Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming To Hinder Wi-Fi Signals, Claims UK Gov't
radioweather writes with news of a government report from the UK's Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which warns of global warming's harmful effect on Wi-Fi and other communication protocols. Quoting the Guardian:
"Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications, rainstorms can impact the reliability of the signal, and drier summers and wetter winters may cause greater subsidence, damaging masts and underground cables. The threat posed by climate change to internet and telephone access is a rare example of when the developed world would be hit harder than developing countries, which are in general more at risk from increased floods, droughts and rising sea levels. 'If climate change threatens the quality of your signal, or you can't get it because of extreme fluctuations in temperature, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question,' said Spelman, 'and just imagine in the height of an emergency if the communications system is down or adversely affected.'"
The UK Government and it's insipid reports hinders WiFi.
E
global warming will disrupt the economy, and people won't be able to afford internet or phone service
These guys must have some really good drugs.
They really are getting desperate, aren't they?
BTW, wasn't Britain supposed to get drier winters with no snow because of 'global warming', not wetter ones? When did that change?
or wifi..... what? wifi? What are they smoking to be this desperate?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Never mind the millions displaced by rising sea levels or changed rainfall patterns effecting their crops, we might lose a few bars of wifi reception!
And so will corporate interests. Too bad we can't get anyone moderate to talk about this. Either we're all already dead, or everything is great. As long as those are the only two choices, nothing worthwhile will be accomplished. *sigh*
...countries that are hotter (Southern Europe), Wetter (Hong Kong), Colder (Sweden), Dryer (Greece) and more legally obtuse (USA) than the UK. I think we'll be fine. FUD off.
Subject says it all. I honestly can't comment further. The fail is strong with these morons.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Sure, as soon as you get global warming effects in the form of floods or snow or drought in your apartment, your WiFi coverage will suffer tremendously :(
Frankly, when the roof is missing, people tend not to get too upset about bad WiFi reception.
For normal outside activities just use cell 3G/4G signal :)
Hyperom.com
Global warming will disrupt living conditions worldwide, and people won't be around to have an economy that won't be able to afford internet or phone service.
Global warming pwned your customers' credit cards!
Yes rain and snow attenuates radio waves. But not by a huge amount. The human race would likely go extinct from Heat stroke before anybody noticed any real decline in WiFi connectivity. This article smacks of "the sky is falling" fearmongering. Like this:
"On March 20, 2000, The Independent, a British newspaper, reported that the Dr. David Viner of the UK's Climate Research Unit warning within a few years snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." Indeed, Viner opined, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Similarly, David Parker, at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only "virtual" experience of snow via movies and the Internet.
"The Union of Concerned Scientists opined confidently in 2004 scientists claim winters were becoming warmer and less snowy. In 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bemoaned that children would be robbed of the childhood joys of sledding and skiing in the DC area due to global warming. A year later, the area set a new seasonal snowfall record with 5 to 6 feet of snow and sleds and skis were the only way to get around." http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/apr/13apr2011a3.html
If the models can not predict snowfall, how can they be counted-upon to predict anything else in future weather?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I know! I know! Y2K, I mean, global warming will cause airplanes to fall from the sky, pacemakers to fail, and toasters to become sentient and kill us all!!!1!
Wifi was working just great in Tuscaloosa, AL until the tornadoes hit. At that point, they had bigger problems. It's still working fine in NE Georgia where I live, when 100F+ temperatures are the norm in the summer. In fact, whenever our signal degraded, it was because a squirrel had chewed through an outside line, not because it was too hot or humid. I think TFA is missing the elephant in the room here.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
...that houses with television antennas are at greater risk of lightning strikes. This is a rare example of when the developed world would be hit harder than developing countries. If climate change threatens the quality of your television signal, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question.
If this is the best "DOOM!" Climate Change story the legacy media can whip up today maybe we are near the end of the scare.
Then we who are sane can set about purging the defilers from the temples of Science! and setting it to rights.
Climate Change can't possibly be science, it fails one of the most basic tenets in that it isn't falsifiable. Try it if you doubt, ask a True Believer masquarading as a scientist what test could falsify their theory. There isn't one. IT gets warmer, Global Warming. Cooler? Climate Change. Drier? Wetter? More ice? Less ice? More clouds? Less clouds? And so on. All data lead the Warmist to the exact same conclusions and more importantly the exact same policy prescriptions. And of course a real scientist wouldn't dare propose policy on such a complex question in the knowledge of his ignorance of too many other fields.
Democrat delenda est
...assuming that they're not the source. Please, someone, restore my faith in humanity and show me this is just the modern equivalent of A Modest Proposal.
Anyone?
Not least it's ability to make seemingly educated adults believe absurd things, like this article or that the end of civilisation as we know will occur in their life time. (Who else believed that the end of days was going to occur within the span of their natural life?).
If only there was a way we could harness this awesome power... and use it to fuel our civilisation. Go beyond fossil fuel with global warming power. There is no problem it can't create.
If we're so worried about global warming just counteract it by increasing global dimming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Well, if hot air really can interfere with WiFi, perhaps shutting these guys up would be a first good step.
This is a pathetic attempt to get people to care about global warming again I mean "climate change". Follow the money.
Sounds like someone bought the "Global Warming" excuse from their local IT department! *tears a page off the excuse calendar*
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
People will blame everything under the sun accept for their own inability to produce dependable products. We are supposed to be able to adapt to anything and everything nature has to throw at us. Instead of crying about the possible effects how about people get on the ball and make things more dependable, on all levels.
So Global Warming is supposed to take place over centuries.
The operational lifetime of WiFi equipment is 10 years at best. (Anyone still using just 802.11b?) We wouldn't develop new standards and better equipment to deal with the environment?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I want whatever they are smoking. It must be some killer Canadian cannabis, or maybe some experimental home grown hybrid stuff eh?
The 'great recession' wasn't enough to shake out this nonsense. We're going to need true sovereign debt crises among significant western nations before this heinous shit ceases; the global warming romper room will remain open until government liquidity dries up.
I thought it was Global Cooling this week?!?!
This is really pathetic. Yes, storm frequency and intensity might increase. Yes, temperatures might increase (depending on location -- some areas might even go down in temperature). Yes precipitation patterns might change, but this "implications of global warming for communications" article is ridiculous.
Hello? If it would be affected that much then it would be affected by ordinary fluctuations in weather on a bad storm day or a particularly hot summer day. If your communications system isn't built to handle that ordinarily weather fluctuation then it is a communication system that is generally unreliable regardless of anything to do with global warming or any other long-term trend. In other words, it is symptomatic of the fact that your communication system SUCKS, and is liable to fail in severe weather when you might really need it. Nothing this idiot presented has anything to do with global warming.
It wasn't too long ago that we were warned how much the Internet electron-pushing was contributing to global warming.
Now, we hear that global warming is inhibiting our ability to download our Internet pr0n?
Sounds to me like a self-regulating system with a negative feedback loop.
Luckily I live in the US where the science isn't settled on Global Warming.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Wifi causes cancer and allergies, but Global Warming will make it more tolerable? Go Global Warming!
While it sounds ridiculous on the face of it, they have a point, especially in respect of cell towers and longer-range Wifi, or even wired. For example, after very heavy and prolonged rain, our own ADSL connection deteriorates because the underground cable between our house and the street connection (which is rather long) gets waterlogged. It's a definitely noticeable effect.
Makes sense, we have some pretty nasty seasonal rainfall and our long links (20km+) love to drop out during the really heavy downpours.
The answer is "Religious Fanatics." Your question was, "Who else believed that the end of days was going to occur within the span of their natural life?"
The Cult of Global Warming is to the early part of the 21st Century as The Church was to the Middle Ages. Zealots seeking converts, indulgences available for the right price, End Times forecast less than a generation away unless the sinners repent, a high priesthood -- the Old Time Religion's got nothing on this new one.
just imagine in the height of an emergency if the communications system is down or adversely affected.
Um, it's not at all difficult to imagine this, especially if you've ever been involved in disaster relief. Until very recently, the communication systems were one of the first things to fail during most disasters of any sort. Wires are fragile things when faced with the actions of Ma Nature or a military force. This is why, back when (D)ARPA started the work that led to the Internet, almost all the diagrams showed a wireless comm system. It doesn't work too well to connect ships or jet fighters via cables. And even for ground installations, cutting the wires is the first thing that any enemy will do. The commercial world has dragged their feet tremendously, blocking the development of a real, universal wireless system at every stage. Our current cell-phone system is crippled by the lockings and licensing that makes it refuse to do most things we'd like it to do. The wi-fi system is mostly locked down by a hokey "security" system that doesn't much interfere with military decoding, but does prevent most civilians from using the system in over 99% of the US.
And we've just barely made a dent in this problem. It's possible to have trucks (or boats) full of generators and wireless comm gear at the scene in a short time. But this usually takes much longer than it should, due to poor planning, plus active interference from the authorities on the scene.
Our comm system is barely functional in small-scale emergencies much larger than an auto accident. In real disasters, such as Katrina, the comm system simply collapses and takes weeks to come back online.
There's also the example that would be funny if it weren't for all the deaths involved: The collapse in New York of the World Trade Center nearly a decade ago also crippled Manhattan's communication system. The idiots who built the system's infrastructure (mostly the phone company) had run most of the cables for the southern half of the island under the WTC. And they hadn't built redundancy, so there was usually only one path between two specific points. The ARPA people back in the 1960s would have been apalled. People in 2001 who'd been working on the Internet were apalled. There was a lot of discussion of this in any number of comm forums. Reports are that the situation is nearly as bad today. The comm companies see no need to waste money on redundancy (and in fact over-subscribe most of their capacity when they can). And the government agencies are controlled by people who don't believe in "government regulation".
It's interesting to contemplate the idea that someone actually thought we had a comm system that works during major emergency or disaster situations. I wonder who wrote that line, and what their experience in emergency work is.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Only a moron wouldn't see the difference between Bush policies and Obama's.
Barack Obama's policies of government intervention into the economy have brought us from a near depression to an economic recovery.
If you still don't know the difference, do a bit of research instead of falling back on "both parties" are the same nonsense. Both parties are not the same.
Democrats pushed health care reform, and got it passed into law by 1 fucking vote against 100% Republican opposition.
That's one example of a difference but there are many others in environmental laws and everything else. Try not to be such a fucking brain-dead moron in the future.
our website: http://www.happyshopping100.com/ watches price 75$ Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Hndbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $15
New era cap $10
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE SHIPPING,accept paypal
free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!
**** http://www.happyshopping100.com/ ***
What else proof should we need to convince ourselves & more so, our government officials that we need to do something about the Global warming. Many countries already made their moves regarding climate change for example is China's cities on frontline against climate change. Funding should never be an issue if we're talking about the future of our planet, the ONLY place we can live in.
Banyak negara sudah membuat gerakan mereka tentang perubahan iklim sebagai contoh adalah bandar-bandar Cina di garis depan melawan perubahan iklim. Kewangan seharusnya tidak pernah menjadi masalah jika kita berbicara tentang masa depan planet kita, tempat HANYA kita dapat hidup masuk
It's microwaves - because of the wavelength water reduces the signal whether it's heavy rain or 100% humidity at a high temperature. That little bit of extra loss means those pushing the limits don't get enough signal, but that's probably not a problem since if you set up outdoor wireless you plan to have enough for it to run in heavy rain anyway. If you are in a cold place and get a hot humid day there is still a lot less water in the air between antennas than if it was heavy rain.
It's almost as if the article is purely a troll trying to drag out people that will even deny simple physics just so they can cheer for their team. While it's pretty obvious that increased amounts of water in the air is going to reduce signals that are affected by water it really doesn't matter much.
I can see the two responses to the summary as "Who cares about a small effect like that?" on one side and a loud denial of reality from the other side that are being set up to make themselves look like idiots. Those who called the writer a moron have fallen directly into the trap and exposed that they have not thought about the issue at all and are instead running on emotion or the blind tribalism of cheering for what they see as their team.
What's that supposed to be about? Reduced maximum output wattage of power amplifying semiconductors at higher ambient temperatures?
There are, like, solutions for that.
Bigger heatsinks, more efficient designs that dissipate less waste heat, liquid cooling ...
What else proof do we need to convince ourselves and our government that something needs to be done regarding climate change. Many countries already made their moves regarding climate change for example is China's cities on frontline against climate change. Funding should never be an issue if we're talking about the future of our planet, the ONLY place we can live in. Banyak negara sudah membuat gerakan mereka tentang perubahan iklim sebagai contoh adalah bandar-bandar Cina di garis depan melawan perubahan iklim. Kewangan seharusnya tidak pernah menjadi masalah jika kita berbicara tentang masa depan planet kita, tempat HANYA kita dapat hidup masuk
Congratulations on continuing to poison the well. People like you are exactly the reason why there can be no rational discussion on any topic of importance.
Yes, because if it wasn't for that darn global warming, it would be sunny and a perfect 21 Celsius all the time. Also the world would still be full of unicorns and it would only rain donuts.
Its called weather people.
After hearing endless warnings about species extinction, coastal flooding, and a apocalyptic weather, I am finally relieved to hear about something that effects me. Oh wait, my connection is twisted pair, not WiFi. Darn!
Most WiFi runs 2.45Ghz. This is the resonant frequency of water, same as a microwave heating food. Obviously it is the WIFI causing the global warming.
As we get more and more use out of wireless computing and more and more sensors ,devices and useful software become more and more common every little glitch in the wi-fi environment will cause greater and more expensive losses.Really we are only at the entrance to a world of complex electronic devices and communications. Trying to guess at what inconvenience or losses might occur from weather shifting is beyond our ability now. What we do know is climates like the Amazon area in Brazil can make it really difficult for any electronic system to function. Even rather gross mechanical functions can grind to a halt with plants hatching and growing in every nook and cranny. Henry Ford's attempt to run rubber plantations and in Brazil are a great example. Park a train and in 48 hours the smoke stack is a flower pot with a tree clogging it up. Only a couple of degrees in temperature separate some of North America from that type of climate.
until the tornadoes hit
From TFA:
just imagine in the height of an emergency if the communications system is down or adversely affected
I read that as meaning that the UK is not equipped to handle weather that is more like monsoons than a persistent drizzle.
Communications is especially important during disasters, as it helps people assess damage and coordinate damage response.
But...
When a tornado hits, I expect that mobile phone towers with UPS and backup power would be more stable than wired communications. And also, as xMrFishx pointed out:
WiFi works in:
...countries that are hotter (Southern Europe), Wetter (Hong Kong), Colder (Sweden), Dryer (Greece) and more legally obtuse (USA) than the UK. I think we'll be fine. FUD off.
If you've watched any of the GW movies, you should already know that Global Warming will make it much colder, which should increase the distance achieved greatly, as well as releasing the wolves.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
The poster has good insight. A good windstorm will take out the phone system. An extended power outage will drain the batteries that backup the wired phone system. Cellphones will last longer and probably ridethrough, but in the emergency business you would never rely on cellphones.
If rain and clouds can hinder your Wifi or Satellite or Cellular reception, it signifies some reaction happening between the radio signals and water molecules. Do you think it could be wrong to assume that all the satellites beaming kilowatts of energy down the earth surface, cellphone towers and wifi access points are playing their part in Climate Change ?
Isn't that what we should be more worried about ??
Sorry to state the obvious, but if global warming is a problem then (this slight) signal attention is the least of our concerns.
So is GPS signal reception also affected by higher temperatures?
I noticed when driving across Spain in the middle of August that my in-car TomTom lost GPS for some quite long periods of time (20 minutes plus) especially near Madrid where I think the temperature was highest.
I've since done the same trip with the same TomTom in the same car in October and April but did not experience any reception outages. Obviously, the temperature was much lower in Spain in October and April than in was in August.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Come on, why did anyone mod that down?
If my WiFi is going to be affected by global warming, I think I'm going to go out and buy myself a big air conditioning unit to protect it!
since when were THEY experts on radio signal propogation and global warming? and apparently making such wide predictions on the propogation of what is a short range system primarily intended for use indoors or just out to your garden or patio as well... this is just so stupid it hurts my brain... Wi-Fi is short range you donkeys... and physical objects have far greater effect upon the signal than global warming ever will...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Look at the context, folks: they were asked to produce a report on what infrastructure would break, or need reinforcing, under climate change. ...) they listed wifi, part of communications.
Along with other more important issues (road surfaces, rail, water,
Now Wifi signals are degraded by more water vapour, something that is demonstrably increasing with climate change.
Wifi will be affected, so they listed it. Not significantly, but there is an element of CYA in all such reports. They listed it,
didn't draw undue attention to it, but its been singled out in media coverage of an otherwise straightforward report.
Interesting, but no big deal. The more important parts, how much it will cause to reinforce our road, rail, water infrastructures was completely bypassed by the media as "boring".
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
And with the warmer climate, earth worms will grow bigger and stronger, and soon they will be 3 foot long and be able to rip your leg off from underground. And mosquitos!! They'll suck you dry on one bite!!! OH MY!!! Get me some more of that Amsterdam weed.
www.luatsutructuyen.vn everybody come on
meanwhile, the ubiquitous wireless broadband and WiFi (i'm actually wondering if they know the difference) in hot, developing nations like the Philippines continues to function. or do they think the UK is going to get significantly more hot, humid and storm-battered than Southeast Asia currently is sometime in the foreseeable future?
Hardly a revelation that weather affects radio signal propagation, is it? I live in a marginal signal area. My 3G signal propagates worse in winter, better in summer (significantly so - I can make calls where I wouldn't otherwise be able to in summer). My WiFi range increases in winter, especially when it is cold, and decreases in summer (significantly so - I can get a wifi connection in rooms in the house in winter that have no coverage in summer). And before someone blames 'interference', the area I live in is so remote, I guarantee that third party interference from other users is not a factor.
Because what the "researchers" failed to consider is that the developing world in fact relies FAR MORE heavily on wireless than wired technology. It's a well known fact that phone owners in Africa are more likely to have a cell phone than a land-line, for example. Here in Costa Rica you can apply for a land-line and maybe get one in 5 to 11 years, or you can buy a cell phone and maybe have to wait 3 months - or get it right away if you're lucky.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Whether you're a complete denier of any climate change, or an equivalently head-in-the-sand accepter of everything Al Gore has said, you can't think that the few degrees of fluctuation predicted by even the more aggressive models would make much of a difference.
As much as I hate to come to the defense of Spelman and co, the original report said NOTHING about wi-fi signal. The closest it got was that it mentioned the positioning of 'wireless masts' (presumably the mobile network, microwave dishes etc.) in response to changing weather patterns.
The idiot here was the Guardian reporter who didn't read the report before he wrote an article on it.
Contact Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba's temperature varies from -35C/-31F to +35C/95F (counting windchill in winter -> -55C/-67F, at least 16.5 hours of sunlight for peak solar load in summer). Vary rarely are we without power, most of the outages occur during sever lightning storms in summer (keep back-up generators for server farms). The longest electrical outage I recall was 4 hours. I don't recall there every being a natural gas interruption (MB Hydro also sells nat gas). As for downed trees, prune them or cut them down (again see MD Hydro's policy for distance between poles & trees). Also, regular rail lines are fine within this delta T (increasing frequency of expansion joints along TGV rail line). Anything else?
NHL Jerseys This is James has since April 2004, NBA Jerseys jersey sales top spot debut. And since the 2008-09 season, MLB Jerseys the last 2 years are all star jersey champion Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant – Bryant. Kids NBA Jerseys According to statistics from 2010 NBA official online shop-11 season, All Star NBA Jerseys the most LeBron jersey – James. super bowl jerseys Bryant ranked No.2, super pro jerseys while the Celtics point guard Rajon – Rondo is ranked No. 3. Wholesale NFL Jerseys It is noteworthy that the top three players, discount NFL Jerseys only James 1 is replaced in the new owner of the season. Cheap NFL Jerseys In other words, James Knight switched from the Heat also promotes the sale of jersey and opened a new market.
Global warming will cause [insert convenient crisis blown out of proportion here] unless we immediately [draconian freedom killing plan/initiative/law/policy].
You get what you pay for. Are you willing to double your communication bills in order to get a redundant system? What about increase it 50%? How much are you really willing to pay? The collective answer of those in your city will answer that question.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think that too many people think about what they want to do, call it the best use of the resource, and assume that spectrum is infinite.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Umm, you have that backwards. Cell phone towers are one of the first things to go down in a power emergency. When something happens, first thing that cell users do is pull out their cells and check to see if they still have a signal. Then many call family or loved ones to tell them they are okay. The towers are hammered, and their backup batteries drain quickly.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In a room without enough A/C, this is how you deal with it.
Using the Hadcru data, I get 0.058C above the 30 year mean.
Whose data are you using to get this 0.1 below?
There are vast number of independent ways by which it can be shown that the current warming is due to greenhouse gasses, and is not due to the sun.
... in the tropics. However the CO2 greenhouse effect overlaps with the H2O greenhouse effect so its effect is greater where absolute humidity is low.
For one thing the stratosphere is cooling. The sun warms the whole atmosphere, from above. However the greenhouse effect traps heat low in the atmosphere leading to this cooling.
For another the North Pole and the Antarctic Peninsula are the fastest warming parts of the globe. The sun's effect is strongest where it's light is most direct
For a third thing, the warming is happening more at night. The sun warms things when it is shining. However the greenhouse effect slows the rate of heat loss, without affecting the rate of heat gain as much, so the greatest effect would be seen at the coldest part of the day.
Similarly and for a fourth thing, winter temperatures are warming slightly faster than Summer ones.
For a fifth, the temperature response due to CO2 can be calculated, such as has been done in this paper. It turns out that the warming is anthropogenic.
Already less than they would if there were no global warming:
Worldwide, the authors report online today in Science, yields of corn and wheat declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared with what they would have been without global warming.
You seem to be very full of misinformation. Have you been reading Wattsup?
It turns out scientific sources provide better information on this topic than popular interest ones.
should i turn on the airco?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?