infrastructure should be required to be flood and hurricane proof (or simply nonexistent).
Of course, we are very bad at avoiding known hazards too. We rebuilt Ne
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning.
Then explain this to me. On my daily commute I’d drive by this building that had a 10 or 15 foot wall around it with the building sitting on top of the dirt inside. I searched the internet and found that the building was completed in 1966. A couple years ago the city started filling in dirt around the building to raise the street in front of it about 10 or 15 feet. They will likely finish this in the fall.
Why did they raise the street level? Because across the street is a river. You see every ten year
Balderdash! The Earth is flat! I mean we didn’t come from no smelly monkeys, I mean vaccines cause autism, I mean
What a bunch of bullshit. If there is a certainty of sea level rise wiping out large population centers if we don’t do anything about CO2 output then I’d think we could take on some risk to avert it. What kind of risk? Building nuclear reactors kind of risk.
Has anyone done a risk analysis on using nuclear power? It turns out lots of people have. We find that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. How can that be? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1.21 GW of electricity with a capa
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don’t have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants. Unless you’re willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can’t compete. The free market won’t even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it’s backed by government loan guarantees.
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don’t have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants.
Do you mean power plants that burn coal and natural gas? Sure, then I’ll agree.
Unless you’re willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can’t compete.
Fine, then subsidize it.
The alternative to nuclear power is New York being submerged by rising sea levels. How much would it cost to deal with the rising seas, compare that to the cost of building nuclear power plants, and choose accordingly. I’m trying to understand the problem here. I keep hearing that “the debate is over”. Well, is it? If the debate is over then the government should be acting on it.
The free market won’t even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it’s backed by government loan guarantees.
Then subsidize nuclea
As far as sea level rise goes it’s already too late to do much about it. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the warming that’s already happened. I’d be surprised if 500 years from now sea level hasn’t risen by at least 10 or 20 feet. The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher than it currently is. It may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there.
We see this happening with Germany. They can’t provide for their own energy because they shut down their nuclear power.
Germany produces about 50% more power than it uses, moron. Which is sold to its neighbours or other European countries.
Germany has not shut down its nuclear power, you moron. It is in the process of doing so and has shut down a little bit less than half of it, moron.I’ve learned not to believe anything you claim without sources. Give some links for me to click and review and maybe I’ll believe you
Then you are an idiot
I did finally sit down to Google something about where Germany gets it’s energy and Germany has put themselves in a very bad spot.
Germany imports 90%+ of the natural gas they burn.
Germany imports 90%+ of the oil they burn.
Germany imports about half of the coal they burn.
Germany gets about 15% of their electricity from domestic nuclear power and about 40% from coal with plans to shut down both in the near future.
Germany gets 35% of their electricity from domestic wind, solar, hydro, and biomass.By comparison
Your claims may be technically true but it is a lie by omission.
I did not lie or omit anything. The talk and your claims where about electricity, claiming we would import a lot, which is wrong, we are a net exporter.Germany imports 90%+ of the natural gas they burn.
Germany imports 90%+ of the oil they burn.
Germany imports about half of the coal they burn.
Wow you are a smart ass, I wonder why we germans don’t know that
Surprisingly the same is true for nearly every europSo with 40% renewables and 10% nuclear we have about 50% left which is produced with various kinds of coal, and half of that is imported: so 25% of our electricity is produced by imported coal. That does not sound so bad, or does it?
That sounds terrible. Germany gets nearly 1/4 of it’s energy from natural gas.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-… [wingas.com]Nearly all of that natural gas is imported imported, 40% imported from Russia.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-… [wingas.com]3/4 of the natural gas is for residential heating and hot water.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-… [wingas.com]Germany is highly dependent on imported natural gas for their heat and electricity, and this will only increase.
https://www.dw.com/en/nord-str… [dw.com]Actually last year it was 38.5% this year it will be above 40%. You probably found links from 2015 or older
Okay, smart ass, if you don’t like my numbers
You are again mixing up energy with electricity.
Why do you insist on doing that? If you want to talk about either, use the proper term.
Of course we use about 1/4 nat gas for _energy_ as in heatingSo what is your rant about germany importing gas and especially 40% from Russia about? Why do you care? From where else should we import when the best deal right now is offere by Russia?
Germany has no ships big enough to warant a nuclear reactor. And as I said before, if Russia drops out as supplier – for what ever
You are again mixing up energy with electricity.
No, I’m not. Try to keep up. Is there a language barrier here? You’re English is excellent, far better than my German, Spanish, or French. I can read some German but do not ask me to write it or speak it.
So what is your rant about germany importing gas and especially 40% from Russia about? Why do you care?
As an American I care because if Germany can’t defend itself from Russia’s aggression, whether that be economic or military, then treaties require the USA to come in and help. As a descendant of German immigrants I have concern for my distant cousins in Germany. Have you no concern for your cousins in
Germany is restricted by international treaties, after WWI ans WWII to build no ship bigger than a big destroyer.
Regarding a war with Russia, that idea is utopic.
If Russia is not selling it is violating 40 year old contracts, and most likely gets a boycott on everything they buy from europe and everything else they sell. Of course the north sea price of gas will increase, but we as well can buy liquified gas from the US or Canada.In Germany no one wants nuclear power, and if a government is so stupid to re
Germany is restricted by international treaties, after WWI ans WWII to build no ship bigger than a big destroyer.
First, without a citation I don’t believe you. Second, that’s provably false.
The USA built 10,000 ton nuclear powered warships from 1960 to 1980. Russia operates 20,000 ton nuclear powered icebreakers today. There are nuclear powered submarines and surface warships operated by navies all over the world today and as small as 6000 tons displacement. Germany has a half dozen 6000 ton warships (more or less) and a half dozen military supply ships displacing 20,000 tons. Sauce for the Russian goose is sauce
I did not say that Germany can not build nuclear powered ships.
I said the contracts imposed on us after the lost wars prohibit us to build big ships.Small difference. And it makes not much sense to power a destroyer with nuclear power. Unless it gets equipped with a rail gun or several lasers perhaps.
Germany has reduced it naval forces drastically, I think we have in total less than 20 ships/subs and 4 in phase of testing, no idea if they want to retire some if the new ones get into service.
Shutting down 3/
I did not say that Germany can not build nuclear powered ships.
I said the contracts imposed on us after the lost wars prohibit us to build big ships.I said that unless you can point to something to back that claim up then I think you are mistaken or lying. You keep telling me to look it up myself and I did, I found nothing. Therefore I conclude you are deliberately lying to me because I would assume you did your own research before posting such a claim.
Small difference. And it makes not much sense to power a destroyer with nuclear power. Unless it gets equipped with a rail gun or several lasers perhaps.
Of course it makes sense, the USA had a fleet of nuclear powered cruisers up until 1998, and none of them were equipped with lasers or rail guns. They were deemed redundant with the large fleet of nucl
Well,
the fact that Germany is not allowed to build big ships is common knowledge.
And the fact that the US, especially the rust belt and the west coast, is littered with homeless is common knowledge, too. I have friends traveling there every few yeas and they see easy 1000 every trip they make.But you picked your nick good enough, to blind to see
Germany is dependent on hostile nations for it’s energy supply. In the case of an economic war on Europe by Russia and/or it’s puppets in the Middle East would le
they can’t defend themselves from hostile neighbors like Russia if they hold the means to freeze them to death by turning a valve.
You are really an idiot, aren’t you? What happens if Russia stops the gas deliveries to Germany? First off all we have stored gas for about 2 years of usage, secondly we will get our gas from Netherlands, Norway and: we have our own gasnow they are having to ship in nuclear power from France
You seem not to know that France is buying more
“1.21 GW of electricity with a capacity factor”: Surely you mean “1.21 GW of electricity with a flux capacitor”, right?
“I need a drink.” I’d settle for a DeLorean.
Has anyone done a risk analysis on using nuclear power? It turns out lots of people have. We find that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. How can that be? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1.21 GW of electricity with a capacity factor exceeding 90% for close to 80 years and very few people are killed or injured.
Capacity factor is irrelevant. You would grasp that if you tried to produce 100% of the power your country consumes with 90% CF plants.Compare this to wind, solar, and hydro
There are 50 windmill fires per year, killing about a dozen people per year, and wind produces only 2% of total energy consumed. What happens when/if that’s 20% of the energy produced? We’ll be seeing multiple such fires everyday and hundreds of workers and bystanders killed as a result. We get 20% of our power from nuclear, no fires, no people dead.
Do you really want to go down that path of calling wind power “safe”?
If you doubt my claims then look it up, and post a link proving me wrong. It’s quite po
There was one single wind mill fire during the last 40 years. As no one is working at a wind mill I doubt there ever was one “killed by a wind mill”.
You can hardly proof something wrong. You can only proof something right
If you have so many wind mill fires in the US, then there is obviously something wrong with the mills. And if you have so many dead due to bystanders
Oh, wait.
Unless the “study” was just another “sky is falling” AGW horror story the authors should republish when they have definite proof that has undergone peer review with folks other than those at RealClimate, or who make a living off of Federally funded grants.
This was peer reviewed. Did you even bother to read the article?
The peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a comprehensive global map of the internet’s physical structure, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
or who make a living off of Federally funded grants.
You mean scientists at universities? Sure, anyone who does science for a living obviously can’t be trusted. We shouldn’t believe anything they say. Unless all their funding comes from a private company, like Exxon or Chevron. Then we should believe whatever they say, because they obviously have no bias.
- I can do basic math, 2033 is 15 years. Why does that matter? Anyone who has read “Scientific” news for any length of time knows when you need to pick a bullshit arbitrary time frame people pick 10 to 15 years, it’s that wonderful convergence near enough to get immediate funding but far enough that it’s actually impossible to prove it won’t happen.
I can do math too, 3mm times 15 years equals 45mm, or 4.5 cm. Oh my we’ll drown unless we pass out snorkels!!!
Pffft, get a grip you alarmist idiots.
Stop making things up. They didn’t say we’d all drown, so why do you pretend they did? They actually said, “more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater.” That’s not a made up number. They looked at where conduit is buried, how deeply it’s buried, and which segments will be underwater in 15 years. And yes, it doesn’t take a lot of rise to do that. They were surprised at how much is just a few inches above the current water level. But I guess if you don’t like facts, it’s eas
45mm is not not “a few inches”.
You are being manipulated and believe nonsense.
no additional conduit will be submerged if the average ocean depth increases 45mm more.
waves are higher than 45mm! tides are more than 45mm
In 2013, the IPCC estimated the current rate of sea level rise [wikipedia.org] as 3.2 mm/year. If we assume that rate, we get 48 mm in the next 15 years, or about 1.9 inches. But that’s an underestimate, because sea level rise is accelerating [nasa.gov]. It has increased substantially in the last 20 years, and that 2013 number is already out of date. The current rate is estimated at 3.4 mm/year. That gives 51 mm or 2 inches. But of course it’s still accelerating, so the actual rise over the next 15 years will be a bit more than
storm surges last for days and go many inches. look at all the major fiber that fails when that happens…..nope.
Relocating Internet infrastructure is a small problem compared to relocating billion of people that live near the sea.
Even in the US, where there is a lot of inhabited land inside the country, that would cost a lot. Who will pay?
- by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) *
“Most of the damage that’s going to be done in the next 100 years will be done sooner than later”
Based on my very rudimentary knowledge of global warming, exponential curves, runaway effects and what have you. That statement is entirely false?
Also a bit of a scare article. I assume it’s implying the ‘data sheds’ where massive undersea lines terminate are close to the sea (they likely are!) but moving these are probably very very small scale problems in comparison to other issues if the sea rises the dista
Global warming is bad, how can we tie it to the internet!!!?
You are missing an EXTREMELY important point here.
Almost NOBODY gives a shit about “BILLIONS of OTHER PEOPLE” having issues, but HOLY FUCK WHAT DO YOU MEAN FACEBOOK WILL BE OFFLINE?????? will always get BILLIONS OF VOTERS attention.
How long have these supposedly vulnerable cables been in place? The Internet didn’t exist before the 1990s. (I know, youngsters, the ARPANet existed earlier, in fact I was using it in the late 1980s. But I’m referring to the modern network that’s grown by leaps and bounds.)
I’d bet these vulnerable cables were put in place in the last couple decades at most, probably 15 years ago. And if they can be placed that quickly, then they can be replaced with newer ones over the next 15 years, a few inches (at l
… fake news
No such thing as global climate change.
Even if there was such a thing as global climate change,it’s completely irrelevant because it’s definitely not caused by humans. It happens all the time.
Even if humans did have something to do with it, it’s completely irrelevant because there’s nothing anyone can do at this point to eliminate, reduce or remediate it.
Even if there was something we could do about it, it’s completely irrelevant because that would cost too much money.
Even if, in the overall scheme ofI worked as an Journeyman Instrument Man at Texaco refinery, Port Arthur, Texas.
One of our tasks was to repair and maintain oxygen analyzers.
We’d test them by exposing them to open air (as opposed to smokestacks, under water, in control houses, and tanks where people were working) and the goddam things always reported “21%.”
I mean, like all the mother fucking goddam time and stuff.
It was never 15% our (like nitrogen) 78%.
NO!
Goddam son of a bitching yellow belly blue balled bastard suck ass 21%!
Open air oxygen reporting at 21% is so one-sided as to be fake news.
Re:Fake news (Score:4, Funny)
by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @03:17PM (#56958598)No.
Clearly it is a case of us not throwing enough virgins into the volcano.
Is that to appease the gods or plug the hole in the bottom?
- If you plug the hole in the bottom are they still considered virgins?
what mechanism of a warming climate increases volcanic activity?
- Obviously an increase in piracy [pastafarians.org.au], leads to increased in volcanic activity.
Simple logic would tell you that.
A clear preponderance of scientific research refutes your opinion. No one will censor your for your opinion, but when your facts are clearly and undeniably bad, indeed you may get modded down.
Excellent point, not that I agree with your option of the evidence we have, there certainly are a lot of folks making the claim that it’s clear and that does justify getting modded down.
The petrochemical/oil industry’s clear mandate is to not be sued or cited as a decent part of the problem.
Then you make a absolutely stupid statement… So the Oil industry doesn’t have any valid facts to add to this discussion? Of all the industries, they are obviously one of the few interested parties and have likely funded a LOT of science on this. They may have an agenda in this, but you really cannot just toss anything
All conspiracy theories, worthy of scorn… The oil companies have sanctioned many studies w/o conditions, actual science was done. And it was mostly the automobile industry that was pushing back on CAFEE standards, not the oil industry…
Look, the “evidence” is not actually as one sided on this debate as you may think. There is a whole lot of obfuscation being done on BOTH sides of this for various political and economic reasons.
Just look at the dire predictions from 10 years ago. There is a pile of “W
Re:Fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
by another_twilight ( 585366 ) on Monday July 16, 2018 @11:38PM (#56960840)“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
Apart from some hand waving, nothing in the article contradicts this statement.
The rest is cherry picking, out of context and exaggeration.
Al Gore was a politician doing his share of exaggeration and simplification, but if this is the standard of your counter arguments, then you are looking for confirmation of a position you already hold. It’s an editorial piece, poorly organised, poorly researched and absent even the pretence of balance or impartiality.
*shrug*
I’ve seen similar patterns of argument in other fields with believers vs science. Cherry pick exceptions and outliers, find some people who have made exaggerated claims that aren’t generally held and argue that taints the whole field. Whether a creationist or a climate change denier, the form’s the same. ‘Skepticism’ is fine when it’s even handed. When it’s a mask for refusing to accept evidence that contradicts a belief it’s just denial.No one should believe what they read on the internet without some due diligence and a critical examination of the material, the presentation and possibly the source and this is unconvincing.
There will always be some people trying to profit from an existing disaster or by convincing you that disaster is coming. You prove nothing by finding such people. How about, instead,
I’d love to find out that anthropocentric climate change is either not changing or is not anthropocentric. It would make life easier and a little more pleasant. I stand to gain nothing by believing and it would make life easier and a little more pleasant to be shown I’m wrong. Being accused, indirectly, of having fallen for a pitch by someone motivated by greed fails to account for both the reluctance to believe and the weight of evidence that has overcome that reluctance. I first saw arguments and evidence for climate change back in the 80s (Dr David Suzuki was the first I can recall). Then it was mostly a topic for academic discussion – there certainly wasn’t any money in it.
It’s more like social Darwinism. Geeks fight with mod points, rather than take pretty obvious facts and grind their heel into them. I’ve had great enlightenment here, as well as the sludge of over-ripe ego as well.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, but not their own set of facts.
- According to TFA,
Many of the conduits at risk are already close to sea level and only a slight rise in ocean levels due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion as climate warms will be needed to expose buried fiber optic cables to sea water.
They are talking about cables that are buried underground. Right now, if you need to service the cables, you just dig up the ground to get to the cables and service them. If the ground in which the cables are buried is underwater, it makes it more difficult dig them up and service them.
Yea, but in a whole lot of places these cables are at risk anyway.
Let’s take sea level rise out of the equation for a minute. That saves you right? Wrong. Places like the southern US coast are dependent on re-sedimentation to maintain (and grow) above sea level. Modern water management and bathymetry practices mean that is not going to occur. Even if humans were good little stewards of CO2, the coast is still sinking, and will keep sinking as sediment compaction occurs over the next few hundred million yea
Underground cables are ALWAYS at risk from any type of water accumulation. Sea level has nothing to do with that risk.
A broken underground pipe can cause the same exact damage as surging water from higher sea level. The risk is from long term water exposure, not sea level.
Sounds like you don’t know how the ground works.
Normally, there is a level of water underground called “water table”. It is where the water level sits all the time. Anything below the line is submerged. When there is rain, the water line goes up. This water line is also related to the sea level when the area is near by the sea. When the sea level rises, the water line also goes up. So yes, sea level has an impact on water table line specifically the areas near by the sea (coast).
It’s a link to a press release, which doesn’t even link itself to the “study”. There’s no real information, nor details on the assumptions behind the supposed catastrophe. The closest they have is a computer generated image of speculative flooding in the future. It’s pretty much as close to global warming bait as you’re going to get, released only to say “Worry about this, too!” without any actual information content.
I guess it’s more difficult to have your alarmism debunked if you leave it all hand wavey a
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 1416 commentsGoogle Fires Author of Divisive Memo On Gender Differences
- 1175 commentsJames Damore Sues Google For Allegedly Discriminating Against Conservative White Men
- 953 commentsSelf-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian
- 936 commentsGoDaddy Expels Neo-Nazi Site Over Article On Charlottesville Victim
- 786 commentsGoogle Cancels Town Hall To Discuss Diversity In Its Ranks
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 100 of 191 loaded
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. — D. Gries
