Slashdot Mirror
Study Suggests Buried Internet Infrastructure at Risk as Sea Levels Rise (eurekalert.org)
Thousands of miles of buried fiber optic cable in densely populated coastal regions of the United States may soon be inundated by rising seas, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Oregon. From a report: The study, presented Monday at a meeting of internet network researchers, portrays critical communications infrastructure that could be submerged by rising seas in as soon as 15 years, according to the study's senior author, Paul Barford, a UW-Madison professor of computer science. "Most of the damage that's going to be done in the next 100 years will be done sooner than later," says Barford, an authority on the "physical internet" -- the buried fiber optic cables, data centers, traffic exchanges and termination points that are the nerve centers, arteries and hubs of the vast global information network. "That surprised us. The expectation was that we'd have 50 years to plan for it. We don't have 50 years."
The study, conducted with Barford's former student Ramakrishnan Durairajan, now of the University of Oregon, and Carol Barford, who directs UW-Madison's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, is the first assessment of risk of climate change to the internet. It suggests that by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. The most susceptible U.S. cities, according to the report, are New York, Miami and Seattle, but the effects would not be confined to those areas and would ripple across the internet, says Barford, potentially disrupting global communications.
The study, conducted with Barford's former student Ramakrishnan Durairajan, now of the University of Oregon, and Carol Barford, who directs UW-Madison's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, is the first assessment of risk of climate change to the internet. It suggests that by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. The most susceptible U.S. cities, according to the report, are New York, Miami and Seattle, but the effects would not be confined to those areas and would ripple across the internet, says Barford, potentially disrupting global communications.
Stuff underground gets wet already, just in case you didn't know about "rain" and such.
Less likely to be cut by a backhoe then ...
Is in no danger. These are some of the stupidest ideas I've seen lately. Its like the world is static to them and one tiny change triggers a "oh noes all is lost!" response
Why didn't Obama stop this?
Unless we are going to see sea levels rise by a multiple feet in a year I don't see the problem. The sea is rising slowly so there will be plenty of warning before any termination point goes underwater so there is plenty of time to move the termination point to further inland so it's safe(ish) from hurricanes and other issues associated with rising sea levels. Moving the people is going to be a much bigger issue.
Gee...never saw something like this study coming from people at a place like this.
You can pretty much predict the kind of crap they will publish.
I thought the sea levels were already supposed have risen? Lots of doom and gloom predictions based on bad models.
I for one would simply place a bunch of tiny life-vests on cables to keep them happy, you know, just in case.
Specifically, averaging 3.2mm, according to Wikipedia. In 15 years, that's only 48mm (less than 2 inches).
How's that going to flood a bunch of stuff that's not on some coral atoll in the South Pacific?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If water is going to rise as predicted, the Internet infrastructure may be the least of the problems, especially if New York City is under sea level, unless the subway is converted into an underwater subway system.
No.
Clearly it is a case of us not throwing enough virgins into the volcano.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
what mechanism of a warming climate increases volcanic activity?
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning. If we faced a scenario of nothing happening for 50 years and then everything happening at once, we'd be devastated. If things happen throughout the 50 years though, great. It is much easier to handle many little disasters than one big one when you can't plan. It also helps to keep the issue in the public consciousness.
Obviously an increase in piracy, leads to increased in volcanic activity.
Simple logic would tell you that.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Amsterdam figured it out, and so can New Amsterdam...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Many of the conduits at risk are already close to sea level and only a slight rise in ocean levels due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion as climate warms will be needed to expose buried fiber optic cables to sea water.
They are talking about cables that are buried underground. Right now, if you need to service the cables, you just dig up the ground to get to the cables and service them. If the ground in which the cables are buried is underwater, it makes it more difficult dig them up and service them.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
Balderdash! The Earth is flat! I mean we didn't come from no smelly monkeys, I mean vaccines cause autism, I mean ... dammit I forgot what was fake, but something is bogus about wet wire claims.
Table-ized A.I.
If water is going to rise as predicted, the Internet infrastructure may be the least of the problems, especially if New York City is under sea level, unless the subway is converted into an underwater subway system.
Well, we have to have our priorities.
How will it affect download speeds and gaming latency? That's what I want to know ...
It's more like social Darwinism. Geeks fight with mod points, rather than take pretty obvious facts and grind their heel into them. I've had great enlightenment here, as well as the sludge of over-ripe ego as well.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but not their own set of facts.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
A clear preponderance of scientific research refutes your opinion. No one will censor your for your opinion, but when your facts are clearly and undeniably bad, indeed you may get modded down.
Excellent point, not that I agree with your option of the evidence we have, there certainly are a lot of folks making the claim that it's clear and that does justify getting modded down.
The petrochemical/oil industry's clear mandate is to not be sued or cited as a decent part of the problem.
Then you make a absolutely stupid statement... So the Oil industry doesn't have any valid facts to add to this discussion? Of all the industries, they are obviously one of the few interested parties and have likely funded a LOT of science on this. They may have an agenda in this, but you really cannot just toss anything that has an agenda because if you have that right, so do I...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Look, if sea levels rise a couple of feet, this affects the cable repeaters and the landing approaches. A couple of feet may impact whether a six foot raised building is viable, because it's now four foot, and the wave action is likely to wash away the support structures. Some cable landings may have been built on promontories that could be reached by roads which now get washed away, and the storm impacts can cause other problems.
(caveat: not at that UW)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
sigh. you obviously havent done much infrastructure planning if you dont know the difference between water resistant and water proof. from TFA:
Plus there is the whole "there is nothing worse for equipment than seawater" thing, which if you had ever maintained anything around an ocean, you would be very aware of.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
"[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,"
https://www.investors.com/poli...
Obama's a tool...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Underground cables are ALWAYS at risk from any type of water accumulation. Sea level has nothing to do with that risk.
A broken underground pipe can cause the same exact damage as surging water from higher sea level. The risk is from long term water exposure, not sea level.
Sounds like you don't know how the ground works.
Normally, there is a level of water underground called "water table". It is where the water level sits all the time. Anything below the line is submerged. When there is rain, the water line goes up. This water line is also related to the sea level when the area is near by the sea. When the sea level rises, the water line also goes up. So yes, sea level has an impact on water table line specifically the areas near by the sea (coast).
We will have to adjust....
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
... fake news ...
No such thing as global climate change.
Even if there was such a thing as global climate change,it's completely irrelevant because it's definitely not caused by humans. It happens all the time.
Even if humans did have something to do with it, it's completely irrelevant because there's nothing anyone can do at this point to eliminate, reduce or remediate it.
Even if there was something we could do about it, it's completely irrelevant because that would cost too much money.
Even if, in the overall scheme of things, it would cost less to do something about it than it would cost to not do something about it, either of those might cause my taxes to go up, and that's completely unacceptable. Bottom line - my 401k is more important than the future of humanity. Tough s**t guys. End of story.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I dunno. Some people like it that wide.
All conspiracy theories, worthy of scorn... The oil companies have sanctioned many studies w/o conditions, actual science was done. And it was mostly the automobile industry that was pushing back on CAFEE standards, not the oil industry...
Look, the "evidence" is not actually as one sided on this debate as you may think. There is a whole lot of obfuscation being done on BOTH sides of this for various political and economic reasons.
Just look at the dire predictions from 10 years ago. There is a pile of "We are sure X will happen in 10 years" statements which didn't pan out. Much of that was alarmist claptrap, or, as in the case of Al Gore, a way to make money, fist on the movie then on Carbon Offset Credits.
One must be careful not to put on the tin foil hat folded by either side in this. Why? Because the truth is someplace between Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the 1970's fear of "global cooling".
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
From the article: "Buried fiber optic cables are designed to be water-resistant, but unlike the marine cables that ferry data from continent to continent under the ocean, they are not waterproof."
We should just get the Dutch to build the Internet infrastructure.
Anyone could build infrastructure that can survive being submerged, Unfortunately, they didn't plan for that: "When it was built 20-25 years ago, no thought was given to climate change."
What a bunch of bullshit. If there is a certainty of sea level rise wiping out large population centers if we don't do anything about CO2 output then I'd think we could take on some risk to avert it. What kind of risk? Building nuclear reactors kind of risk.
Has anyone done a risk analysis on using nuclear power? It turns out lots of people have. We find that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. How can that be? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1.21 GW of electricity with a capacity factor exceeding 90% for close to 80 years and very few people are killed or injured. Compare this to wind, solar, and hydro which have a capacity factors around 35% and people still die from industrial accidents in building and maintaining them. Comparing total energy out to people dead means fewer people dead from nuclear power than anything we know of.
They claim certainty of a many people dead in a global warming induced event and compare that to the risk of a nuclear power accident. If the global warming means 100% that people die then whatever risk nuclear power has must be lower than that.
I'm thinking that since the people in government are not issuing licenses to build more nuclear power that they know global warming is bullshit, they are suicidal (because DC is at "certainty" of being under water), or they are so lacking in intelligence to understand some basic fucking math.
If global warming is a problem then do something to fix it. If it's not a problem then at some point people will realize this and the scare mongering will have no effect. I left that scare mongering behind years ago. Now I'm simply pissed at being lied to over and over again.
I need a drink.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Oh, wait.
Do you have ESP?
Unless the "study" was just another "sky is falling" AGW horror story the authors should republish when they have definite proof that has undergone peer review with folks other than those at RealClimate, or who make a living off of Federally funded grants.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Specifically, averaging 3.2mm, according to Wikipedia. In 15 years, that's only 48mm (less than 2 inches).
How's that going to flood a bunch of stuff that's not on some coral atoll in the South Pacific?
How Indeed!
Lunar and solar tides produce variations orders of magnitude larger than that daily. Three millimeters is below the grass of measurement noise from satellite data or floating buoys.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I can do basic math, 2033 is 15 years. Why does that matter? Anyone who has read "Scientific" news for any length of time knows when you need to pick a bullshit arbitrary time frame people pick 10 to 15 years, it's that wonderful convergence near enough to get immediate funding but far enough that it's actually impossible to prove it won't happen.
Engineers in New York City and Seattle probably...
We have more than your hunch to go on. The study referenced in the article suggests that "by the year 2033 more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than 1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. "
It's because the Republican controlled Congress stopped him.
Demonstrably false, try again.
The only thing stopping the Democrats were other Democrats that valued staying in office more than implementing the DNC platform.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It's a link to a press release, which doesn't even link itself to the "study". There's no real information, nor details on the assumptions behind the supposed catastrophe. The closest they have is a computer generated image of speculative flooding in the future. It's pretty much as close to global warming bait as you're going to get, released only to say "Worry about this, too!" without any actual information content.
I guess it's more difficult to have your alarmism debunked if you leave it all hand wavey and vague. I'm sure there's probably an back of the envelope calculation somewhere behind this "study", but this doesn't even contain that much actual information.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Is that to appease the gods or plug the hole in the bottom?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Relocating Internet infrastructure is a small problem compared to relocating billion of people that live near the sea.
Even in the US, where there is a lot of inhabited land inside the country, that would cost a lot. Who will pay?
"Most of the damage that's going to be done in the next 100 years will be done sooner than later"
Based on my very rudimentary knowledge of global warming, exponential curves, runaway effects and what have you. That statement is entirely false?
Also a bit of a scare article. I assume it's implying the 'data sheds' where massive undersea lines terminate are close to the sea (they likely are!) but moving these are probably very very small scale problems in comparison to other issues if the sea rises the distance required to submerge them.
Global warming is bad, how can we tie it to the internet!!!?
I worked as an Journeyman Instrument Man at Texaco refinery, Port Arthur, Texas.
One of our tasks was to repair and maintain oxygen analyzers.
We'd test them by exposing them to open air (as opposed to smokestacks, under water, in control houses, and tanks where people were working) and the goddam things always reported "21%."
I mean, like all the mother fucking goddam time and stuff.
It was never 15% our (like nitrogen) 78%.
NO!
Goddam son of a bitching yellow belly blue balled bastard suck ass 21%!
Open air oxygen reporting at 21% is so one-sided as to be fake news.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's Ok. There is no AGW so this will not happen. :-)
Florida will not be submerged either.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
How long have these supposedly vulnerable cables been in place? The Internet didn't exist before the 1990s. (I know, youngsters, the ARPANet existed earlier, in fact I was using it in the late 1980s. But I'm referring to the modern network that's grown by leaps and bounds.)
I'd bet these vulnerable cables were put in place in the last couple decades at most, probably 15 years ago. And if they can be placed that quickly, then they can be replaced with newer ones over the next 15 years, a few inches (at least) higher, and we won't have to worry for a few more decades.
There, that was easy!
If you plug the hole in the bottom are they still considered virgins?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nobody's concerned about normal waves hitting coasts 2 inches higher up. What does concern them is how the rise affects the more extreme events; coastal floods from king tides and storm surges are getting worse, and more frequent - unusually high floods that only happened once a century (1% chance) are now happening once a decade (10% chance).
These floods don't just inundate streets and underground cables, they can contaminate coastal wetlands, aquifers, and farmland with salt. In flat coastal deltas, a small rise in flood levels can extend a much longer way inland, salting the ground and the water table for miles and affecting the livelihoods of many - particularly in poorer countries with large populations depending on once-fertile river deltas. This is a very real problem for many countries without the funds to relocate farms and farmers, especially those like Bangladesh.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
Apart from some hand waving, nothing in the article contradicts this statement.
The rest is cherry picking, out of context and exaggeration.
Al Gore was a politician doing his share of exaggeration and simplification, but if this is the standard of your counter arguments, then you are looking for confirmation of a position you already hold. It's an editorial piece, poorly organised, poorly researched and absent even the pretence of balance or impartiality.
*shrug*
I've seen similar patterns of argument in other fields with believers vs science. Cherry pick exceptions and outliers, find some people who have made exaggerated claims that aren't generally held and argue that taints the whole field. Whether a creationist or a climate change denier, the form's the same. 'Skepticism' is fine when it's even handed. When it's a mask for refusing to accept evidence that contradicts a belief it's just denial.
No one should believe what they read on the internet without some due diligence and a critical examination of the material, the presentation and possibly the source and this is unconvincing.
There will always be some people trying to profit from an existing disaster or by convincing you that disaster is coming. You prove nothing by finding such people. How about, instead,
I'd love to find out that anthropocentric climate change is either not changing or is not anthropocentric. It would make life easier and a little more pleasant. I stand to gain nothing by believing and it would make life easier and a little more pleasant to be shown I'm wrong. Being accused, indirectly, of having fallen for a pitch by someone motivated by greed fails to account for both the reluctance to believe and the weight of evidence that has overcome that reluctance. I first saw arguments and evidence for climate change back in the 80s (Dr David Suzuki was the first I can recall). Then it was mostly a topic for academic discussion - there certainly wasn't any money in it.
"Study Suggests Buried Internet Infrastructure ar Risk From More Frequent High Floods" would be a much more interesting and uncontroversial paper...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Except recently it's been rising and is accelerating.
That graph looks scary until you look at the scales, and translate milimeters to inches.
It shows the sea level rising by 2 inches in the last century. It also looks very slightly bent up near the end.
Now how you get a error bands of less than +- 1/6 inch when measuring sea level beats me. But let's assume their methodology works. And lets be generous and assume that bend is an exponential. It's a pretty small bend, so let's be REALLY generous and say that the extrapolated next two inches happen in 50 years rather than 100.
So a 2 inch sea level rise in 50 years will flood out the Internet in 10? It only takes (substantially less than) 2/5 of an inch of sea level rise to do it?
I think we need a MUCH scarier graph to support this panic.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yea, but in a whole lot of places these cables are at risk anyway.
Let's take sea level rise out of the equation for a minute. That saves you right? Wrong. Places like the southern US coast are dependent on re-sedimentation to maintain (and grow) above sea level. Modern water management and bathymetry practices mean that is not going to occur. Even if humans were good little stewards of CO2, the coast is still sinking, and will keep sinking as sediment compaction occurs over the next few hundred million years.
The ocean is not static. The land is not static. If we want to avoid replacing cables around the ocean due to land level/sea level changes, starting an ice age is about the only solution. An extremely stupid solution at that.
Which thing is not the fault in the environment, but at fault with the characteristics of submarine fiber optics when they were selected for this application. Of course, if you have optical fiber that can tolerate the environment miles under the ocean, even an increase of hundreds of feet is not going to be a factor. Having experience in fiber optics manufacturing, I would call this "fake news."