On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:49:13PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Compound interest is a bitch.
Sure is, but a numerically fixed change YoY is not compound interest.
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-isnt-working
It isn't so much the specifics of carbon pricing.
It's the
On 7/26/2018 4:22 PM, valdis.kletni...@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
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
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:48:58 -, "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
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
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.
On 07/26/2018 10:48 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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.
Let's be specific: everything with teeth that happens by.
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
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
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:07:56 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> On 7/26/2018 3:49 PM, valdis.kletni...@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
>>
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
On 7/26/2018 3:49 PM, valdis.kletni...@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
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
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:43:37 -, "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
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
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
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
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
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
On July 26, 2018 at 16:56 snasl...@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
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl
>> wrote:
>> > Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
>>
>> "The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed
>>
Once upon a time, Jameson, Daniel 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
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
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl wrote:
> > Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
>
> "The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed
> by satellites."
>
> I *really* want to understand the
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Rod Beck
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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason Kuehl wrote:
> Science https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"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
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
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
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
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
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:10 PM
To: Rod Beck; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE:
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 on behalf of Stephen
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
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:56:08 -, "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
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
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
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
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
; 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 oc
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 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?
&
ventory 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
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
>
>
>> 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
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 On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:01 PM
To:
How often does someone ask you for a breakfast sandwich?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:19 PM Bob Evans
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
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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Bob Evans 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
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
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
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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Nick Hilliard 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
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 08:50 , Nick Hilliard 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
m/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
> a
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
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
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 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On
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 wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, global warming
I'd be more worried about tidal surge in lower manhattan. Look what t.s. Sandy
did in terms of outages.
Sent from my android device.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Weeks
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 0:16
Subject: Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:25 AM, William Herrin 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
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 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
>
>
The sea level is certainly rising, but post-glacial rebound is al
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen 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
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
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-1993-2017
- as scary as that chart looks like
On 7/23/2018 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen 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
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
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen 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
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 02:09:23 -0500, Colin Baker said:
> 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.
pgpuLFbGi3gUF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- r...@invaluement.com wrote:
From: Rob McEwen
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, again, there were articles like this 10,
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
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
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
75 matches
Mail list logo
