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?
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.
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.
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 ...
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
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."
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!
As far as sea level rise goes it's already too late to do much about it. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the warming that's already happened. I'd be surprised if 500 years from now sea level hasn't risen by at least 10 or 20 feet. The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher than it currently is. It may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there.
If you plug the hole in the bottom are they still considered virgins?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
“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.
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