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

These guys would freak if they popped open a manhole in the spring

It's a lot harder to pump out a manhole if it's now below the water table.

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-climategate-was-manufactured/--

Some people just always prefer to do the opposite of everyone else,
and/or the obvious. I have many friends like this.

Mark.

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.

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: Average Global Sea Level Rise, 1993-2017 - Inside Climate News - 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.

Little known fact: facts become factier when you use capital letters.

Someone said it on the Internet, so it must be true.

Nick

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

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

What sort of regulations and what sort of associated costs are you talking
about, if we can be specific?

Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet, sooner than you think

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.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).

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.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

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. :wink:

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

This thread needs to go elsewhere.

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:

Cheers,
Sander

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

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.

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

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.