Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think [...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater. “Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
For the past 100+ years, the sea levels have been rising by about 2-4 mm per year. If you go to the following two sites: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ You'll see all kinds of scary language about dire predictions about how the sea levels are rising and accelerating. And you'll see SCARY charts that look like Mt. Everest. But when you dig into the actual data, you'll find that there MIGHT have been (at most!) a CUMULATIVE 1mm/year acceleration... but even that took about 4 decades to materialize, it could be somewhat within the margin of error, and it might be a part of the fake data that often drives this debate. Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true. The bottom line is that there is no trend of recently observed sea level rising data that is even close to being on track to hit all these dire predictions within the foreseeable future. And even as the West has reduced (or lessened the acceleration of) CO2 emissions - this has been easily made up for by the CO2 emission increases caused by the modernization of China and India in recent decades. And, again, there were articles like this 10, 15, and even 20 years ago that made very similar predictions - that didn't happen. So, it is hard to believe that the dire predictions in this article could come true in 15 years. But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon. Rob McEwen On 7/22/2018 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
-- Rob McEwen
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG, but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce? Are the acts which try to address the problem the harm you'd like to see avoided? This seems very imbalanced bet, but bet lot of people with no training in the subject matter, including leader of the free world, are willing to take. This is like people who have never ever professionally been involved with Internet keep predicting that Internet is going to break. While (I'd hope) overwhelming majority of subject matter expert are confident that there isn't any concrete observable threat. Much in same way, compelling majority of scientists (>95%) believe in human caused global warming and even larger percentage in those scientists who have researched the subject matter. The skepticism is almost exclusively in people who have no training or research in the subject matter. It's curious phenomena where we are very willing to ignore all the data points that disagree with us, and accept the one data point that agrees with us, even when admitted to be fabrication. Some starting points, while of course entirely ineffective for reasons explained: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climat... -- ++ytti
On 23/Jul/18 09:55, Saku Ytti wrote:
It's curious phenomena where we are very willing to ignore all the data points that disagree with us, and accept the one data point that agrees with us, even when admitted to be fabrication.
Some people just always prefer to do the opposite of everyone else, and/or the obvious. I have many friends like this. Mark.
It's curious phenomena where we are very willing to ignore all the data points that disagree with us, and accept the one data point that agrees with us, even when admitted to be fabrication. Some people just always prefer to do the opposite of everyone else, and/or the obvious. I have many friends like this.
i have ex-friends like this
On 7/23/2018 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true. Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG
Yes - sad isn't it - that someone else brought this up.
but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce? Are the acts which try to address the problem the harm you'd like to see avoided?
Anytime a "big solution" is applied to a "small problem" (or non-existent problem), problems arise. At the least, mis-allocation of resources can cause situations where other important issues fail to get addressed when the small problem gets an over-allocation of resources. (and real peoples' lives get damaged in the process)
Much in same way, compelling majority of scientists (>95%) believe in human caused global warming
Your ">95%" is MORE junk science. The popular percentage to throw out is "97%" - as quoted by Obama and many others - this came from 2013 paper by John Cook - that was so incredibly and dishonestly flawed as to basically be unscientific propaganda. (1) many scientists' papers were falsely classified and (2) he did a "bait and switch" where he "read into" certain papers stuff that wasn't really there. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scienti... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global... Real science makes "risky predictions" and then is willing to redo the hypothesis when those predictions don't happen as predicted. In contrast, junk science stubbornly sticks to preconceived biases even when the data continually fails to validate the hypothesis (which is happening here!). The fact that you're so quick to try your "appeal to authority" with that fake ">95%" percentage - and you don't seem to understand that a mis-allocation of resources based on junk science is NOT a victim-less crime (so to speak - not technically a crime - but REAL people ARE damaged by this) - undermines your credibility. Tell you what, I'll admit that I might be wrong the first time that we see a 5+mm per year average of sea level rising over a 5 year period. HINT: We won't. For example, look at the blue line at the end of this "scary graph" from a "climage change" site that has your same viewpoint: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/average-global-sea-level-rise-1993-201... - as scary as that chart looks like at first glance - it shows little-to-no *acceleration* - the rate of increase holds steady at 3.5 mm/year - BUT HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART: even this pro-climate change site's own graph shows that the sea levels have failed to rise AT ALL over the past couple of years. But 15 years from now, we'll see new rounds of NEW dire predictions about alarming FUTURE sea level risings that are allegedly just around the corner. -- Rob McEwen
Rob McEwen wrote on 23/07/2018 11:54:
HINT: We won't. For example, look at the blue line at the end of this "scary graph" from a "climage change" site that has your same viewpoint: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/average-global-sea-level-rise-1993-201... - as scary as that chart looks like at first glance - it shows little-to-no *acceleration* - the rate of increase holds steady at 3.5 mm/year - BUT HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART: even this pro-climate change site's own graph shows that the sea levels have failed to rise AT ALL over the past couple of years.
Little known fact: facts become factier when you use capital letters. Someone said it on the Internet, so it must be true. Nick
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:55:23AM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
This seems very imbalanced bet, but bet lot of people with no training in the subject matter, including leader of the free world, are willing to take.
I often reflect that it's striking how so many people who have no education or training in science and who do not read scientific literature (and in many cases, cannot read scientific literature because they don't comprehend the mathematics), will -- correctly -- be reluctant to express opinions on topics such as the Higgs boson, liquid chromatography, or RNA protocols...while adamantly declaring their opinions on evolution and AGW. Let me suggest that anyone wishing to avail themselves of an entry-level education on this topic begin by reading what it currently the go-to document: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fifth Assessment Report, which may be found here: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml There are four sections: - The Physical Science Basis (what's happening) - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (what the effects are) - Mitigation (what we can do about it) - Synthesis (the big picture) The first one, The Physical Science Basis, underpins the others. It's the synthesis of the work of thousands of the world's climate scientists and the product of exhaustive reviews of the available research. It's lengthy (1552 pages in a 375M PDF) it's painstakingly complete, and it's heavily supported and sourced. It was created by 209 coordinating and lead authors, plus another 600 contributing authors, using -- among other things -- 54,677 written review comments from 1,089 expert reviewers and 38 governments. So this is pretty much the document that you need to read and understand if you want to know what the world's climatology community thinks is going on with the planet. It's here: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ Once you've read this, read the other three sections. When you have finished, let me know, and I'll recommend some other reports, papers, textbooks, etc. Of course you (the rhetorical "you") don't have to do any of this. But don't expect to have a seat at the discussion table unless you've done the homework: you don't deserve one. Note also that the IPCC is preparing a special report, to be finalized in September 2019, focused on the oceans and cryosphere. This will be issued well before the next assessment report, due in 2022. ---rsk
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG, but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce?
Government regulation which results in increased costs. Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions. For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is the right term. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
What sort of regulations and what sort of associated costs are you talking about, if we can be specific? On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG, but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce?
Government regulation which results in increased costs.
Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions.
For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is the right term.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
This thread needs to go elsewhere. On 7/23/18 8:30 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
What sort of regulations and what sort of associated costs are you talking about, if we can be specific?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG, but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce?
Government regulation which results in increased costs.
Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions.
For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is the right term.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 07/23/2018 10:02 AM, Bryan Holloway wrote:
This thread needs to go elsewhere.
Seriously. After that 5,000-post long "Proving Gig Speed" thread (that now seems to be entirely bored sysops-sysadmin who check the list once ever few days and reply to four or five posts and then leave for days) and now the Climate Change Deniers troll-of-the-week, it's getting to be about time to unsubscribe. Again. For the fourth or fifth time... - John -- John Sage FinchHaven Digital Photography Web: https://finchhaven.smugmug.com/ Old web: http://www.finchhaven.com/
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:25 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Government regulation which results in increased costs.
Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions.
For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is the right term.
Regards, Bill Herrin
The United States has lowered carbon emissions while the EU and China continue to increase. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/2018_complete_ report.pdf <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1530721653111000&usg=AFQjCNHfKqi7C-kMzyLEzNrGddj1OZXebg> https://rhg.com/research/taking-stock-2018/ <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://rhg.com/research/taking-stock-2018/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1530721672154000&usg=AFQjCNGPO5kfSowp4G7m3Rvhp_lEwwmTKg> https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/european- renewables-are-up-so-are-carbon-emissions#gs.=_L422U <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/european-renewables-are-up-so-are-carbon-emissions%23gs.%3D_L422U&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1530721693671000&usg=AFQjCNGOmWeC7fM7PSycQ9Vzix8mvnhBMw> I'm not sure exactly what this means, but in general, I think it's fair to say that the US has taken a more market-driven approach that includes working with industry to decrease carbon emissions. During the same time frame the EU, China, and other nations and regions that tend towards more heavy handed top-down regulatory approaches to problems such as this seem to be having trouble making progress and are in fact still headed in the wrong direction. Draw your own conclusions from that. ;)
Matt Harris wrote on 23/07/2018 16:13:
I'm not sure exactly what this means, but in general, I think it's fair to say that the US has taken a more market-driven approach that includes working with industry to decrease carbon emissions. During the same time frame the EU, China, and other nations and regions that tend towards more heavy handed top-down regulatory approaches to problems such as this seem to be having trouble making progress and are in fact still headed in the wrong direction.
The available data does not support your speculation.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=US-EU-CN
Nick
Hi,
The available data does not support your speculation.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=US-EU-CN
Maybe it would be more fair to look at CO2 emissions per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=EU-US-CN Cheers, Sander
On Jul 23, 2018, at 08:50 , Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Matt Harris wrote on 23/07/2018 16:13:
I'm not sure exactly what this means, but in general, I think it's fair to say that the US has taken a more market-driven approach that includes working with industry to decrease carbon emissions. During the same time frame the EU, China, and other nations and regions that tend towards more heavy handed top-down regulatory approaches to problems such as this seem to be having trouble making progress and are in fact still headed in the wrong direction.
The available data does not support your speculation.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=US-EU-CN
Nick
Actually, the graphic that is at the top of that link does support his claims. It shows China, the most heavy handed of the three economies in the graphic as having an accelerating growth in carbon emissions. It does show that the EU started a downward trend earlier than the US, but that the downward trend in the EU appears to be leveling off and the US downward trend looks to be steeper now and accelerating. In addition, if you drill down to the individual EU countries, several of them are, in fact, headed up while the more market-based members of the EU seem to be headed down or having leveled off after a sharp decline earlier. I don’t want Matt to be right, I’m not a big fan of the “market will solve all” mentality, but, in this case, the data you (Nick) presented does actually appear to largely support his claim. Owen
On 7/23/2018 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, the graphic that is at the top of that link does support his claims.
I was thinking that too - but it could ALSO have something to do with the fact that literally hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese citizens joined the 1st world economy - and started doing things like driving cars - in recent decades. That could be a larger factor than their particular political/economic systems. ALSO: The BEST arguments on this thread for why we should worry about flooding or rising water levels - came from arguments that the actual continents are shifting in ways that cause certain coasts to rise or sink - regardless of the actual overall ocean depth. I don't know much about that - but I do know that (1) THAT particular situation has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels or emissions. (2) the parts of this conversation that does have to do with CO2 levels is specifically based on the theory that (a) high CO2 levels cause warming, which then (b) causes the icecaps to melt, which then causes (c) the sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace (beyond what it did when the overall CO2 levels were lower), as a direct result of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. but (c) is junk science - since it is NOT happening - the acceleration of sea levels rising beyond an average of 3.5mm/year is almost non-existent - therefore discussions of CO2 levels and emissions unnecessarily politicizes this discussion. Or, at least, the people who are complaining about how this doesn't belong on NANOG (which is a reasonable assessment) - and who complain about "climate deniers" - shouldn't be able to shut down certain factual and logical arguments (that rock their world) - yet not have a problem with continued discussion about CO2 levels and emissions. (that would be hypocritical and unscientific) -- Rob McEwen
On 23/07/2018 20:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
It shows China, the most heavy handed of the three economies in the graphic as having an accelerating growth in carbon emissions. It does show that the EU started a downward trend earlier than the US, but that the downward trend in the EU appears to be leveling off and the US downward trend looks to be steeper now and accelerating.
In addition, if you drill down to the individual EU countries, several of them are, in fact, headed up while the more market-based members of the EU seem to be headed down or having leveled off after a sharp decline earlier.
The data is flawed. The carbon emissions per country don't include import, so you can just import the most carbon-heavy product from China and you will see your country emissions falling and China's growing. And the carbon emission of USA doesn't include Pentagon, while any other army is included in it's country numbers. So we can' really compare such flawed data - these are just numbers for politicians but they have nothing in common with reality. Regarding rising sea levels - I wonder why nobody mentioned submarine fiber landing stations. If something will be affected, it will be them. -- Grzegorz Janoszka
How much ocean water displacement is taking place in Hawaii as a result of eruptions? How about volcanoes we don't know about deep in the ocean? In the last 5 years, California governments have played a negative roll in the burning of well over a million acres. These carbon emissions are rarely calculated and considered as a cause of global warming. How many California miles driven in cars = one 250,000 acre fire? I don't know. Did you know there are adults in California that don't think burning trees emit carbon emissions that count unless it happens in a man made fireplace ? Yes, most of those people went to high school in California. But anyways - can we please drop the non-internet related discussions from filling my nanog filtered technical email folders? Lots of smart people to have discussions with in nanog...maybe we create a list called nanog-other-stuff@nanog.org Thank You Bob Evans CTO
On 23/07/2018 20:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
It shows China, the most heavy handed of the three economies in the graphic as having an accelerating growth in carbon emissions. It does show that the EU started a downward trend earlier than the US, but that the downward trend in the EU appears to be leveling off and the US downward trend looks to be steeper now and accelerating.
In addition, if you drill down to the individual EU countries, several of them are, in fact, headed up while the more market-based members of the EU seem to be headed down or having leveled off after a sharp decline earlier.
The data is flawed. The carbon emissions per country don't include import, so you can just import the most carbon-heavy product from China and you will see your country emissions falling and China's growing.
And the carbon emission of USA doesn't include Pentagon, while any other army is included in it's country numbers.
So we can' really compare such flawed data - these are just numbers for politicians but they have nothing in common with reality.
Regarding rising sea levels - I wonder why nobody mentioned submarine fiber landing stations. If something will be affected, it will be them.
-- Grzegorz Janoszka
How often does someone ask you for a breakfast sandwich? 😀 On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:19 PM Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
How much ocean water displacement is taking place in Hawaii as a result of eruptions? How about volcanoes we don't know about deep in the ocean?
In the last 5 years, California governments have played a negative roll in the burning of well over a million acres. These carbon emissions are rarely calculated and considered as a cause of global warming. How many California miles driven in cars = one 250,000 acre fire? I don't know.
Did you know there are adults in California that don't think burning trees emit carbon emissions that count unless it happens in a man made fireplace ? Yes, most of those people went to high school in California.
But anyways - can we please drop the non-internet related discussions from filling my nanog filtered technical email folders?
Lots of smart people to have discussions with in nanog...maybe we create a list called nanog-other-stuff@nanog.org
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
On 23/07/2018 20:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
It shows China, the most heavy handed of the three economies in the graphic as having an accelerating growth in carbon emissions. It does show that the EU started a downward trend earlier than the US, but that the downward trend in the EU appears to be leveling off and the US downward trend looks to be steeper now and accelerating.
In addition, if you drill down to the individual EU countries, several of them are, in fact, headed up while the more market-based members of the EU seem to be headed down or having leveled off after a sharp decline earlier.
The data is flawed. The carbon emissions per country don't include import, so you can just import the most carbon-heavy product from China and you will see your country emissions falling and China's growing.
And the carbon emission of USA doesn't include Pentagon, while any other army is included in it's country numbers.
So we can' really compare such flawed data - these are just numbers for politicians but they have nothing in common with reality.
Regarding rising sea levels - I wonder why nobody mentioned submarine fiber landing stations. If something will be affected, it will be them.
-- Grzegorz Janoszka
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
How much ocean water displacement is taking place in Hawaii as a result of eruptions? How about volcanoes we don't know about deep in the ocean?
Not much on a global scale. The rift that has been erupting for what's it been, 3 months or so now? That's added a little over a square mile of coast, all of it where shallow water used to be. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/maps_uploads/image-521.jpg I plan to retire on the slope of a different volcano, so I've been watching with interest.
In the last 5 years, California governments have played a negative roll in the burning of well over a million acres. These carbon emissions are rarely calculated and considered as a cause of global warming. How many California miles driven in cars = one 250,000 acre fire? I don't know.
Greenhouse gasses are also emitted when dead plant matter rots in the forest. Not as quickly but there's a whole lot of it. https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/decomposing-leaves-are-a-surprising-sourc...
But anyways - can we please drop the non-internet related discussions from filling my nanog filtered technical email folders?
Apparently not. ;) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
The available data does not support your speculation.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=US-EU-CN
Nick
Which data are you referring to? Did you look at the three links that I provided? My linked stats are from the past couple of years, but the worldbank link you posted contains a chart which only comes to 2012 at the latest, six year old data. The EPA report covers 1990-2016, the Rhodium Group report primarily looks at 2005-2016 but also analyzes some information from 2017 and speculates on trends in the coming decades, and the GreentechMedia link specifically looks at the EU and its member states during 2017. So I'm very confused as to which data you're referring to, and which speculation you're referring to, since it seems you're just pointing at data which is several years out of date compared to the information I provided in my post, which I believe to be the best and most recently currently published.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:25:28 -0400, William Herrin said:
Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions.
So cleaner, less polluting energy sources don't justify it right there? Check the air quality in Beijing or parts of India for a non-climate-change reason to get off fossil fuel. Also, we're going to run out of fossil fuels at some point, and delaying that point by lowering our us of them is worth it right there. We're resorting to fracking to get out oil that wasn't economical before - and it's making more of a mess than ever before.
For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is the right term.
Do you want to get out of South Florida real estate before or after the bubble pops? At some point, banks are going to start refusing to write mortgages for the Miami area due to recurrent flooding - at which point all the real estate will be underwater once their land values plummet (pun intended).
If the Intertubes are going to all be under water in 15 years, then we need a new cartoon from the New Yorker. I suggest this: On the Internet nobody knows you are a phish -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:01 PM To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Well, Rob, you are wrong on almost every point. But it is not wasting our time with the Flat Earth society. Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet For the past 100+ years, the sea levels have been rising by about 2-4 mm per year. If you go to the following two sites: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html [http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/apple-icon-144x144.png]<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ You'll see all kinds of scary language about dire predictions about how the sea levels are rising and accelerating. And you'll see SCARY charts that look like Mt. Everest. But when you dig into the actual data, you'll find that there MIGHT have been (at most!) a CUMULATIVE 1mm/year acceleration... but even that took about 4 decades to materialize, it could be somewhat within the margin of error, and it might be a part of the fake data that often drives this debate. Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true. The bottom line is that there is no trend of recently observed sea level rising data that is even close to being on track to hit all these dire predictions within the foreseeable future. And even as the West has reduced (or lessened the acceleration of) CO2 emissions - this has been easily made up for by the CO2 emission increases caused by the modernization of China and India in recent decades. And, again, there were articles like this 10, 15, and even 20 years ago that made very similar predictions - that didn't happen. So, it is hard to believe that the dire predictions in this article could come true in 15 years. But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon. Rob McEwen On 7/22/2018 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
-- Rob McEwen
Well, Rod, you just made a claim with zero support, while Rob provided accurate citations proving every one of his statements. But it’s not wasting our time with the Fiber Optic Networks Are Doomed by Sea Level Rise society :) See what I did there? I brought the discussion back to the original claim, which I think has now been finally thoroughly debunked. Sea levels no more threaten the Internet than marshmallows. Less, probably :) -mel
On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
Well, Rob, you are wrong on almost every point. But it is not wasting our time with the Flat Earth society.
Regards,
Roderick.
________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
For the past 100+ years, the sea levels have been rising by about 2-4 mm per year. If you go to the following two sites:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html [http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/apple-icon-144x144.png]<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>
Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
You'll see all kinds of scary language about dire predictions about how the sea levels are rising and accelerating. And you'll see SCARY charts that look like Mt. Everest. But when you dig into the actual data, you'll find that there MIGHT have been (at most!) a CUMULATIVE 1mm/year acceleration... but even that took about 4 decades to materialize, it could be somewhat within the margin of error, and it might be a part of the fake data that often drives this debate. Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
The bottom line is that there is no trend of recently observed sea level rising data that is even close to being on track to hit all these dire predictions within the foreseeable future. And even as the West has reduced (or lessened the acceleration of) CO2 emissions - this has been easily made up for by the CO2 emission increases caused by the modernization of China and India in recent decades.
And, again, there were articles like this 10, 15, and even 20 years ago that made very similar predictions - that didn't happen. So, it is hard to believe that the dire predictions in this article could come true in 15 years.
But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon.
Rob McEwen
On 7/22/2018 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
-- Rob McEwen
Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you. Have a great day, big guy. Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:16 PM To: Rod Beck Cc: Rob McEwen; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet Well, Rod, you just made a claim with zero support, while Rob provided accurate citations proving every one of his statements. But it’s not wasting our time with the Fiber Optic Networks Are Doomed by Sea Level Rise society :) See what I did there? I brought the discussion back to the original claim, which I think has now been finally thoroughly debunked. Sea levels no more threaten the Internet than marshmallows. Less, probably :) -mel
On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
Well, Rob, you are wrong on almost every point. But it is not wasting our time with the Flat Earth society.
Regards,
Roderick.
________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
For the past 100+ years, the sea levels have been rising by about 2-4 mm per year. If you go to the following two sites:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html [http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/apple-icon-144x144.png]<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>
Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.
Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
You'll see all kinds of scary language about dire predictions about how the sea levels are rising and accelerating. And you'll see SCARY charts that look like Mt. Everest. But when you dig into the actual data, you'll find that there MIGHT have been (at most!) a CUMULATIVE 1mm/year acceleration... but even that took about 4 decades to materialize, it could be somewhat within the margin of error, and it might be a part of the fake data that often drives this debate. Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
The bottom line is that there is no trend of recently observed sea level rising data that is even close to being on track to hit all these dire predictions within the foreseeable future. And even as the West has reduced (or lessened the acceleration of) CO2 emissions - this has been easily made up for by the CO2 emission increases caused by the modernization of China and India in recent decades.
And, again, there were articles like this 10, 15, and even 20 years ago that made very similar predictions - that didn't happen. So, it is hard to believe that the dire predictions in this article could come true in 15 years.
But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon.
Rob McEwen
On 7/22/2018 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
-- Rob McEwen
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in sea level. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
BTW, I have installed thousands of miles of fiber and been submerged in plenty of manholes over the years. If you have been in a manhole in the spring you would know what a non-event you are talking about here. A lot of your Internet is under water a lot of the time anyway (not even counting all of the oceanic stuff).
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in >sea level.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
But the reality is that if you get bigger storm surges, your Internet access will be knocked. You will get loss of power and even if the backbone holds up, the access networks will not. Every time we get a severe flood here in Budapest, power is knocked out and we are down hard. The general population may not take much comfort in your installation of thousands of miles of fiber. Just a fact. Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet BTW, I have installed thousands of miles of fiber and been submerged in plenty of manholes over the years. If you have been in a manhole in the spring you would know what a non-event you are talking about here. A lot of your Internet is under water a lot of the time anyway (not even counting all of the oceanic stuff).
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in >sea level.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
If you live near a coast, you are going to experience bigger storms and loss of power more often than someone that lives inland. If you live in the Himalayas you are going to get more snow and cold weather. Not my problem if you like your beach front property. However I have not seen any major damage to fiber based networks and I was a first responder during Hurricane Katrina. The majority of damage was to flooded central offices which is going to happen from time to time no matter where you are at. Overall network reliability has increased greatly over the years which is undeniable. This all just seems very alarmist to me. Also, even if we assume you are correct about ocean levels threatening networks (which I don't believe to be even close to the biggest threats), what exactly can the NANOG community do about it for you. There are real, live, NOW, threats like the BGP hijackings that have been responded to that are real operational responses. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
But the reality is that if you get bigger storm surges, your Internet access will be knocked. You will get loss of power and even if the backbone holds up, the access networks will not. Every time we get a severe flood here in Budapest, power is >knocked out and we are down hard. The general population may not take much comfort in your installation of thousands of miles of fiber. Just a fact.
Regards,
Roderick.
I don't have a strong feeling on this matter, but it is not the average increase that matters. Every small increase in average has a multiplier effect on storm surge. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/23/1715895114. Nonetheless, my guess is that the real threat is to general property close to the shore, not the terrestrial cables even though they are not waterproof (only submarine cable can handle long term immersion). Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:56 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in sea level. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
I know of tons of manholes that are continuously full of water every time I have been out to them, I am pretty sure those cables have dealt with the immersion for quite a number of years. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
I don't have a strong feeling on this matter, but it is not the average increase that matters. Every small increase in average has a multiplier effect on storm surge.
Nonetheless, my guess is that the real threat is to general property close to the shore, not the terrestrial cables even though they are not waterproof (only submarine cable can handle long term immersion).
Regards,
Roderick.
Easy way to settle it. Look at Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. If they had no effect on terrestrial cables, then this is probably a misplaced concern. - R. ________________________________ From: Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:10 PM To: Rod Beck; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet I know of tons of manholes that are continuously full of water every time I have been out to them, I am pretty sure those cables have dealt with the immersion for quite a number of years. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
I don't have a strong feeling on this matter, but it is not the average increase that matters. Every small increase in average has a multiplier effect on storm surge.
Rising hazard of storm-surge flooding<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/23/1715895114> www.pnas.org The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is one for the history books. It has blown a number of records out of the water. Harvey dumped more rain on the United States than any previous hurricane. Irma maintained the highest category 5 longer than any storm anywhere in the world. September 2017 has accumulated the most cyclone energy of any month on record in the Atlantic. Last, but not least, if early estimates of damages hold up, three of the five costliest storms in US history will have occurred this year: Harvey, Irma, and Maria (1⇓–3). The other two are Katrina and Sandy, which flooded New Orleans in 2005 and New York in 2012 (Fig. 1), respectively. A new study in PNAS by Garner et al. (4) tackles a critical and highly topical question: How will coastal flood risk change in the future on a warming Earth? They approach this question in a case study for New York, but most coastal cities in the world will be facing similar issues in the coming decades and, indeed, centuries. Fig. 1. Map of New York City floodi
Nonetheless, my guess is that the real threat is to general property close to the shore, not the terrestrial cables even though they are not waterproof (only submarine cable can handle long term immersion).
Regards,
Roderick.
Again, the original argument was about rising ocean levels not all causes of floods. Are floods a threat, yep but not as much as it used to be before fiber. Is the rise of ocean levels by 10” per century the cause of all floods, no its not. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
From: Rod Beck [mailto:rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:13 PM To: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Easy way to settle it. Look at Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. If they had no effect on terrestrial cables, then this is probably a misplaced concern.
- R.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
only submarine cable can handle long term immersion
Any gel-core direct burial cable can handle long-term shallow water immersion. Steve is correct: the fiber in many manholes are underwater until the next time someone needs to climb down and make a new splice. I once asked a dark fiber provider to splice from a particular manhole and they had to send someone out to look because it had somehow fallen off their map. When they popped the cover to look, the vault was completely inundated. Hadn't caused them the slightest difficulty. Submarine cable is needed for deeper water (higher pressures) with more armor against damage since it's just laying on the seafloor exposed to everything that happens by. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:56:08 -0000, "Naslund, Steve" said:
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in sea level.
Have they finished fixing all the corroded copper wiring from Sandy pumping sea water into lower Manhattan?
Don't know but the backbone of the Internet is not running on it. Also, a hurricane is not the same as a rise in sea level at less than 10" per century which was the threat described here. There are all kinds of floods for reasons other than rising sea levels. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis Kletnieks [mailto:valdis@vt.edu] On Behalf Of valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:09 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Have they finished fixing all the corroded copper wiring from Sandy pumping sea water into lower Manhattan?
On July 26, 2018 at 16:56 SNaslund@medline.com (Naslund, Steve) wrote:
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in sea level.
Anthropologists say (there was a pretty good article on this in The Atlantic a year or two ago) that's what we (humanity) have done historically, adapted, eventually learned to eat acorns or rats or whatever*. And very little if anything to combat the basic problem even if we understood it well enough. We'll adapt and adapt because the problems tend to evolve slowly. Unfortunately I tend to think that's the likely outcome here simply because whatever we (more developed countries) do several billion people out there will undo faster because let's face it they want to eat regularly, have reliable electricity, etc. etc. etc. And a lot of what could be done works against their getting all that, at least if it's limited to their means. Perhaps not in theory. But call me when the G8 or G20 proposes to plunk down the many trillions it would likely cost to provide the rest of them with fertilizer and farming techniques and energy generation plants and so on which aren't contributing to the problem. Didn't India recently state that they won't even talk about slowing down the rate of increase (2nd derivative) of coal usage for at least ten years? Not picking on India, they have their reasons, but just trying to be realistic and move past these late-night dorm room bull sessions about how the world ought to work. * One significant exception was crop and field rotation which worked very well where it was possible. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Well, the problem might be that I am an old guy and remember very well in the 70s when the "scientific community" screamed at us about the coming ice age. Next, we had global warming. Now we just call it climate change because we just don't know which way it's going to go. Those same anthropologists also know that in my area which is Illinois, it was once much hotter and we had Tyrannosaurus running around. We also had ice ages that carved the Great Lakes that I am sitting next to. All of that way before we were here. Did we warm up the climate and prevent the coming ice age in the 70's or could it be that the Earth is still in the cycle of coming out of the last ice age? We know the climate has changed without our input. As an engineer I would like to know how we separate what would be happening without us from what effect we are having. I am not denying that there are changes but I am not confident in what effect we have and whether our effect is counter or accelerating the normal trend. So, I am not sure what is causing climate change but I am very sure that there will be major climate changes on Earth. Whether a species survives or not is a matter of whether they adapt. Steven Naslund
Anthropologists say (there was a pretty good article on this in The Atlantic a year or two ago) that's what we (humanity) have done historically, adapted, eventually learned to eat acorns or rats or whatever*.
And very little if anything to combat the basic problem even if we understood it well enough.
We'll adapt and adapt because the problems tend to evolve slowly.
Unfortunately I tend to think that's the likely outcome here simply because whatever we (more developed countries) do several billion people out there will undo faster because let's face it they want to eat regularly, have reliable electricity, etc. etc. etc.
And a lot of what could be done works against their getting all that, at least if it's limited to their means.
Perhaps not in theory.
But call me when the G8 or G20 proposes to plunk down the many trillions it would likely cost to provide the rest of them with fertilizer and farming techniques and energy generation plants and so on which aren't contributing to the problem.
Didn't India recently state that they won't even talk about slowing down the rate of increase (2nd derivative) of coal usage for at least ten years?
Not picking on India, they have their reasons, but just trying to be realistic and move past these late-night dorm room bull sessions about how the world ought to work.
* One significant exception was crop and field rotation which worked very well where it was possible.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:43:37 -0000, "Naslund, Steve" said:
As an engineer I would like to know how we separate what would be happening without us from what effect we are having.
Well, when all previous data shows temperature changes on the order of degrees per millenium (absent major incidents like the Yellowstone supervolcano going off or the Chixlulub impact), and suddenly you see an effect that's degrees per decade.. In other words, the same way you realize a DDoS is hitting your net when the packet rate for a host isn't changing in percent per week, but percent by minute....
And just to be abundantly clear. I am not denying climate change and I am all for eliminating pollution and our impact on the planet in general. However I firmly believe that there will be further climate change regardless of what humans do. That is the cycle of the planet so far and way before we were here. My main argument is against the case that rising sea level constitutes some kind of emergency for network infrastructure. I don't believe it is an emergency and believe that our infrastructure is constantly evolving and all of these routes will be handled in the natural course of things. I say this coming from years of network infrastructure engineering and installations and time spent in trenches, central offices, and manholes all around the world. Given that the backbone of the Internet is mostly running on fiber optics which are highly water resistant, localized coastal flooding is less of an issue than ever. Did you ever look into how far an oceanic cable comes ashore before it hits the landing station? If you did you would not be worried about a few mm of ocean rise. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Give the data yourself. On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:50 PM Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you.
Have a great day, big guy.
Regards,
Roderick.
________________________________ From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:16 PM To: Rod Beck Cc: Rob McEwen; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Well, Rod, you just made a claim with zero support, while Rob provided accurate citations proving every one of his statements.
But it’s not wasting our time with the Fiber Optic Networks Are Doomed by Sea Level Rise society :)
See what I did there? I brought the discussion back to the original claim, which I think has now been finally thoroughly debunked. Sea levels no more threaten the Internet than marshmallows. Less, probably :)
-mel
On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
Well, Rob, you are wrong on almost every point. But it is not wasting our time with the Flat Earth society.
Regards,
Roderick.
________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Rob McEwen < rob@invaluement.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
For the past 100+ years, the sea levels have been rising by about 2-4 mm per year. If you go to the following two sites:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html [http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/apple-icon-144x144.png]<; https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>
Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service< https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.
[http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/apple-icon-144x144.png]<; https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>
Is sea level rising? - NOAA's National Ocean Service< https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html> oceanservice.noaa.gov There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
You'll see all kinds of scary language about dire predictions about how the sea levels are rising and accelerating. And you'll see SCARY charts that look like Mt. Everest. But when you dig into the actual data, you'll find that there MIGHT have been (at most!) a CUMULATIVE 1mm/year acceleration... but even that took about 4 decades to materialize, it could be somewhat within the margin of error, and it might be a part of the fake data that often drives this debate. Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
The bottom line is that there is no trend of recently observed sea level rising data that is even close to being on track to hit all these dire predictions within the foreseeable future. And even as the West has reduced (or lessened the acceleration of) CO2 emissions - this has been easily made up for by the CO2 emission increases caused by the modernization of China and India in recent decades.
And, again, there were articles like this 10, 15, and even 20 years ago that made very similar predictions - that didn't happen. So, it is hard to believe that the dire predictions in this article could come true in 15 years.
But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon.
Rob McEwen
On 7/22/2018 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
-- Rob McEwen
-- Sincerely, Jason W Kuehl Cell 920-419-8983 jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com
So, I accept the data. Going back to 1880 I will be generous and say that you have a 250 mm rise in sea level (which is about 10 inches for us Imperial types). I think we will probably be ready to outrun that problem. Let's get back to real network threats like BGP Hijacking which can wipe you out tomorrow. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jason Kuehl Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 11:58 AM To: rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Give the data yourself.
Steve, You are simply wrong. The sea level is rising at an increasing rate. The average sea level will go up by 30 centimeters to 1 meter by 2100. And of course, the storm surge will increase by a multiple of that. Sources: NOAA. It means access networks along the two coasts will be increasingly down. r. - ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:08 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet So, I accept the data. Going back to 1880 I will be generous and say that you have a 250 mm rise in sea level (which is about 10 inches for us Imperial types). I think we will probably be ready to outrun that problem. Let's get back to real network threats like BGP Hijacking which can wipe you out tomorrow. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jason Kuehl Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 11:58 AM To: rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Give the data yourself.
In 2000 the network runs on completely different infrastructure than it did in 1900 (what little network existed). By 2100 I am pretty sure we will be on different infrastructure by then. Are you saying there will be no changes in network topology to account for that? By 2100 neither you or I will have to worry about it in any case unless you know of a more major breakthrough in the near future. Steve
Steve,
You are simply wrong. The sea level is rising at an increasing rate. The average sea level will go up by 30 centimeters to 1 meter by 2100. And of course, the storm surge will increase by a multiple of that.
Sources: NOAA.
It means access networks along the two coasts will be increasingly down.
r.
-
On 7/26/2018 1:32 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
You are simply wrong. The sea level is rising at an increasing rate. The average sea level will go up by 30 centimeters to 1 meter by 2100. And of course, the storm surge will increase by a multiple of that. Sources: NOAA.
Looking at the SAME sources (NOAA, NASA, etc) - as scary as those "Mt Everest" charts look (where they make 3.5mm/year rising look like Mt Everest) - the lines on THEIR charts are ALMOST perfectly straight and JUST BARELY curve upwards. So I dug into THEIR actual data - and even THEIR data shows something like a cumulative 1mm/year increase - and - it took ~40 years or so to get to that 1mm increase (to be extra clear, this is a reported increase over how much oceans are rising now compared to ~40 years ago. But I'm not even sure this added up to even a full 1 mm.) These sources ALSO have all kind of scary PREDICTIONS or ESTIMATES about FUTURE acceleration that goes MUCH faster - just like they did 10 and 20 years go - but their scary predictions never materialize. Does pointing out these FACTS - using data from the SAME sources that you are using - STILL qualify me for the "flat earth society"? On this same thread, I've also been called a "climate change denier", and otherwise insulted multiple times - for just pointing out clear indisputable facts. Others keep pointing out how "a majority of scientist disagree" - yet that 97% figure that keeps getting thrown around - was from ONE SINGLE extremely flawed study that has since been thoroughly debunked. BTW - in my original message, I did state: -------------------- "But I suppose that it might be a good idea to take inventory of the absolute lowest altitude cables and make sure that they are not vulnerable to the type of flooding that might happen more often after a few decades from now after the ocean has further risen about 2 inches? But the sky is not falling anytime soon." -------------------- So ALSO - everyone - please ALSO stop arguing with a "straw man" here - I never said that there wasn't anything to be concerned about. -- Rob McEwen
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:39:51 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
JUST BARELY curve upwards. So I dug into THEIR actual data - and even THEIR data shows something like a cumulative 1mm/year increase - and - it took ~40 years or so to get to that 1mm increase (to be extra clear, this is a reported increase over how much oceans are rising now compared to ~40 years ago. But I'm not even sure this added up to even a full 1 mm.)
Compound interest is a bitch.
On 7/26/2018 3:49 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:39:51 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
JUST BARELY curve upwards. So I dug into THEIR actual data - and even THEIR data shows something like a cumulative 1mm/year increase - and - it took ~40 years or so to get to that 1mm increase (to be extra clear, this is a reported increase over how much oceans are rising now compared to ~40 years ago. But I'm not even sure this added up to even a full 1 mm.) Compound interest is a bitch.
But NOT so much when the rate of increase is THIS tiny. Yes, if the rate of the increase holds steady, then this could start causing a lot of problems EVENTUALLY. But this still only adds up to an ADDITIONAL 4 inches (total!) per century (over what would have happened). That is an amount and time-scale that warrants concern and long-range planning. However, extreme measures that would harm our economy in the short term (and in many cases wouldn't have helped anyways) are counter productive because they then put us on a long-term less healthy economic trajectory that would make us less able to afford the future changes that would be needed to deal with this extremely long-term problem. ANALOGY: Freshman college kid becomes a health nut and spends all his money on only the best specialized organic foods, exotic vitamins, and a membership at the best health club, even paying extra for a personalized trainer. Then he has to drop out of college because he can't afford it. Then he runs out of money and can't get a decent paying job because he doesn't have a college education. Now he eats horrible cheap food and works long hours at a low paying job that leaves him little time to properly exercise. (in general - solving a SMALL problem with a BIG solution - like this - causes problems) -- Rob McEwen
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:07:56 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
On 7/26/2018 3:49 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Compound interest is a bitch.
it took ~40 years or so to get to that 1mm increase (to be extra clear, this is a reported increase over how much oceans are rising now compared to ~40 years ago.
In other words, it's acceleration, second derivative, not velocity first derivative. Which means that the number added each time period is bigger each time period. The growth per year now is bigger than the growth per year 40 years ago.
But NOT so much when the rate of increase is THIS tiny. Yes, if the rate of the increase holds steady, then this could start causing a lot of problems EVENTUALLY. But this still only adds up to an ADDITIONAL 4 inches (total!) per century (over what would have happened).
Let's run the math. 1mm/additional per year. So 1 the first year, 2 aditional the second, ... and the century year then adds 100mm or 4 inches *by itself*. But we need to add years 1 to 99's contributions too... sum(1..100) = 101 * 50 or 5050mm. Divide by 25.4 and you get 198 inches cumulative. Be glad the actual rate of acceleration is less than 1mm/year.
Pretty hard to accept 198 inches since NASA's own data shows no more than 250mm or 9.4 inches since 1888. You would have to assume there are no balancing factors. If the earth gets warmer then there is also more evaporation of the oceans which causes more rainfall which helps moderate temperature and moves oceanic water inland. I agree the climate is getting warmer but doubt that trend continues forever. History says it won't. Common sense says that in any closed system, things do not change exponentially forever. I really do need an answer to the question of why in certain years ocean levels were actually lower than the year before like 2010. I honestly want to know why that happens. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Let's run the math. 1mm/additional per year. So 1 the first year, 2 aditional the second, ... and the century year then adds 100mm or 4 inches *by itself*. But we need to add years 1 to 99's contributions too...
sum(1..100) = 101 * 50 or 5050mm. Divide by 25.4 and you get 198 inches cumulative.
Be glad the actual rate of acceleration is less than 1mm/year.
Here is a simple question to answer while you are at it. Once the arctic ice and glaciers melt, what will cause the ocean levels to continue to rise at this incredible rate? The total estimate for sea level rise would be 70 meters if absolutely all ice on the face of the Earth melted. A radical change no doubt but it will not continue forever. The Earth right now is about as warm as it was during the previous interglacial period which was about 125,000 years ago. At that time sea level was actually 4 METERS HIGHER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. So we know that before humans were widespread on Earth, sea level was 4 METERS higher than it is right now. I guess this goes against the "worse than it has ever been" kind of arguments". Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Pretty hard to accept 198 inches since NASA's own data shows no more than 250mm or 9.4 inches since 1888. You would have to assume there are no balancing factors. If the earth gets warmer then there >is also more evaporation of the oceans which causes more rainfall which helps moderate temperature and moves oceanic water inland. I agree the climate is getting warmer but doubt that trend continues >forever. History says it won't. Common sense says that in any closed system, things do not change exponentially forever. I really do need an answer to the question of why in certain years ocean >levels were actually lower than the year before like 2010. I honestly want to know why that happens.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Don't panic though about the 70 meter rise though. According to this article by National Geographic, it would take around 5000 years to melt that much ice even assuming the current temperature rise continues. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Here is a simple question to answer while you are at it. Once the arctic ice and glaciers melt, what will cause the ocean levels to continue to rise at this incredible rate? The total estimate for sea >level rise would be 70 meters if absolutely all ice on the face of the Earth melted. A radical change no doubt but it will not continue forever.
The Earth right now is about as warm as it was during the previous interglacial period which was about 125,000 years ago. At that time sea level was actually 4 METERS HIGHER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. So >we know that before humans were widespread on Earth, sea level was 4 METERS higher than it is right now. I guess this goes against the "worse than it has ever been" kind of arguments".
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:48:58 -0000, "Naslund, Steve" said:
Don't panic though about the 70 meter rise though. According to this article by National Geographic, it would take around 5000 years to melt that much ice even assuming the current temperature rise continues.
Was that article from before or after we discovered just how fast an ice shelf can catastrophically collapse?
It might be worth noting that with Plate Tectonics, the shoreline itself is not exactly locked in place either. Particularly on the West Coast in ring of fire territory. Come the predicted Cascadia Fault earthquake, the landing stations are going to first be shaken by the EQ, then swamped by a major tsunami, and after everything settles down, potentially find the ocean lapping at their doorsteps, not because the water level has risen, but because the land level has dropped perhaps 1 meter as the North American Plate "unlocked" and extended over the Juan de Fuca plate during the EQ. Bandon, Nedonna Beach, Pacific City, Rockaway Beach and Warrenton, Oregon take note... Not saying the oceans aren't rising - but there are other factors that may be potentially in play as well. FWIW. On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:44 PM Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
Here is a simple question to answer while you are at it. Once the arctic ice and glaciers melt, what will cause the ocean levels to continue to rise at this incredible rate? The total estimate for sea level rise would be 70 meters if absolutely all ice on the face of the Earth melted. A radical change no doubt but it will not continue forever.
The Earth right now is about as warm as it was during the previous interglacial period which was about 125,000 years ago. At that time sea level was actually 4 METERS HIGHER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. So we know that before humans were widespread on Earth, sea level was 4 METERS higher than it is right now. I guess this goes against the "worse than it has ever been" kind of arguments".
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Pretty hard to accept 198 inches since NASA's own data shows no more than 250mm or 9.4 inches since 1888. You would have to assume there are no balancing factors. If the earth gets warmer then there >is also more evaporation of the oceans which causes more rainfall which helps moderate temperature and moves oceanic water inland. I agree the climate is getting warmer but doubt that trend continues >forever. History says it won't. Common sense says that in any closed system, things do not change exponentially forever. I really do need an answer to the question of why in certain years ocean >levels were actually lower than the year before like 2010. I honestly want to know why that happens.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Jeff Shultz -- Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!! <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/> <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos> _**** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****_
On 7/26/2018 4:22 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Let's run the math. 1mm/additional per year. So 1 the first year, 2 aditional the second, ... and the century year then adds 100mm or 4 inches*by itself*. But we need to add years 1 to 99's contributions too...
sum(1..100) = 101 * 50 or 5050mm. Divide by 25.4 and you get 198 inches cumula
You misinterpreted what I said. I was merely saying that the current yearly increase is about 1 mm more than the yearly increase was from 40 years ago. (But maybe not even that much!) I was NOT saying that each year was increasing by a rate that was mm more than the previous year. Your calculation is based on year-to-year acceleration of growth. In fact, that year-to-year /*acceleration*/ of rising sea levels is actually a ~0.025 mm average increase over the previous year. (this is HALF the thickness of a single sheet of paper!) So try your calculation again - except see how impressive that "compound interest" you talk about is when the year-to-year acceleration of growth over the previous year is only 0.025 mm. ALSO - I say "average rate of increase" because the graph is not a smooth line. Like almost everything, it is jagged - where some years show signs of more rapid acceleration, and other years show a decrease in acceleration, or even a lowering of the sea levels. Anytime one of the other hits a historical extreme, it raises curiosity that we might be in the middle of a fundamental shift to a "new normal". But before anyone assumes that we're about to hit a new normal where that .025 mm year-to-year increase in the rate of rising - is about to accelerate - note that, in fact, the sea levels have actually LOWERED in the past couple of years. (not just rising less fast - ACTUALLY LOWERING). (see blue line at the end of this graph: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/average-global-sea-level-rise-1993-201...) -- Rob McEwen https://www.invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
All: Let's kindly kill off the portions of this thread that have absolutely nothing to do with running a network. Political rants, plate tectonics, Math 101, and debating whether or not climate change is a thing really have no place on this list / in this context. Thank you jms
If you want to read a really, really depressing article on all this read this one in Foreign Affairs: Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-06-14/why-carbon-pricing-... It isn't so much the specifics of carbon pricing. It's the harsh cold slap of reality about how the world, even when well-intentioned, works. In a tiny nutshell: You know how many (developed) countries boast about meeting or exceeding their carbon goals via carbon markets? Those markets are rigged. The governments hand out carbon credits like Zimbabwe printed fiat cash in trade for the usual things politicians like in return such as campaign contributions or support for some pet legislation. And then boast about how their major industries have met or exceeded carbon goals. How would you know otherwise? To bring it back on topic, somewhat, the internet is a very, very special place where things mostly work as promised and expected. If the page loads it's working. Be glad when there's no thuggish legislator trying to get you to rig the numbers to make it only appear to be working. But we'll get there, just give it time... -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
There are lots of ways to construct a graph to look scary. Just try to redraw that graph as the change in overall depth of the ocean. It would be so flat as to be useless. Wikipedia (might be right or not) says the average depth of the ocean is 3,688 meters or 12,100 feet. If we take that and convert to mm we get 3,688,000. So let's take some of the number thrown around here. If we have a 250 mm rise since 1888 we have a percentage change of 0.01 % If we have around a mm per year, we have a an annual change of .000027%, if it is 3 mm per year that is .000081% Just for reference 1 mm is about the size of the average pin head and a flea is approximately 1.5mm in length. Not exactly an alarming graph when you look at it that way. By the way I am also really interested in why sea level actually fell in 2010 according to the NASA satellite graph from 56 mm to 48 mm. Were we especially good people that year? Steven Naslund Chicago IL
JUST BARELY curve upwards. So I dug into THEIR actual data - and even THEIR data shows something like a cumulative 1mm/year increase - and - it took ~40 years or so to get to that 1mm increase (to be extra clear, this is a reported increase over how much oceans are rising now compared to ~40 years ago. But I'm not even sure this added up to even a full 1 mm.)
Compound interest is a bitch.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl <jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com> wrote:
"The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites." I *really* want to understand the technology that lets a satellite hundreds of miles in the sky detect a 3mm change in average global sea level between the start and end of the year with an error bar that grows to only 4mm over a quarter of a century. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Once upon a time, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> said:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl <jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com> wrote:
"The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."
I *really* want to understand the technology that lets a satellite hundreds of miles in the sky detect a 3mm change in average global sea level between the start and end of the year with an error bar that grows to only 4mm over a quarter of a century.
Well, you must not *really* want to understand, since there's a "Learn more" link to follow on the above page that (after a couple more clicks) would lead you to this page that has some explanation: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/altimetry.html -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Its not satellite data, it's the exact same data-set that NOAA provides for ocean levels; The data is from tidal sensors; the data is relayed via satellite so... technically ;). It's kind of funny the data in the table, vs the chart-data presented, some .orgs say 80mm, some say 60mm all depends on when you start counting. I'd like to see the raw data, geospatially portray it, and get a sense of the true impact; an average of a statisticcal averages, smoothed and corrected over 60 days with a self-ratcheting baseline... Not sure how valuable the data here is other than support a presupposition. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chris Adams Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:01 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet Once upon a time, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> said:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl <jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com> wrote:
"The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."
I *really* want to understand the technology that lets a satellite hundreds of miles in the sky detect a 3mm change in average global sea level between the start and end of the year with an error bar that grows to only 4mm over a quarter of a century.
Well, you must not *really* want to understand, since there's a "Learn more" link to follow on the above page that (after a couple more clicks) would lead you to this page that has some explanation: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/altimetry.html -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Once upon a time, Jameson, Daniel <Daniel.Jameson@tdstelecom.com> said:
Its not satellite data, it's the exact same data-set that NOAA provides for ocean levels; The data is from tidal sensors; the data is relayed via satellite so... technically ;).
No, you are wrong. Did you read any of the provided links? It is actually gathered with satellite-based radar and laser systems, not tidal sensors. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> said:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl <jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com> wrote:
"The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."
I *really* want to understand the technology that lets a satellite hundreds of miles in the sky detect a 3mm change in average global sea level between the start and end of the year with an error bar that grows to only 4mm over a quarter of a century.
Well, you must not *really* want to understand, since there's a "Learn more" link to follow on the above page that (after a couple more clicks) would lead you to this page that has some explanation:
Chris, I understand how radar altimetry works. I would like to understand how they achieve the claimed precision. 3.2mm is one heck of a precise measurement from a flying platform hundreds of kilometers away, particularly when that requires the platform itself to be located with even higher precision against some reference points deemed stable for the purpose of making the measurement. On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Jameson, Daniel <Daniel.Jameson@tdstelecom.com> wrote:
Its not satellite data, The data is from tidal sensors
The second chart is from tidal sensors. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
I agree with this. I suppose you could take tons of measurements and average them out to be pretty accurate but I am not sure how you would account for tidal gravitational effects which vary all the time. Seems like the precision claimed would be really hard to pull off without knowing exactly the gravitational effect at that location at exactly the same time. I am also wondering how many points on the ocean you would have to take this measurement and how often to get that level of precision. Given the altitude of the satellites the percentage of error here is super small, not even OTDR units can get that kind of precision on a measurement. You would also have to align the satellite measurements with the pre-satellite measurement which could not have possibly have the same level of precision. A statistics person would have to tell me if that methodology is even valid. The level charts go back to the 1880s and I can't imagine a global network of measurement for that time. I'm also pretty sure they were not taking measurements in mm in the United States so there is that conversion error to deal with not to mention the lack of international measurement standards. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Chris,
I understand how radar altimetry works. I would like to understand how they achieve the claimed precision. 3.2mm is one heck of a precise measurement from a flying platform hundreds of kilometers away, particularly when that requires the platform itself to be located with even higher precision against some reference points deemed stable for the purpose of making the measurement.
On 07/26/2018 09:48 AM, Rod Beck wrote:
Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you.
You mean the community that lives or dies on whether they get grant money? And the way to get grant money is to justify why they could be fed MORE money. Can you imagine how the "science community" would continue to survive? Now, the medical research community is another story. Perhaps a better use for that grant money would be to develop Best Practices for installing fiber cable that can withstand immersion to a depth of 200 feet without failing -- thereby coming up with something positive in light of the so-called scientific predictions. Instead of "the sky is falling", say "here is how to prop up the sky on a dollar a day."
That is true of all science today, Stephen. That is a particularly bad argument on your part. Virtually all science depends on grants and academic and government financing. So you are invoking conspiracy theories. Good work. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:00 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet On 07/26/2018 09:48 AM, Rod Beck wrote:
Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you.
You mean the community that lives or dies on whether they get grant money? And the way to get grant money is to justify why they could be fed MORE money. Can you imagine how the "science community" would continue to survive? Now, the medical research community is another story. Perhaps a better use for that grant money would be to develop Best Practices for installing fiber cable that can withstand immersion to a depth of 200 feet without failing -- thereby coming up with something positive in light of the so-called scientific predictions. Instead of "the sky is falling", say "here is how to prop up the sky on a dollar a day."
On 2018-07-22 20:01, Sean Donelan wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
These guys would freak if they popped open a manhole in the spring -- "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -Kurt Cobain
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
The sea level is certainly rising, but post-glacial rebound is also bending the entire East Coast of the United States, which means that parts of the East Coast are sinking into rising oceans. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059972339 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/glacial-rebound-the-not-so-solid-earth Unfortunately, that includes the New York city area in the downwards zone. Note that most of the intrinsic sea level change is due to the thermal expansion of upper ocean layers, and that can vary regionally, and this regional variation appears to be driving some of what we see. The sea level in Southern Florida is persistently rising even though it's not entirely clear why (if I had to bet, I'd bet on post-glacial rebound). https://www.fsbpa.com/documents/Florida%20Sea%20Level_rev04042008.pdf Florida sits on very water permeable rock and I would thus worry the most about the Internet infrastructure in Southern Florida, but I suspect anyone there already knows about this. http://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4 Regards Marshall Eubanks
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
I'm thankfully late to this thread and don't really agree with how operational discussions can devolve into political debates... But from a purely factual, operational consideration point of view at OSI layer 1: There is a very real reason why some facilities are built the way they are. Take a look at "NAP of the Americas", the Terremark-built colo/datacenter/IX point in Miami. It's built to withstand a certain type of hurricane. The first 12 feet of ground level can be flooded and it can remain operational. Its engineering design is a very real consequence of its location in Miami and its critical role related to submarine cable traffic to/from the Caribbean, Latin America and Miami. These Miami-specific design considerations are valid for discussion, the same as earthquake related issues are for critical telecom infrastructure in Seattle, Vancouver or San Francisco. I would be very surprised if the people responsible for budgets and planning of modern cable landing stations were not taking into account extreme weather events, possible sea level rise, and other factors. On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-internet-infrastructure
Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think
[...] Despite its magnitude, this network is increasingly vulnerable to sea levels inching their way higher, according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper. [...]
participants (33)
-
A. Pishdadi -
Bob Evans -
Bryan Holloway -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Chris Adams -
Colin Baker -
Dorn Hetzel -
Eric Kuhnke -
Grzegorz Janoszka -
James Downs -
Jameson, Daniel -
Jason Kuehl -
Jeff Shultz -
John Sage -
Justin M. Streiner -
Marc Sachs -
Mark Tinka -
Marshall Eubanks -
Matt Harris -
Mel Beckman -
Naslund, Steve -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Rich Kulawiec -
Rob McEwen -
Rod Beck -
Saku Ytti -
Sander Steffann -
Sean Donelan -
Stephen Satchell -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin