Claim: Sea Level Rise will Kill the Internet in Fifteen Years

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A study published by Computer Science Professor Paul Barford claims that critical parts of the Internet will be submerged under rising seas in the next 15 years.

Study suggests buried internet infrastructure at risk as sea levels rise

July 16, 2018 By Terry Devitt
For news media

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.

The study, presented here today (July 16, 2018) 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 peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a comprehensive global map of the internet’s physical structure, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study, which only evaluated risk to infrastructure in the United States, was shared today with academic and industry researchers at the Applied Networking Research Workshop, a meeting of the Association for Computing Machinery, the Internet Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Read more: https://news.wisc.edu/study-suggests-buried-internet-infrastructure-at-risk-as-sea-levels-rise/

The abstract of the study;

Lights Out: Climate Change Risk to Internet Infrastructure

Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Carol Barford, Paul Barford University of Oregon, University of Wisconsin – Madison

In this paper we consider the risks to Internet infrastructure in the US due to sea level rise. Our study is based on sea level incursion projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [12] and Internet in- frastructure deployment data from Internet Atlas [24]. We align the data formats and assess risks in terms of the amount and type of infrastructure that will be under water in dif- ferent time intervals over the next 100 years. We find that 4,067 miles of fiber conduit will be under water and 1,101 nodes (e.g., points of presence and colocation centers) will be surrounded by water in the next 15 years. We further quantify the risks of sea level rise by defining a metric that considers the combination of geographic scope and Internet infrastructure density. We use this metric to examine differ- ent regions and find that the New York, Miami, and Seattle metropolitan areas are at highest risk. We also quantify the risks to individual service provider infrastructures and find that CenturyLink, Inteliquent, and AT&T are at highest risk. While it is difficult to project the impact of countermeasures such as sea walls, our results suggest the urgency of devel- oping mitigation strategies and alternative infrastructure deployments.

Read more: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~pb/anrw18_final.pdf

The following table of absurd sea level rise estimates from the full paper (same link as above) shows where it all went wrong for Professor Barford and his team.

Table 1: Timeline of projected Global Mean Sea Level Rise. Data is based off of “Highest” (i.e., most extreme) projections.

Year 2030 2045 2060 2075 2090 2100
Projected rise (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6

A one foot per 15 year sea level rise starting in the next few years should be an implausibly rapid acceleration to the current long term observed rate of around 3.2mm / year, or around one foot four six inches per century.

But Professor Barford claims this absurd estimate of 1ft every 15 years is an official NOAA scenario.

What next? The potential for harm from this nonsensical sea level estimate is not yet exhausted. The next step could easily be some politician or government bureaucrat seizing on Professor Barford’s warning, and authorizing the waste of vast sums of public money on unnecessary remedial works.

Update (EW): 1’6″ per century, not 1’4″ per century. (h/t David S)
Update (EW): 3.2mm = 0.01049869ft. 0.01049869ft x 100 = 1.049ft. 0.049 x 12 = just 0.58 inches – so 1’0.6”, just over 1ft. (h/t Randle Dewees, Climatebeagle and Retired_Engineer_Jim)

Advertisements

314 thoughts on “Claim: Sea Level Rise will Kill the Internet in Fifteen Years

  1. No problem. If the seas rise, the salt water will short out the underground electricity transmission cables and transformers. Bzzzzt. Darkness. No need for Internet if your computer doesn’t work.

    • “Paul Barford received his B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He worked in industry for eight years before completing his Ph.D. in computer science from Boston University. He was a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge and an EPSRC Visiting Fellow in 2011. He was the founder and CEO of Nemean Networks, a network security startup company that was acquired by Qualys, Inc. He is the co-founder and chief scientist of MdotLabs, a fraud detection company based in Madison. ”

      Its hard to know where to begin. One could not go to any more perfect training grounds to be a warmista believer. I love the fraud detection bit at the end. The irony drips off his final resting place.

      If they get you young enough, a mind is but putty in a leftist profs hands.

      Lots of snow in Madison every winter. I wonder if they have noticed.

      • The whole thing is plausible when you consider that the good Professor’s brain is shorting out already.

        • Yeah, this latest claim is so ridiculous, it’s not even funny. Many of these “academics” are seriously disturbed — I’m not joking.

      • It does seem that those inexperienced in the ways of the world, and fresh out of a theoretical liberal education. are most inclined to interpret a falling acorn as the sky falling.

        • Especially when that’s the easiest way to get noticed by the current “good old boys’ club” and receive milking rights to the current science cash cow.

    • There will be plenty of power for the Internet using floating solar cells over the then submerged land areas. These will be so powerful as to generate plenty of energy using starlight and moonlight. They will be mounted on the blades of tiny 3 foot tall wind turbines and attached to the sea floor so that they can also capture wave action for energy. Because they will absorb heat at a quantum level, they will actually convert heat into electricity as well, and thus cool down the air.

      All that is needed is a few $250,000,000 grants to get this research over the hurdle of production ready, and we are all saved.

      Meanwhile, Internet will go 100% WiFi so we can get rid of all those buried cables in the first place. All this in the next 15 years – sames odds of happening as the 1 foot sea rise so they balance out nicely in a standard BS equivalency notation (BSEN).

  2. So there might be more care taken before making such outrageous predictions, I propose this man put up his pension as collateral and lose it should he be found wrong in 15 years. Put up or STFU.

      • This has been going on for 30-40 years now, with a string of well documented perdictions and alarmist drivel that has not occurred. Nobody is ever held accountable, its as if past lies dont count.

          • Hugs,
            That does seem to cut to the core of the problem: For zealots, the end justifies any means.

        • …It is even better.
          When the climate hype predictions go wrong. And they all go wrong.
          The climate alarmists blame the skeptics, or claim the skeptics are crazy, or part of a plot.

        • “… its as if past lies dont count”
          But that is why alarmist drivel is ignored. They probably never read the story about the boy who cried “Wolf”.

    • Innumerable “experts” have no ‘skin in the game’. Dr. Nassim Taleb’s book “Skin in the Game” goes into some depth on this aspect of modern life. These experts suffer no losses, experience no negative feedback, from making policy prescriptions or investment advice that are wrong. The lack of negative feedback allows bad ideas to continue. Taleb coined the term “Intellectual Yet Idiot” [IYI] to encapsulate the concept.

      A plumber that can’t fix a leaking sink eventually goes out of business. A surgeon that fails to successfully repair medical issues eventually looses their license. A hedge fund manager risking their own money along with clients making poor choices will be wiped out. But a national politician’s pollster gets paid even when they can’t forecast any better than a dart throw…

      • They forecast as well as a “dart throw”? That’s more accuracy than I’ve ever noticed. Even a five year old will likely come closer to the bullseye with a dart than their predictions.

      • A dart thrower will occasionally hit a bulls eye regardless of skill level.
        But warmista predictions have literally never ever been right yet.
        It is uncanny, but random guesses would have a track record of correctitude infinitely better than these half-witted dunces.

    • They have no concept of being wrong.

      Their view is that things are what people believe they are, and that by making people believe their rubbish, it becomes true.

    • Why are they wrong? They have taken a previously published estimate for sea level rise
      and worked out the consequences. It is a case of “if A then B” which automatically true
      if A is wrong and can only be proved false is A is right (i.e. sea level rises of 6 feet in a century) and B is wrong (internet infrastructure is not damaged).

      • Seriously, you think it’s a valid argument to say that as long as somebody references a published prediction, then it’s reasonable to hype a story that depends on a long-term trend suddenly increasing by a factor of a hundred?

        3.2 mm/yr x 15 yr = 4.8 mm Percy, not 304.8mm

        That’s how they’re wrong, duh!

        Ok, pay attention. I am about to publish a prediction and somebody else can then use it to extrapolate what “could happen”. Then you tell us why their “study” is not wrong.

        (Note that exactly like the climate alarmists, I am just making this up out of thin air, but with extreme precision):

        Mainstream media in 1958 published 0.03045% lies, in 2018, it’s 30.06328% lies. We predict the trend MAY accelerate as the last of the rational thinkers retire out of the journalistic workforce over the next 15 years.

        Ok folks, have at it. Work out the consequences for Percy. If my published prediction A is true (could be conservative, it may be much worse!), then what is the logically-certain outcome B? In what year will 100% of MSM stories be lies? (HINT: the trend may be accelerating).

          • 1.5 x 15 = 22.5 mm (based on tide gauge measurements)
            3.2 mm/year is a warmist swindle

        • 3.2×15=48, not 4.8. Still way less than 304 but not a hundred times less. When correcting someone’s maths it is particularly important not to make your own mistakes, or else you end up looking stupid.

          • It wasn’t me. It was Russian hackers who changed my math!

            When I said I didn’t think it would be the Russians, I meant I didn’t not think it wouldn’t be the Russians.

        • “3.2 mm/yr x 15 yr = 4.8 mm”

          I think you meant 4.8cm. = 1,89 inches

          SLR is More like 2.8 mm/yr BTW. 3.2mm/yr is a number juiced by an arbitrary 12% isostasy correction. You need to multiply it by 0.88 to get eustatic sea level rise which is what an observer would actually see. … if the number were valid — which is perhaps possible … but far from certain.

          • yes, I was thinking centimeters and it was early in the morning, so the Russians were able to hack my brain.

        • Not to go all Clintonian on you, but it depends upon what your definition of lies is. Just because some fact is demonstrably untrue does not make it a lie, or even not true. If it advances my agenda, then its truth or non-truth is not a reliable indicator to whether it is true or non-true.

          Additionally, my opinion on a subject determines its level of truthfullness. Someone who has a differing opinion can be automatically determined to be a liar or worse yet, a corporate toady or government lackey, willing to sell themselves and the future of humanity just to have a differing opinion.

          • I don’t know why you are getting hit with negative votes Ira, your implied sarc must be a bit too subtle.

            You hit the nail on the head. Objective truth doesn’t exist in a lot of people’s estimation and the ends justify the means. When a politician either misspeaks or sincerely states something that is inaccurate, their enemies scream that it was a LIE.

            But you do misinterpret my data. My model proves that those MSM reports were lies. This past month the model says 32.54823% lies. Next month will be 38.847923%

          • ” When a politician either misspeaks or sincerely states something that is inaccurate, their enemies scream that it was a LIE.”

            This is something that has bugged me for years. People, especially about their enemies, conflate untruth with lies. Untruth does not equal lies. A lie is speaking an untruth knowing it is an untruth. If the speaker believes what he says is true, is it is not a lie, it is an untruth. I would agree that possibly up to 30% of what the MSM tells us is untrue, but I wouldn’t put the lies that high. Now I think there should be a special word for when someone says something untrue that they believe to be true and want to be true and don’t want to hear any evidence that it may not be true.

          • That term is “truthy”. The rise of the sea level to engulf New York is obviously non-true, but the truthiness of the author’s statements leave no room for disagreement.

          • “Now I think there should be a special word for when someone says something untrue that they believe to be true and want to be true and don’t want to hear any evidence that it may not be true.”

            The word you are after is bullshit. See: On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt, Princeton University Press 2005

            https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

      • Well, yeah, ‘could be’ is an out-of-jail card. They can’t be wrong. Right.

        It could be the sealevels rise less than a feet before 2070. Equally right. Or actually more right.

      • Percy Jackson

        After 40 years of ‘A’ always being wrong, they should know better. That’s why they are wrong.

        Apart from anything else, the author of this drivel is not qualified even to speculate on sea level rise beyond his own expertise: “Barford, an authority on the “physical internet”.

        He’s doubtless eminently qualified to describe what would happen IF sea level rises. He is not qualified to determine that sea level will do anything over a period of time.

        “Table 1: Timeline of projected Global Mean Sea Level Rise. Data is based off of “Highest” (i.e., most extreme) projections.”

        Using a single source (the most extreme prediction of sea level rise) is patently ridiculous. Particularly as even the IPCC had to reduce it’s predictions of temperature rise, which still isn’t even close to observed temperatures.

        How in goodness name this paper made it past peer review demonstrates there is a real problem with the process.

        • The garbage content of the public discourse has grown to such a level that there is no asinine speculative prediction that doesn’t have some amount of faux-rational support from some number of previously published garbage “research” papers.

        • HotScot –

          “Apart from anything else, the author of this drivel is not qualified even to speculate on sea level rise beyond his own expertise”

          Do you apply the same criteria to those here who claim to know enough about climate science, ecology, plant physiology, etc. to assess research in those areas?

          • As usual, Kristi either misses, or chooses to ignore the point.
            HotScot is not stating that the author is not qualified to comment on this topic because he doesn’t have the proper degrees. That’s your shtick.
            What he’s saying is that the author has missed reality by such a wide margin that ridicule is the only proper response.

          • Kristi Silber

            Many people here are entirely qualified to comment on many subjects on WUWT.

            Which so far, doesn’t include you, as I have yet to see a constructive comment from you. Forgive me if you have made some, but I haven’t seen one.

            Nor do many people on WUWT, other than a select few, publish papers. Most make comment on a blog site, some credible, some not so much. But they are not holding themselves up for examination by a scientific community, they are, however, subject to peer examination here.

            Fewer still have the audacity to publish papers so far beyond their area of expertise that it begs ridicule and demeans the peer review process.

            And as I understand, you may be a scientist, and what should be worrying you more than anything else is that this paper was clearly waved through the peer review process.

            So kindly don’t start pointing the finger at contributors on this site who visit out of genuine concern for what’s going on before sorting out your own professional backyard.

            People don’t get paid to do what they do here. Dave Middleton, Willis, Paul, Tim Ball etc. and, of course, Anthony are not compelled to write articles which, I note, your name is not amongst.

            Perhaps you ought to muster your God-given intellectual ability to write something that’s compelling, persuasive, scientifically sound and interesting, and test it here.

          • Kristi, you would be surprised the percentage of highly qualified scientists and mathematicians who post and analyze here. It is really the reason this much decorated site is the world’s most highly regarded science blog. You are judging based on your visits to Dem Kumbaya blogs funded by the Rockerfeller Foundation and the like. Real (before its marxbrothers corruption) Nobel Prize winners have commented here.

            I believe if you are honest with yourself you will admit to getting a quality education here. Yes, there are non scientific sceptics and contrarians here because it is one of the precious few sites that isnt censored except for multiple violations of unseemly behavior. You and other alarmist visitors generally choose soft targets here which is a “tell”.

            Having said this, you are welcomed here. WUWT has offered to accept articles from any of the warmer proponent scientists, but it seems they fear to take the challenge. You and a number of others who disagree with sceptics at least put your case on the line. Kudos to you.

      • They are neither right or wrong at this point then. But are they likely to be right? and thus should we worry or spend money to stop it happening? No, because their forecasts of sea level rise are absurdly high.

        So fine, they are not wrong, just not worth bothering with.

        • That’s really the crux of it – there is absolutely no value to be had with any of these predictions other than the scare value. They can’t even tell us where we might want to build a dam (in a hundred years or so). No, instead, they push the idea that we can regulate the climate itself – and while doing so, push policies that genuinely cripple the ability to practically deal with any weather event that actually happens.

      • Ohhh, there was an estimate, so he can’t be wrong.
        If I make an estimate that sea levels are going to drop 10 feet tomorrow, would you defend anyone who puts out a warning too all ports that they must increase dredging yesterday based on my “estimate”?

        The “estimate” that seas are going to rise 6 feet in a century is laughable, only someone with no functioning brain cells would make it, or believe it. (Which explains why you defend it.)

        • MarkW

          I have demonstrated on many occasions, on this very site, that I have no functioning brain cells. Are you, therefore, suggesting I would make, or believe, a comment that seas are going to rise 6 feet in a century?

          How dare you, sir!

          My brain cells are merely……well…..resting, awaiting the right moment to strike.

          Perhaps ‘dysfunctional brain cells’ is the term you seek.

          • MarkW

            Ah!……Now, perhaps should have dialled that into my equation.

            Brain cell failure once again. Or is it brain cells floating?

            🙂

            Cheers!

        • MODS

          Any idea why all my comments are going directly to moderation?

          I have changed my browser, I assume that’s why. But why should that matter?

          (Akismet doesn’t like you today, plus you have ZERO approved comments which is another reason why you fell into the Mod bin) MOD

          • MODS

            Without wanting to appear smart, I’m one of the most prolific posters on here, using Opera as a browser. I changed to another browser and I’m persona non grata despite my username and email remaining the same.

            No problem though, it seems to be sorted, I suspect thanks to you.

            (You went from ZERO comments to 756 comments in the last few hours, hmmm….., internet remembers……) MOD

      • Percy, they are wrong because they haven’t taken into account the limitations of the data, made clear by NOAA.
        https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/slr-faq.pdf

        Rich and others, the 3.2 mm/yr avg global rise isn’t relevant here – it’s about coastal inundation in particular areas, which includes vertical land motion, tides, etc. That doesn’t make the paper less sloppy, but there’s no point in making sloppy criticisms, either.

        • What coastal inundation?

          The lunacy is first off taking the worst case projection and then declaring that you are being conservative.
          The second is assuming that nothing can be done in the meantime.

        • Kristi, the vertical land movements are indeed real. Stated in another way, you would be criticizing the study for a clear shortcoming.

        • I confess that my criticism was sloppy. In fact, it is kind of marginally interesting if it is true that critical Internet infrastructure is underground in areas prone to storm surges. (Not the brightest decision even though the ocean isn’t really rising at a significant rate).

          It’s just that I’m allergic to catastrophic predictions that have 15 years to quietly expire. Somebody should create a web site where we can register claims made with dates when they can be checked. It would be really fun to have a running list of expired claims that didn’t pan out. I seriously doubt any of us will be reconsidering this on 7/20/2033. It serves its alarmist purpose today and will soon be in the memory hole.

          • Rich

            There is a website that does just that, record all the lunatic, failed claims of catastrophe made by people like Kristi. It is long, but for the life of me, I can’t remember its name. It’s also been largely abandoned because it’s so long the author gave up.

            On WUWT somewhere in the past few days though.

          • something along the line of global warming causes….. The last time I checked there were hundreds of things. many of them contradictory.

    • You should ask them if they ever get tired of being wrong while they sleep on their bed of money earned by publishing these absurd studies.

    • Who are “these people”? Taking one or a few or even a couple dozen stupid papers and extrapolating to a vague group like “these people” is meaningless. I would caution those who read WUWT against believing all the articles that ridicule or dismiss research, especially those that are about paywalled publications and apparently haven’t been read by the WUWT article writer. It’s very easy to say a scientist is wrong based on a press release and abstract, especially without a good understanding of the system in question or the statistics upon which conclusions are based. For true skeptics, this goes without saying; those who don’t apply equal skepticism no matter what the conclusions are cannot be accurately described as skeptics.

      • “those who don’t apply equal skepticism no matter what the conclusions are cannot be accurately described as skeptics”

        Self awareness and all that.

      • Kristi the legitimate criticism is choosing a catastrophic sea level rise for which there is not the least bit of evidence in the data and stupidly pronouncing the end of the internet. And you are defending him because he is a scientist? He’s only a computer scientist – basically a technician with a PhD. How do his studies, experience and specialized knowlege equip him to forecast rhe end of the internet in 15 years. Would you bet 10 grand on his prognosis proving to be correct?

        See Kristi, if your premise is stupid enough, even if you have a PhD everyone is your peer or even your superior. Example: if an agronomist with a PhD predicted that the moon was made of green cheese. Qualified as he is in dairy science, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker are qualified to call BS on this prediction. Forgetting that there would be no problem in mitigation of such a danger to the internet (doesnt a PhD in this stuff know that?), do you really believe we will soon be gearing up for this mitigation- hey there is only 15 years. No you believe its stupid, too. An honest person picks fights worth having. This isnt one of them.

      • Kristi……..and JUST as I was beginning to feel some compassion for you.
        ……aaargh !….you write this : “For true skeptics, this goes without saying;
        those who don’t apply equal skepticism no matter what the conclusions are
        cannot be accurately described as skeptics.”
        WHEREAS , IT IS DEFINED AS : ” sceptic ( alt.spelling: skeptic )
        a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
        synonyms: cynic, doubter, questioner, scoffer”
        THERE ARE NOT degrees of scepticism ( skepticism)….
        …..it’s a bit like pregnancy ! Either you are or you aren’t……….unless
        you are a MALE ……then you are not a sceptic , you are simply deluded !!
        [ .and as we say in Oz.there ARE a lot of deluded septics (sic.) in the USA ! ]

    • Strange you should say that.

      From page seven of the paper in question:-

      We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. This
      work is supported by NSF grants CNS-1703592, DHS BAA
      11-01, AFRL FA8750-12-2-0328.

      • https://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1703592&HistoricalAwards=false

        Grant money indeed. From the grant abstract linked above…
        “Malicious actors such as hackers, terrorists or nation-states can disrupt, intercept or manipulate the Internet traffic of entire countries or regions by targeting structural weaknesses of the Internet.
        … develops methods to identify components that represent potential topological weaknesses, i.e., compromising a few such components would allow an attacker to disrupt, manipulate, or eavesdrop on a large fraction of Internet traffic of that country.”

        I think hunter (below) is correct. From all appearances it would seem that Paul, his lovely wife Carol and their good friend and former student Ram have fraudulently used public money to enrich themselves and produce a crap piece of propaganda for the big green machine.

      • Is the economic effect of tax-paid funds that are paid out for this kind of garbage so-called “research” any different than the economic effect of guaranteed minimum income payments that are being proposed as a supposed antidote for poverty? I mean, payment for nothing, regardless of what the payment is called is still payment for nothing and such payments degrade the value of the currency that is used to make the payments.

      • Sara, once upon a time I ran a government scientific grants program. Wasn’t near the magnitude of the federal system, either in total size or amount per grant but I did learn how nasty and dishonorable many of the scientists from prominent institutions could be. I fully support cutting federal grants programs to science and the arts by more than half. If scientists suddenly became dependent on corporate or private funding, how different their attitude would be.

        • I previously suggested that all grant awards be in duplicate so that ‘double blind’ studies could be conducted, with the results of both published simultaneously. Take the same pot of money, and fund half as many research topics.

  3. Sigh, another prediction targeted for the dustbin of failure that no one will remember in 15 years but some will believe today. Propaganda by any level of definition.

    • BTW the person who coined the term Propaganda, after it got a bad reputation by Hitler and Stalin (Who used his research), changed the name to Public Relations. (That might explain a whole lot)

  4. I looked at the NOAA website regarding sea level rise and ground stations have reported an average of no rise at all for the last 6 years. Forget 3.2mm

        • No, 3.2mm = 0.01049869ft.

          0.01049869 x 100 years = 1.049ft / century = 1’6”. The decimal fraction has to be multiplied by 12 to convert it to inches.

          • 3.2mm/yr X 100yr = 320mm. That is 12.6″. Not 1′ 7″, not 1′ 6″. It’s 12 and 6/10 inches. That’s just a pinky width more that a foot.

          • Both wrong 🙂

            3.2 * 100 /25.4 = 12.59 inches which is 1foot and 0.59 of an inch.

            1.049 ft = 1 foot and 12 x 0.049 inches = 1 foot and 0.588 of an inch

          • Not quite right yet – 1 foot 6 inches is 1 – 1/2 feet, or 1.5 feet, not 1.05 feet.

          • Convert all imperial measurements to inches and then divide by 2.54cm (= 1″). Damn! What’s with you guys ?

          • Because it is a hell with billion km³ of water, aka billion billion m³, aka Em³, aka Gkm³ (oh horror, don’t do that), aka billion billion metric tons, aka thousand billion billion kg, aka million billion billion g, aka Zg, aka Mm³, aka a few more fathom Manhattans.

            (some of these are wrong)

            And a billion can be 1e12 or 1e9.

            Besides, acre-foots are cute.

          • Why should they? Metric is a purely arbitary system set up by the French during their revolution, where there were 10 days to the week and 10 months to the year. Imperial however is based on human measurements.
            An inch is the width of your thumb. A foot is self-explanatory, a yard is from the centre of the chest to the tips of your outstretched fingers.

          • Do you reckon that the fact that a free-falling massive object falls EXACTLY 16 feet in the first second after it is released may provide something of a hint about how the length of inches and feet were actually determined?
            Especially when you consider that Sir Isaac Newton was involved in the determination of the lengths?

          • Why don’t you Americans just adopt the metric system?

            Because then we’d be more like you.

            No one should want that…

            🙂

          • I live in both systems. I own imperial manual machine tools but I program CNC in millimeters. I think in microinches when diamond turning, microns when 5 axis grinding. Nanometers when measuring wavefronts, angstroms when looking at super smooth surfaces. Miles in my car or motorcycles, kilometers in my ultrarunning. Pounds, kilos, ozs or grams depending on just what it is I’m weighing and what it is for. Body weights should be pounds (or stones!), technical things grams or kilos. Densities of wood – pounds per cubic foot! Rock, either way. Force, energy, torque, etc – whatever floats your boat. And then there are fringes…

          • Similar here. I like to use F for temps around living conditions as it is more precise than degrees C.

          • We are paying homage to our British ancestors who we so admired, despite not caring for their tea. 🙂

          • I can sort of live with linear metric measurements (especially since in the course of my work I deal with people all over the world and measurements they provide for custom work orders are almost always in metric) as I’ve gotten somewhat used to them. Also weights and volumes in metric I’m getting more used to as well. Those kinds of measurements at least do make some sense in the repetition of units of ten.
            But there is one metric unit I simply can’t get used to, nor does it seem to make sense in the way linear, volume and weight units do. Sorry, but when someone says it is 22 degrees outside, I’ll grab a nice heavy coat! That isn’t room temperature to me and never will be.
            IMO Celsius makes little sense for every day temperature measurements. I’ll keep my Fahrenheit, thank you.

          • Seriously, you’re ok with cm, but think Celsius isn’t fit to purpose?

            In Celsius, below freezing is a negative number. Freezing at 0, cold at 5, chilly at 10, bit cool at 15, room temp at 20, comfy at 25, summery at 30, body temp 37, 50s are as high as it gets, boiling water at 100.

            In Fahrenheit, below freezing is below 32. Freezing at 32, cold at 40, chilly at 50, bit cool at 60, room temp at 70, comfy at 75, summery at 85, body temp at 98.6*, 120s are as high as it gets, boiling water at 212.

            How, other than years of familiarity, can Fahrenheit seem more intuitive?

            * Somebody will challenge my math, so let me be clear through example. “Body temperature” is not actually 98.6F as any US school child was taught. Average body temp is about 37C (which of course is not 37.000000 and can range quite normally a degree or so). Small minds make a conversion between an imprecise Celsius value and a precise Fahrenheit value. It would have been more reasonable to teach us that body temperature is 99F. Similarly, I didn’t try to make Fahrenheit seem more unreasonable by using 59, 68, 77, 86, when the round numbers 60, 70, 75, and 85 are perfectly reasonable approximations of the Celsius numbers. The main point is that Celsius is better because it’s easier to know if it’s below or above freezing. We don’t need more precision in temperature than we get from 5C increments.

            Americans can’t get used to Celsius because we try to translate to Fahrenheit instead of just thinking in Celsius. Same story with learning other languages. English is ridiculously irregular but familiar to us.

    • Minor further correction. 0.5 of those 3.2 mm is a fictitious “Global Isostatic Correction” due to the (supposed) increase in ocean basin volume, so it is actually 270 mm/century = 10 5/8 inches.

      • No it is even less. If the seabed sinks 0.5mm/year (actually they say 0.3mm) then the land must rise 1mm/year, because land is less that 1/3 of seabed.

        • No, it doesn’t work like that because that GIA correction is due to isostatic correction from the last glaciation, so it only affects formerly ice-covered areas and adjacent areas.
          But it is almost pure guesswork as far as Antarctica is concerned.

          • Antarctica has lost very little ice since the last glaciation – maybe a little around the coastal fringes. The Vostok Ice Cores are complete going back for 100,000s of years. They don’t have huge gaps where the ice ‘suddenly got thinner at the end of the last glaciation’.

            All that happened at the end of the last glaciation, was that the snowline moved to higher latitudes and to higher elevations. Antarctica, being already at high latitude and high elevation, was largely unaffected by the end of the last glaciation.

    • >>
      Minor correction; 3.2 mm per year = 12.6 inches per century . . . .
      <<

      This is one of the problems with converting between unit systems–how many significant figures do you keep? The value "3.2 mm per year" has two significant figures. The value "12.6 inches per century" has three. To really be correct, you need to round to two significant figures or argue for three. In this case, I'd round up and say 13 inches per century. The value "12.6 inches per century" implies too much precision.

      Jim

  5. What about all that infrastructure that’s already under water – submarine cables?

  6. NOAA tide gauge data for Seattle, New York and Miami shows coastal sea level rise at these locations steady with no sea level rise acceleration indicated in these measured records. Further based on these NOAA coastal sea level rise tide gauge data with data going back more than 100 years at two of these locations in the next 15 years these cities should expect to see between 1.2 to 1.7 inches in sea level rise. This study is climate alarmist garbage.

    • Shhhh!!!
      Only denialust scum Trump supporters in the pay the fossil fuel conspiracy point out that climate alarmists make failed predictions.

  7. In numerous on-line debates with climate change alarmists, I sometimes ask the question….”Why, if the UN IPCC believes so strongly in their own hubris in regard to climate change and rising seas, would the UN pour BILLIONS of dollars into renovating their headquarters in Manhattan when it is only 100 feet or so from the bank of the East River and barely above sea level? You would think they would have just moved to higher ground.” They never answer.

  8. When is the anthropogenically caused sea level rise going to start? I am bored sick with the waiting.

  9. “The peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a comprehensive global map of the internet’s physical structure, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

    Trump should disband NOAA and start a new agency whose specific mandate would be BE NOT to collect or disseminate any information related to climate change nor collect or disseminate any information related to global warming.

  10. This is a brilliant new strategy! Scare the public, at least half of it, that their porn will be ruined by climate change.

    • They might actually gain some traction that way! I can see the headlines now! Wet ones coming….

  11. “4,067 miles of fiber conduit will be under water and 1,101 nodes (e.g., points of presence and colocation centers) will be surrounded by water in the next 15 years.”

    So that’s saying that all that fiber is currently between sea-level and one feet above sea-level.

    To me, one of those times that the numbers seem completely out of whack, time to see how they got that much infrastructure located in such low lying land.

    • Use the Global Climate Fund money to raise all the low-lying cables and “points of presence and colocation centers”. Money well-spent.

    • Really can’t see how they get that many cable miles under 1 foot of sea-level rise.

      New York city & San Francisco seem to have almost no land under water at 1 foot SLR, using this tool:

      https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html

      Even at six foot New York city doesn’t seem to have much land under water, yet they claim 426 miles of cable under water (Table 3). Figure 4 is claiming to show New York but the major area of SLR (blue) is in New Jersey.

      • Yes, the original DARPA design of the Internet was to make it resilient even to nuclear attack. However this capability has been diminished as the network evolved. The main problem is the interconnects provided by the main carriers are vulnerable to single point of failure. Comcast had a major outage (cable cut) on the East coast last week, which broke connections to West coast Comcast hubs for more than 12 hours.

    • I haven’t read read the paper, so what follows is pure speculation:

      Maybe the authors are taking their cue from the Fukushima malfunction where infrastructure placed in a basement got flooded. Perhaps they are thinking the fiber-optic cables in coastal cities are routed through subway tunnels. As the name “subway” reveals, these tunnels are below the surface, often even below sea level. So height of the surface above sea level is irrelevant. What matters are safeguards designed to keep subways from flooding.

      Perhaps they assume that within 15 years sea level rise in the interim will enable a storm surge (driven by a predicted-to-be-extra-powerful hurricane) to flood a city’s subway system and for some reason (perhaps an outage due to over reliance on unreliable renewable power) the sump pumps will fail.

      Of course, we know that people in the affected city will not know that the internet outage they are experiencing on their smart phone is a systemic failure because they will not be able to text each other due to cell towers having no power.

      SR

      • I also wonder if the paper means metropolitan area rather than city, e.g. San Francisco city is meant to be the San Francisco Bay area.

        • Yes, Professor Barford confirmed that the areas were the metropolitan areas rather than the cities. That potentially makes more sense.

          Sloppy mistake to make though, describe the area investigated as the “city” when you mean the metropolitan area, something I would have expected competent peer-reviewers to find.

      • “Our analysis is conservative since it does not consider the threat of severe storms that would cause temporary sea level incursions beyond the predicted average”

        So they are talking about the average SLR.

        And “conservative” even though they are using the “Highest (most extreme) projection” !!!

  12. So what’s the solution? Dig up the cables and put them back on tall poles like they used to do?

  13. Climate porn like this is entertaining, but as a scientist, reading it leaves me feeling dirty and shameful. If we were to actually have rapid sea level rises so fast that humanity and technology couldn’t possibly escape, I get a secret feeling that would be really fun to watch! In reality, relocating internet resources takes only a matter of days, not years. I was once a System Administrator responsible for maintaining a “hot spot” server for an Emergency Operation Center. That in the ancient days of complex, difficult logistics. It would have taken me about 4 hours to relocate the entire EOC to another part of town. Today we can move virtualized servers anywhere in the world in mere seconds. The authors forgot one small thing about the internet: it was designed to re-route itself around any large, gaping holes it might sustain by minor catastrophes such as, say, a nuclear war. Watery basements in Seattle aren’t going to exactly wipe it out. But man, I secretly love reading this stuff! Keep it coming!

  14. That’s wrong. The Internet is stored in a box at the top of Big Ben. The Elders of the Internet will never let it be submerged.

  15. One has to wonder who would be stupid enough to leave infrastructure in place as the sea levels rose.

    Then one considers the target market for such journalism…

    • Leo Smith

      I was one of that target demographic, until I asked myself one simple question: how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

      Man, was that an eye opener!

      Then I asked myself: what gases make up the atmosphere?

      That was even more of an eye opener because finding water vapour included in almost any expression of the atmosphere, on any web site, is well nigh impossible.

      So I ended up here, where I have since been thoroughly educated in many subjects, including Tyndall who “concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

      And whilst I don’t trust Wikipedia, the Royal Institution links directly to this page, from their page on Tyndall.

      And that’s another thing I learned here, don’t trust Wikipedia without credible references.

      Thanks guys.

      • And quite frankly, Mother Nature can take care of herself. Do something to piss her off and she’ll destroy you. Or, more likely, she’ll just correct the imbalance and merrily carry on.

  16. No Internet? .. no electrickery? .. no shopping-bags?

    When the A-bomb went off in Hiroshima, 6th Aug 1945, the power company strung power lines in from the suburbs the very next day, and got the power back on.

    But in New York the IT industry can’t do similar, with 15 years of warning? Gonna take 50 years huh?

    Kinda not buying this half-witted limp-lettuce pet greenie sob-story ‘o doom.

    • The Stupidity of Modern Man

      So, as we find more and more ancient cities buried under the world’s oceans, we argue that instead of being proactive and MOVING our cities AWAY from the rising floodwaters, we should continue building in areas prone to flooding and instead spend TRILLIONS on technology, that will likely fail, to TRY and hold the floodwaters back.

      And, instead of upgrading our crumbling infrastructure with current technology that we know will be viable for 50 years, we waste our resources on TRYING to invent technology that MIGHT work in 20 years. Our decades-old electrical, water, sewage, gas and transportation infrastructure is crumbling, but instead of eliminating the KNOWN risk of it failing NOW, we continue to try to prevent the “wind” from blowing and damaging it decades in the future.

      • For every city that has been drowned, I can find another that used to be a port, but is now miles inland.

        • My point is that the LESS intelligent ancients MOVED long BEFORE their homes were inundated by the sea and river flooding.

          Us smart, moderns seem to think that we can KEEP the water out with our brilliance.

          • Where did you get the idea that they moved before their homes were inundated?
            PS: Every inundated city that I’m aware of was inundated when the ground subsided during an earthquake.
            PPS: If you think the ancients didn’t have trouble with flooding, you have never studied any history.

          • The ones that didn’t move and were drowned came to their evolutionary dead end.

            On the other hand, the Dutch have used their ingenuity to reclaim land from the North Sea for hundreds of years, not without some tragedies along the way mind you. But now, I have to question the sanity of their immigration policies.

  17. …and here I thought most Internet traffic went over fiber. I didn’t know seawater ate fiber optic cable.

  18. No, no Eric, you clearly have not understood. Professor Barford is an ‘authority’, for goodness sake, AND he’s a perfesser AND his paper has been peer-reviewed. Typically, all you have is hard data and actual facts – come on, man, get a grip!

  19. This study is flawed in many ways.

    1) There is no thermodynamic path to 6 feet of sea level rise in 100 years even with the absurdly high estimates of increased average atmospheric temperature over that time. If we could exchange all of the thermal energy in the atmosphere for polar ice melt, the result would be 3” of sea level rise and a global average atmospheric temperature of 0C! Melting ice cools the atmosphere (or sea). The atmosphere above 2.5km is already below 0C! The consensus global average surface temperature is 16C – but only 8C if averaged between the surface and 2.5km. At the depth of a glacial period the consensus average surface temperature is 6C, so melting enough ice to raise sea level by 3” is enough to cool the atmosphere to 6C lower than the coldest point in a glacial period.

    2) The researchers didn’t look at topographic maps. Refer to this link and examine the data for several of the listed cities.

    http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/CountryElevationMap/?ct=US

    How does 6 feet of rise (as extreme as that is) affect the areas shown? The maps show elevations in meters.

    3) The internet we have today, originally developed by DARPA – and evolved to develop TCP/IP, is an open, fault tolerant, packet switched network. It can route around outages. It was designed to stay up in the event of a nuclear strike.

    4) IF these locations were submerged under water along with the internet infrastructure equipment, then we would have other (much larger) problems besides the loss of the internet infrastructure. We would have the loss of homes, roads, power grid, water/sewer, public transportation, etc., etc. Essentially, the locations would be uninhabitable. Relocating the internet infrastructure would be a small fraction of what would need to be relocated.

    Our world seems to be awash in money to fund academics who produce senseless output.

    WW

  20. The concept of zero has long been a bane of humans.
    The authors should look through the work and add a few, as appropriate.

    • Yes, they are rich enough to own homes protected by Flood Insurance backed by Tax Payers.

  21. Communications cable runs under the sea anyway … what, did the idiot Barford think that they hung from invisible skyhooks ?

  22. We are old and infirm but distinctly remember when working for an international telecommunications company in the 1980s that optical fibre carries (the clue is in the name) photons and not electrons. There cannot be electrical faults in an optical fibre. It does not matter if it is under water. Most of it is. It cannot make any difference if the water is deeper.

  23. You forgot that 0.5 mm of the annual sea-level rise is a fictitious “Global Istostatic Adjustment”, so the actual physical rise is well under one foot per century.

  24. I think a short note on the origin of the Internet is in order. It has its roots in DARPAnet, a concept for a network with an extremely decentralized structure and no central nodes, that was developed by DARPA. The idea was for a net that would work irrespective of damage as long as there was a single topologically feasible path between a sender and a receiver. The original intention was to create a command and control net that would survive a nuclear attack.

    So, no, the internet won’t die even if the whole US eastern seaboard is flooded. Not even if it happens overnight (which could happen if there is an island flank collapse in the Canaries or the Azores). There would probably be capacity problems and a lot of sites would be down, but nothing worse.

    Incidentally, why should water damage optical cable? There is no electricity involved and such cable is frequently laid in soil that is regularly wet with no ill effects.

    By the way, if anyone is silly enough to put a server within one foot (or five foot at that) of mean sea level I would expect them to provide for suitable protection, particularly on a coast that is subject to hurricanes.

          • No, contrariwise our political swamp here is almost certainly the most insane and incompetent in the world, North Korea and Zimbabwe included. But it is the only optical cable system I have experience of.

      • From memory … forty years ago submarine repeaters were about 80km apart. I suppose that the distance between submarine repeaters is now much greater. Even forty years ago it meant that all the harbours in the world of whatever size could have optical fibre across them with no underwater electronics.

      • Why don’t they just run a few more fibre optic lines and make the repeaters light powered. I’ve heard that light power is the wave of the future. 🙂

      • Al claims he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” which basically boils down to the same thing – him taking credit for it’s existence. But use the word “invented” and lefties will pounce on you claiming Al never made that claim.

        • True, but the common retort to that statement from an Al Gore supporter is that invented is an accepted synonym for created. The real problem is it takes Mr. Gore five words to say what can more clearly be said with one word. Of course, with a politician, clarity of speech is rarely what they are trying to achieve.

    • Yes, that reminder might also come from the Chicago companies that had IT equipment flooded when a hole was poked in the bottom of the river.

  25. I’m more afraid that “climate change solutions” (which don’t actually solve climate change nor are they solutions) will kill the internet by restricting access to electricity and communications.

  26. Can I suggest a betting fund whereby we bet the maker of such claims large amounts of our money against theirs that the prediction won’t come about? They’d run a mile…

  27. Irrelevant.

    Over the next 15 years, the major Internet components will be constantly in maintenance anyway.

    And many of these components will be obsolete, exchanged for newer developments.

    • But they will still be in danger of sea level rise. They will NOT be relocated AWAY from DANGER. They will NOT be designed to operate UNDER water if they are currently located ABOVE water.

      I do NOT accept that the sea level rise will happen, merely pointing out that even if they BELIEVE that it WILL happen, they won’t do anything to SOLVE the problem, merely do stuff that will make people FEEL good about “addressing” the POTENTIAL threats.

      • Why are you so sure that they won’t be relocated? The companies that maintain the equipment are not stupid. *IF* the sea level starts rising at the proposed levels, the companies will take steps to mitigate the potential damage (with, yes, relocation being a possible mitigation step) long before the water reaches catastrophic levels. When the distance between the equipment and the sea starts noticeably shrinking, only an idiot would not think to take measures to protect the equipment. The seas would have to literally rise over night for them not to.

        • I am talking about those that BELIEVE it WILL happen. I’m sure you agree with me that those people are not the brightest. And those people tend to think that they can CONTROL and CHANGE nature with impunity because they are SO brilliant and all knowing. (Get the sarcasm?)

          Companies are not stupid, but they are often short-sighted. And they are certainly more focused on this year’s bottom-line than actually fixing problems and preparing for disasters. Have you checked our electrical grid and bridges lately?

          • you’re not talking companies with bridges and electrical grid, you’re talking government entities. When your bottom line depends on your equipment working (as would be the case with non-government owned businesses) you make sure your equipment is well maintained and capable of running, because if you don’t you quickly find yourself out of business. In government, you don’t have a bottom line to worry about so it can all go to crap and the bureaucrats won’t care as they’ll still have jobs regardless of what happens.

    • Its interesting that there is no consideration of the inevitable end of the current interglacial, and the associated FALL in sea levels.

  28. Lights will go out because of idiotic climate-change energy policies. Not because of climate change.

  29. We used to see lots of “Given global warming, . . .” studies.

    Now we are seeing “Given sea level rise, . . .” studies.

    “Given ocean acidification, . . .” studies will surely follow.

    • Gamecock, I’m looking forward to, “Given the lack of grant money…. (This study intentionally left blank, but we’re all gonna die!)”

  30. The study, presented here today (July 16, 2018) 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.

    ‘Could be’ like cows could be flyers, but if won’t be, they will not apologize for the false alarm.

    And as we know, the ‘coulds’ in the Greenhouse Effect Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change have an awesome trackrecord. Just check “climatechangepredictions”.

    • “could be” is all they need for INCREASED funding via Other People’s Money. And of course, as the value of the assets they are “managing” increases, so too do their salaries.

    • “…infrastructure that could be submerged by rising seas…”

      Whenever I see this kind of “could be” I always wonder how it compares to “could be struck by lightning” and generally conclude the lightning “could be” is the more likely of the two.

  31. Data centers can be moved. In fifteen years the equipment in a data center will already have been replaced a few times. If sea level rise is a problem it isn’t like it’s going to flood something permanent, irreplaceable, and immovable like the Statue of Liberty.

    • 1. Even the Statue of Liberty can be moved. How do you think it got there from France in the first place?
      2. Yet, instead of doing the SMART thing and building a new data center AWAY FROM DANGER, they just try to STOP NATURE from damaging the data center where it is now. See my comment titled: The Stupidity of Modern Man

      • A new data center costs millions of dollars.
        A little bit of extra protection costs thousands of dollars.

        • Yabut … In fifteen years they will have replaced every part of the data center more than once. Depending on the circumstances, they might even save money by relocating.

          • If they move the center now, they are going to end up building the new one the same as existing one. The only changes will be technology that was about to be replaced anyway.
            The biggest costs are still the building and infrastructure.

          • If they move the center now, they are going to end up building the new one the same as existing one.

            Probably not.

            Industry research company International Data Corporation (IDC) puts the average age of a data center at nine years old.[8] Gartner, another research company, says data centers older than seven years are obsolete. link

            The building is usually leased so you bail when the lease is up. Every part of the infrastructure is fair game for upgrading.

        • “A little bit of extra protection costs thousands of dollars.”? How “little bit” is the “extra protection” to keep a few feet of sea water out of your equipment room?

          And as Mark W points out below, the cost of a new data center is mainly the building since the equipment is going to be replaced over the next few years anyway. You build the building and then migrate as you replace equipment. I know that isn’t EXACTLY how you do it, but the concept is that instead of putting band-aids on the existing facilities, you SOLVE the problem that THEY believe in by moving the facility.

          I do NOT believe any of these scenarios are likely, but I keep asking the people of New Orleans: What part of BELOW sea level do you NOT understand?

          • Since it will take hundreds of years for the sea to rise enough for anyone to have to worry about “feet of sea water” in your equipment room, why spend the money now?

  32. Is the Atlantic cable still around? Or did that giant white shark eat it?

    Doesn’t this fall into the category of ‘Dumb and Dumber”? This dope hasn’t heard of wireless stuff yet? If NYC loses its internet service, I’d like to know how that’ll happen, because Sandy was such a massive threat — gonna have 3 feet of water in the streets!!!!! Panic attack!!!! – and Mayor Doofus 1a(DW) threatened anyone on the street with arrest, like the brilliant moron he was, when the actual water depth was about 2 inches (count ’em) and Sandy mostly just flooded and damaged New England.

    It gets more and more hysterical every time one of these ridiculous creatures publishes something. Might as well be on Jerry Springer’s show, except he lost out to the hysterics of the cackle festivities on ‘The View” (another bunch of people who sit on their brains).

    Someone is keeping track of these attacks of The Sillies, for which I’m grateful. I would like to live long enough to see these money-grubbing, attention-seeking little twits brought to a screeching halt by reality. I hope that someone, some day, cuts the funding down to a sensible level, for weather-related stuff like an improved Doppler radar system and better WEATHER forecasting.

    End of rant. Weekend’s coming up. I will enjoy it. It’s raining in my kingdom (finally), and that’s good enough for me.

    Oh, yeah: WOLF!!! WOLF!!! WOLF!!! Oh, look! Sandwiches!

    • Is the Atlantic cable still around?

      The world is literally girded by undersea cables. link, link

      The technology keeps advancing and I have no idea what comes next. So far we’ve had wire, radio, microwave networks, satellite, optical fiber.

  33. “Table 1: Timeline of projected Global Mean Sea Level Rise. Data is based off of “Highest” (i.e., most extreme) projections.”

    What part of extreme scenario analysis do you NOT get?

    • Do you truly believe that the sea will rise by 6 ft. by 2100 ?? Thats not “extreme”, it’s %#&*!^$ impossible !

    • Steven Mosher. Are you quoting from NOAA or the article?

      I haven’t read the article and don’t intend to. The key to me would be whether the author(s) fairly identified the slr projections used as the “extreme” scenario defined by NOAA. If it’s buried in a table somewhere, in a footnote or appendix, then that doesn’t qualified as fair.

      The press, who distributes drivel like this article, doesn’t deal with nuances such as the language you quoted. They just repeat a press release without comment or analysis. The target audience is the general public who will not delve into the nuances. The article’s conclusions will be repeated by the popular press and alarmist commentators as another revelation of the deep do-do we’ve inflicted on ourselves.

      So you’re point is fair only if it’s clear from the material released to the public. Otherwise the authors are intentionally playing into hands of a gullible popular press, following a well-worn PR pattern..

    • Mosher…If you lived your life guided by the ‘most extreme projections’, you would not be able to leave your house. Nor would you be able to stay in it!

      Ironically, if you attempted to live your life guided by the ‘most extreme projections’ of things, it would make your life completely miserable and very likely destroy you. Why in the world would you defend such nonsense for society, unless your goal was to destroy it?

    • “What part of extreme scenario analysis do you NOT get?”

      The one where they say their analysis is conservative…..

      “Our analysis is conservative”…….

    • I didn’t realize “extreme scenario analysis” meant “physically impossible in that time scale scenario analysis”

    • SM,
      By definition, an extreme scenario is the least probable. Unless it is cost effective, engineers don’t design to the least probable . That is, dams are built to withstand maybe a 100 or 500 year flood, but not a maximum possible flood nor even a 1,000-year flood because the dam isn’t expected to last 1,000 years. One has to exercise a little thought and cost-benefit analysis, which seems a foreign concept to climate alarmists. Further, as Chauncey Starr has demonstrated, people are quite willing to accept risk (financial costs) in direct proportion (actually it is a log-log relationship) to the perceived benefits.

    • Hey Mosh
      Back again and you believe all the drivel that these clowns dredge up never respond with any reasons to back up this rubbish .
      Can you not see that the sea level cannot and will not rise at the rates that this 12 year old brain with a BS is writing and publishing .
      AS I stated there is absolutely no proof that the global climate temperature will rise by 4C by the end of the century and you have not posted one single fact to prove your belief that it will .
      Tide gauges through out the world show no acceleration in sea level rise at this time .
      Scientists have calculated that during the melting of the land based ice at the end of the ice age 10K years ago that sea levels did not rise anywhere as fast as this clowns predicts .
      Come back with some proof Mosh .

      • “Hey Mosh
        Back again and you believe all the drivel that these clowns dredge up never respond with any reasons to back up this rubbish .
        Can you not see that the sea level cannot and will not rise at the rates that this 12 year old brain with a BS is writing and publishing .”

        1. I see no evidence that such a rise is IMPOSSIBLE.
        2. Physically, such a rise is POSSIBLE.
        3. Whether it is PROBABLE or not, is immaterial to SCENARIO analysis

        AS I stated there is absolutely no proof that the global climate temperature will rise by 4C by the end of the century and you have not posted one single fact to prove your belief that it will .
        1. Science does not deal in PROOF
        2. Scenario analysis does not deal in PROOF
        3. if you want PROOFS please see math, logic, and geometry

        Tide gauges through out the world show no acceleration in sea level rise at this time .
        Scientists have calculated that during the melting of the land based ice at the end of the ice age 10K years ago that sea levels did not rise anywhere as fast as this clowns predicts .
        Come back with some proof Mosh .

        1. Tide guages are wholly innaccurate and poorly located for global averages.

        Here is the point you guys do not get.

        I will use an example from a similar feild ( operations research)

        Lets take war planning. Circa 1985

        As analysts we were given the following scenario.

        1. Half of our forces are tied up in a war on the Korean peninsula
        2. The soveits attack in the fulda gap.
        3. We have ZERO help from defense suppression: meaning we had to fight through
        ground based SAM bridgades.

        Those were the assumptions: Crazy. never guna happen in a million years. we all knew
        it was an extreme case. two front war.

        The job was GIVEN the scenario, explain what the outcome would be in the fulda gap given

        A) having airplane X in the force structure
        B) having airplane Y in the force structure
        c) having airplane Z.

        This and the paper in question requires SCENARIO analysis. SCENARIO analysis typically
        accepts some assumptions ( like best case and worst case) and calculates what those
        futures would look like, as best as you can.

        So we decided that a Stealthy plane was required to meet that Soveit threat.
        Turns out the real threat was 747s running into buildings.

        What do they do, these authors

        1. They take the EXTREME CASE of 6 feet by century end
        2. They dont ask if this is probable. they just follow through on the analysis.
        3. They look at geography
        4. They conclude a 1 foot rise, will innundate a good amount of infrastructure

        conclusion:

        IF, we see 1 foot by 2030, the internet is in trouble. Moreover, if we 1 foot in 30 years, its in trouble, 50 years or 100 years.. the geographical analysis is more important that
        their assumption that we will see 1 foot by 2030.

        Nothing wrong with this scneario analysis. Its like saying, IF yellowstone
        blows then you have 2 feet of ash in San fran. Thats good to know. Thats why you DO
        scenario analysis

        The proper response is pretty effin simple:

        IF, you think the scenario (1 ft by 2030) is low probablity ( we wont see a foot by 2030), Then you dont take any action. Simple.

        However, the really interesting thing about the study is that 1 foot ( regardless of how long that takes ) does a lot a damage. THAT is the key finding.

        What’s that mean?

        If you are building internet infrastructure, and you have a choice, make sure you plan for a SAFETY FACTOR. If you can dont put your infrastrure where it will be under water if the SLR is a few feet. Wanna be really safe, do go putting any NEW critical infrastructure
        in areas that a few feet above ASL

        • Well then doesn’t this admission:

          Those were the assumptions: Crazy. never guna happen in a million years. we all knew it was an extreme case.

          Contradict these premises:

          1. I see no evidence that such a rise is IMPOSSIBLE.
          2. Physically, such a rise is POSSIBLE.
          3. Whether it is PROBABLE or not, is immaterial to SCENARIO analysis

          Such that 1) no one should care one whit about what the author is claiming and 2) you contradict your own assumptions?

          If “never guna happen in a million years” scenarios are allowed, then:

          What about the scenario where we’re all wrong, and space aliens and sky fairies actually do exist, are hostile, planning to invade our rear ends, place us all in pods and use us for electrical power in the Matrix?

          In such a case, why develop any new internet infrastructure at all? Shouldn’t we rather pull up the covers and hide awaiting our inevitable fate?

        • To get that kind of sea level rise, temperatures would have to rise on the order of 5 to 10 degrees, and that is not possible.
          So the those levels of SLR simply aren’t possible.

        • Mosh,

          You said, “3. Whether it is PROBABLE or not, is immaterial to SCENARIO analysis.”

          What you don’t get is that if the scenario is improbable, you are on a fools errand and wasting time and resources. Now, if you are on the clock, and getting paid to do a fools work, do it, but look for another job or boss. In order to be useful, scenarios should have a reasonable probability of occurring, such as being within one or two standard deviations of the most probable event.

          As an example, if one were to propose a scenario of the sun becoming a supernova tomorrow, calculate the availability of drinking water. It is immaterial because there won’t be any humans to consume the water. It should be obvious that it is a waste of time to engage in things that are extremely low probability or pure speculation, and even more so when the low probability event completely changes the game. There are more important things to worry about.

          However, what is egregious about the work by Barford is that he presents a low-probability event (scenario) as reasonable and draws unwarranted conclusions from it. The uncritical reader is left with the impression that our internet infrastructure is at risk from AGW/climate change. The proper conclusion is that when pigs fly, and the extreme scenario actually occurs, there may be problems unless internet providers observe accelerated SL rise a couple of years before the pigs start flying around.

          You are out of touch with reality!

        • Hey Mosh ,You did answer well done .
          Why don’t you see that this is so over blown that every one with a brain can see that this guy is stupid .Look at the FACTS Mosh .
          The sea level is not accelerating and at the claimed rate of sea level rise 3.2 mm per year ( which is open to debate ) in 82 years the sea might have risen 262 mm just over 10 inches not really enough to get your knickers in a twist .
          This is an absolute waste of time and most internet connections will be by wifi sooner than later.
          If we took this to the limit New Zealand would be almost deserted because the last global supernova eruption was Taupo and it covered the central North Island with ash and pumice.
          It could rumble back to life any time but why worry,there are monitors in place and odds are it never will but the odds are 100 times greater than the scenario that this clown is presenting

          • The inundation could come within 15 years. “That was a little bit unexpected,” said study co-author Paul Barford, professor of computer sciences at the University of Wisconsin. “We sort of expected that it might be parceled out over a longer period of time, but that’s not the case.”

            So they took the most extreme projection and they were surprised by SLR being sooner than later!!

  34. Claim: Sea Level Rise will Kill the Internet in Fifteen Years

    After adjustments.

    It is well known for example that after adjustments Manhattan’s West Side Highway has been submerged under the Hudson River for the last decade.

    Adjustments are amazing things.

    • “Adjustments are amazing things.”

      This reminds me of a comment made by someone else on a previous thread to the effect that they were afraid that if they keep making adjustments to cool past temperatures, their grandparents will freeze to death and their parents will never be born.

  35. Wow, this guy is almost as stupid as a social psychologist who goes all in for climate catastrophism.

  36. The Stupidity of Modern Man

    So, as we find more and more ancient cities buried under the world’s oceans, we argue that instead of being proactive and MOVING our cities AWAY from the rising floodwaters, we should continue building in areas prone to flooding and instead spend TRILLIONS on technology, that will likely fail, to TRY and hold the floodwaters back.

    And, instead of upgrading our crumbling infrastructure with current technology that we know will be viable for 50 years, we waste our resources on TRYING to invent technology that MIGHT work in 20 years. Our decades-old electrical, water, sewage, gas and transportation infrastructure is crumbling, but instead of eliminating the KNOWN risk of it failing NOW, we continue to try to prevent the “wind” from blowing and damaging it decades in the future.

    • Yes, there are a growing number of finds in this area: Ancient cities submerged by rising seas from glacial melt at the end of the last glacial period. Here is another interesting example:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

      For every site found, I speculate there are many that will never be found.

      The current Quaternary Ice Age is 2.5M years old – and there have been over 50 glacial/interglacial periods during that time. So, this oscillation of sea level by up to 430 feet is not a new thing.

      Modern science has known it for ~100 years. It has been injected into popular culture for at least 40 years by alarmists. Our “leaders” (politicians, Hollywood, etc.) run around Chicken-Little-Fashion telling us the deluge is coming. Do they believe it?! Search for coastal cities in the US that have placed a moratorium on building along the coast. The result: ZERO municipal governments have slowed or restricted development due to SLR fears. Banks are still financing construction. Insurance companies are still insuring coastal properties. People are not panic-selling their coastal homes to the first “idiot” who will take them off their hands. In fact, coastal property sales are still robust. It is reported that Al Gore purchased a $9M ocean-view mansion in Montecito, CA in 2010. So, do they believe it? Listen to what they say and then look at what they do.

      The appropriate response to the SLR panic is an eye-roll and a yawn.

      • There are no ancient cities submerged by glacial melt. There were few cities at that time.
        What we are talking about is closer to hunting and fishing camps.

        • We can agree there were “hunting and fishing camps”. But it is clear the humans of that time would have had to move their “camps” as the sea level rose – so I’m not sure my points are affected.

          Regarding archaeology, we don’t know everything about history conclusively, so I won’t take a strong position on this, but will add that there seems to be reasonable evidence that our understanding of human history is incomplete (if not flawed). (Climate studies are not the only branch of science tainted with the demand to adhere to orthodoxy.) Clearly, it would not be easy to find cities under the ocean should they be there. The BBC link I provide above offers some support of a possible city. There are others. 2 other examples of older cities (not submerged) are Jericho and Göbekli Tepe.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

          Any civilization (or band of humans), around before 6,000 BCE and living near the sea, were dealing with ~1.5m SLR per 100 years.

          Historically, humans (and all life on Earth) have dealt with the large change in living conditions that go with the glacial/interglacial cycles. Our civilization has ignored or forgotten the lessons. Will we have a “miracle” and never have to deal with these changes again? If not, then our coastal cities might experience flooding at the current SLR rate given enough time. Or, if not, then our northern infrastructures will be bulldozed by a 10,000-foot-tall wall of ice in a few thousand years after the next glacial period starts.

      • Gore’s home in Montecito is not near sea level. It does have an ocean view from its high elevation, however. At one time he did own a condo in SF close to sea level. I don’t know if he still does.

        • Agreed – that’s why I said “ocean view” instead of beach-front. He will have the perfect vantage point from which to watch the show: his neighbors down below drowning in the deluge.

    • Or worse, wasting money and resources trying to prevent climate change.

      ‘An ant can’t move a rubber tree plant… but he’s got HIGH hopes.’

  37. As an engineer, if I published something this outrageously wrong related to my field I would be asked to appear before the local licensing body. I would be asked to explain myself and probably have my license suspended and be forced to pay a fine. Scientists, journalists and teachers should face similar repercussions as so called professionals. It might force more rigor.

    • In this Brave New World the advocacy powers have already worked ahead of you to corrupt the licensing body. You will find that out the hard way if you push on the issue.

  38. This author is the poster child for
    “Alarmist”
    Noun
    A person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.”

    “Someone who exaggerates a danger and so causes needless worry or panic.”

    both from good dictionaries.
    Why are funding liars and charlatans?

    • Ground Water: BINGO!

      My preferred resource about current sea level rise (SLR) is Nils-Axel Morner. Morner’s research shows the actual EUSTATIC sea level rise is closer to 1mm/yr. Forget the bogus dataset discontinuity and alarmist calculations claiming 3mm/yr.

      Furthermore, we know the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing and that the Greenland Ice Sheet is essentially unchanged over the past 120 years (99.7% of what it was 120 years ago). So, the water to fuel sea level rise is not coming from the polar ice. Where is it coming from then? Since the early 1800’s there have been reports of mid-latitude glacier melt and retreat. So sure, some comes from this, but the amount of water stored in all of the mid latitude glaciers is less than 1% of the fresh water on Earth. Ground water is 30% of the freshwater. Polar ice is about 68%. The amount of ground water is sufficient to explain the eustatic SLR. Ground water sourced from melting glaciers at the end of the last glacial period takes thousands of years to filter through the ground and return to the sea. Man-kind, through use of ground water, has accelerated this at local points (cities/regions). The ground subsides in these locations thus adding to the apparent SLR (but not eustatic).

      This study supports the theory about ground water as a major source of SLR. The study works with the “consensus” 3mm background SLR rate, but if we use Morner’s 1mm eustatic rate, then the study’s claimed 0.8mm SLR from ground water lines up nicely.

      https://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/groundwater-development-flow-modeling/groundwater-depletion-linked-to-rising.html

      Measuring sea level is not like measuring water in a drinking glass. The target is moving, and the target is different at each location all over the world. Some factors: Isostatic rebound, local ground-water-subsidence, silt build up, shore line changes, sea floor changes, sea current changes, wind current changes, temperature changes, tidal changes, etc. That’s why some tide gauges show the sea rising and some show it falling. In some cases, gauges that are in close proximity to each other show contradictory slopes or rates.

      SLR panic is Chicken-Little selling fear to the weak minded.

  39. The world has changed. I can feel it in the air. Darkness spreads over the land. And there is the lingering uneasiness that you’re not sure if “research” is real or just another sort of prank designed to test the system.

  40. Maybe they are alluding to the 100-year old steam pipes that explode in NYC. This is just another excuse to get someone else to pay for neglected pipes.

    • Possibly the failure of the 100 year old steam pipe was the result of failure of a $100 steam trap. Failed maintenance? Water hammer in a steam supply system is serious.

  41. Why don’t they just use the more direct approach with the key words “New Orleans” and “levee boards?”

  42. I have a rebuttal for Policy Makers: If the infrastructure of the Internet begins to be threatened by rising sea levels………………………..MOVE IT!

    It would be like trying to get out of the way of a rampaging snail. It is likely that the infrastructure will naturally evolve away from any problem with sea level regardless of any problem with sea level. Whatever they are using now will be obsolete in 15 years, and the industry will have moved to something better and more efficient on its on.

    • well said Jim. Why do people assume things won’t change between now and then? The closer the water gets to the equipment (it’s not going to rise the full 15 year amount over night) the more the owners of said equipment will consider mitigation strategies, including moving the equipment to a better location.

  43. I sent Paul Barford (study leader) a cordial e-mail with questions (pb@cs.wisc.edu). Will let you all know if I get a reply. However, if you go to NOAA’s DigitalCoast website (https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/) which is where the study’s authors got their flooding information, it seems the sea level rises are data points one can enter into the system (to see resultant flooding), and not necessarily “projections.”

    • More cordial than this?

      “Dear Paul, you idiot. Please tell me how you can be so stupid and/or dishonest. Thank you.”

  44. If the areas near the sea get flooded, then the people will leave, and there won’t be any need for internet in those areas, so the fact that the cables also get flooded will be meaningless.
    As to backbones, the internet was designed to be flexible. Losing one or two won’t bring it down, and besides, they can be replaced.

    Regardless, at present rates, the seas are only going to rise 40 to 45 mm in the next 15 years, at an absolute max. That’s not enough to flood anything.

  45. We may have a classic example of what peer review really means.

    Figure 1 of the paper has four maps and the bottom left is described as Los Angeles, however I think it’s the San Francisco bay area. When you zoom the image you can see the green dots of the infrastructure surrounding the SF bay.

  46. Here in Maine where we have lots of coastline, the tidal gauge in Portland Harbor read exactly the same in 2014 as it did in 1947. The businesses on Commercial Street
    no more than 6 feet above the water occasionally have to deal with patrons getting their feet wet during storm surges but day in day out they do just fine.

  47. What is WRONG with you people! Some comments here are every bit as bad as you’d get on any Warmist Cult site. You’re aiming at the wrong target.
    A. The thing is about infrastructure siting for transocean fiber cable termination. Transition from seabed fiber to land fiber.
    B. The guy has every right to publish targeted conjecture based on ‘Worst case’ (sea level + storm surge) scenario as provided by EXPERT sources. He doesn’t need to be a climate scientist.
    C He’s a college professor and higher ed is in real trouble. Publish or Perish is true and a fact, no matter what and getting worse.
    – Never mind the whole thing is redundant because the terminal site owner/operators would have plans in place for that eventuality.

    The focus of derision should be put on those sources. And the need to go gonzo in any paper you write in order to get reviewed and published.

    If he tells the truth and the paper says ‘Hey, 97 % likelihood this wont need attention till 2050, at least,’ who’s gonna take it serious enough to publish it?

    • No one gets a free pass, because “they are just doing their job”, or just – whatever. No excuses.

    • “B. The guy has ever right to publish”

      And we have every right to ridicule published papers that are ludicrous in their assumptions and prescriptions.

    • “B. The guy has every right to publish “

      And everyone has the right to comment on that publication (including pointing out how impossible the scenario is given the real world sea level data), regardless if you approve of those comments or not.

    • Yep.. all that is true… but like I said, the problem is in the system, not in the de-facto REQUIRED paper.
      Who knows… perhaps it’s really a left-handed slap at the chicken little cult.
      Especially since it’s redundant and the operators are responsible for flooding contingencies.
      No government notification/response should be necessary.

  48. Roughly two inches in 15 years would be too generous since it includes the questionable adjustments of satellite altimeters to account for the imagined sinking of the level of the ocean floor – something of entirely no relevance to our concerns. More like one inch in fifteen years of ocean rise if current reliable tide gauge trends continue. So some unmentioned, bed-wetting nightmare has driven this computer scientists to imagine that an inch of sea level rise is actually 12 inches (compensating for something?) and that that the people who manage communication infrastructure aren’t smart enough to adjust their build over the next fifteen years to the same rate of sea level rise that has taken place throughout the entire Industrial Age.

  49. And…paging Jim Hansen…the Major Degan pkwy is still NOT underwater. These guys are never held accountable for their projections.

  50. Yawn.

    Throw this one on the trash heap with all the other failed climate catastrophe predictions.

  51. It seems to me that the internet is killing sea level rise. Fake sea level rise that is.

  52. Wait, I thought the repeal of the “Net Neutrality” rules already destroyed the Internet.

  53. From FAQs of the Digital Coast Sea Level Rise Viewer, which I take it is where the data are from:

    “These scenarios begin in the year 2000 (versus 1992 in the previous version) and take into
    account global mean sea level rise, regional changes in ocean circulation, changes in Earth’s
    gravity field due to ice melt redistribution, and local vertical land motion.
    A relative sea level rise change adjustment to the current National Tidal Datum Epoch (1983-
    2001) will cause a minimal offset that may be needed for some applications. The U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers sea level rise calculator can correct for this offset.
    Based on the accuracy of the elevation and tidal surface data used as mapping inputs, users
    should round to the nearest one-foot mapping increment to view potential impacts.”
    https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/slr-faq.pdf

    This is a sloppy paper, and I wonder if it would pass peer review. The rounding error alone makes it suspect – even NOAA says it shouldn’t be used for planning purposes (“The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool.”). That said, it’s important to realize that the data incorporate vertical land motion , so the global average SLR of 3.2 mm does not apply. The fact that king tides are already regularly inundating parts of the east coast even without severe storms makes the idea slightly more plausible, but overall it still seems scientifically weak.

  54. …Just as we were neck deep in Horse-bucky at the turn into 1900, and how all the banking system failed, and planes dropped out of the sky when it turned midnight on the last day of 1999.

  55. This claim is constructed using a propaganda rule I call “The Frightened Animals of Bambi’s Forest Flee In Terror”. The rule is so aptly named no explanation is necessary. I’m clever that way.

  56. 15 years eh?
    Now at last we have some optimism from these climate folks
    I was sure that Windows 10 would have it completely wrecked before Christmas

  57. The 3.2mm/year is only a measure of the water in the oceans, not the hight relative to land.
    The relative MSL rises between 1.5 to 2mm/year and that is the important measure.

  58. WTF are these so called Professors on these days!
    Another on BBC claims this:
    The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has changed forever
    In 2013, the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was measured at 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time, at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By May 2016, it had hit 400ppm at the South Pole too.
    Prof Tony Ryan, Director of the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, says: “This is having a profound effect on us and on future generations, and we’re never going to go back. So, in 1962 when I was born, it was 320ppm, 0.03%, now it’s 0.04%… those numbers will pan out to climate change, and climate change will mean that we have to change the way we live.”
    [ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2CVVqFNMPpYNGKbHzlZPjTC/7-extraordinary-things-science-has-discovered-in-the-last-decade%5D

  59. Well, this explains Al Gore’s activism.
    He’s not out to save the Planet. He’s out to save the Internet he invented.

  60. Folks, if you want to know when the seas are really rising, check the real estate pages in SOCAL and Florida. When Barbra Steisand’s Malibu estate is on the market for $100,000, you need to move to Colorado.

  61. As I see it, If Al Gore invented the internet, he should also be able to invent a floating internet. You know, like the floating wind generators! After all, he’s got all the answers (NOT).

  62. No way can sea level rise destroy the internet in 15 years. Sea level rise of 2 millimeters per year is more likely but not entirely accurate. The best estimate is by Chao, Yu, znc Li (Science, April 11th 2008). They corrected the measured sea level rise for water held by artificial reservoirs built since 1900. When corrections were applied the sea level rise curve it became linear for the previous eight years. Anything that has been linear this long is not about to change anytime soon. The corresponding slope was 2.48 millimeters per year. This gives a sea level rise of justt under 10 inches per century, not a hazard to the internet

    • Then there’s 5G internet (or even 6G).
      The multiplexers are on towers on the top of hills.
      So the internet will still be operating long after the users are submerged…

    • Unfortunately when talking about whether the internet is going to get inundated or not, average sea level rise is pretty close to meaningless.
      This one instance in which local tide gauges are the only thing that matter.
      If the land is rising or falling is absolutely critical in knowing how long until the sea reaches something in that area.

      This another reason why this “study” is completely useless. For each piece of internet infrastructure, you need to measure how the tides are changing in that area, and then calculate a time from for that spot and that spot only. Then move on to the next spot.

      This study is just another attempt to gin up scary headlines without bothering to do the actual work needed to figure out what is really happening.

  63. Google and Facebook have done more to kill the internet than anything I have seen through censorship. Twitter is on track for the same.

  64. What will kill the internet is advertising. When I have to wait more than 5-10 seconds watching advertising before I can watch a video, I don’t bother waiting for the video. At my age, I buy what I buy, no amount of advertising will get me to switch from toothpaste X for toothpaste Y.

    • Davis,
      I find it interesting that billions of dollars are spent on advertising/marketing, and yet Hollywood de-Nyes that their violent movies or video games have any impact on homicide rates or choice of weapons. It seems to me that either marketing people or Hollywood actors are out of touch with reality. That can’t both be right!

  65. This is what happens when someone takes a nonsensical computer model and then assumes nothing in the world will change except what someone programmed the computer to spit out.

  66. It always amazes me how these people fail to understand how difficult it is to have dynamics change so suddenly to cause such rapid acceleration in rate . The only “tipping point” around is the one at 273.15 — and that’s smeared over latitude and salinity .

    A reason there is the difference between tide gages and satellites ( if the satellite estimations are correct ) may be that they measure mid-ocean deep water where thermal expansion may cause the rate to be higher than shallow water in shore where the same thermal expansion has little effect . I believe this has been worked out .

  67. So 1.5 decades is the new “century”? Got it. Wait, what? “… in as soon as 15 years”.

  68. Computer Science Professor Paul Barford
    is a stupid-head. He should get a T-shirt
    that says that.

    There is no acceleration
    of sea level rise based on tide gages —
    the current rise rate is 6 to 8 inches a century,
    not one foot in 15 years.

    I read the article, but not the paper,
    which I’m sure was a deeper pile of BS.

    When you are a leftist, you can make up
    any scary story about climate change,
    get it published, and have no questions
    or negative feedback from fellow leftists,
    since you are supporting the “cause”.

    There must be a competition among leftists
    for the scariest climate change fairy tale.

    Killing the internet in 15 years is a good fairy tale.
    But the author will still be alive in 15 years —
    he should have said 30 years.

  69. It will need new government departments local and national to deal with this problem. ” Parkinson’s Law” C Northcote Parkinson.
    will create many supporting roles for sub departments. If it never happens these people will still have jobs and have to be redeployed..

  70. But Professor Barford claims this absurd estimate of 1ft every 15 years is an official NOAA scenario.

    According to this report, NOAA is merely reflecting other “peer reviewed” literature to explore future scenarios:

    In order to bound the set of GMSL rise scenarios for year 2100, we assessed the most up-to-date scientific
    literature on scientifically supported upper-end GMSL projections, including recent observational and
    modeling literature related to the potential for rapid ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica. The projections and results presented in several peer-reviewed publications provide evidence to support a physically plausible GMSL rise in the range of 2.0 meters (m) to 2.7 m, and recent results regarding Antarctic ice-sheet instability indicate that such outcomes may be more likely than previously thought.

    To ensure consistency with these recent updates to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we recommend a revised ‘extreme’ upper-bound scenario for GMSL rise of 2.5 m by the year 2100, which is 0.5 m higher than the upper bound scenario from Parris et al. (2012) employed by the Third NCA (NCA3). In addition, after consideration of tide gauge and altimeter-based estimates of the rates of GMSL change over the past quarter century and of recent modeling of future low-end projections of GMSL rise, we revise Parris et al. (2012)’s estimate of the lower bound upward by 0.1 m to 0.3 m by the year 2100.

    In other words, they took the already scary model outputs and revised them upwards. 2.7 meters by 2100 will get you at least 1 foot every 15 years between now and 2100.

    This appears to be built in to the NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer.

    If you look at page 12 of the linked document (page 22 in the PDF file), it shows a graph of the four SLR scenarios (“lowest”, “intermediate low”, “intermediate high”, and “highest”) [Parris et al. (2012)]. The “lowest” one is essentially a continuation of the historical SLR, which means that 2100 global mean sea level will be about 20 cm higher than 1992. the “intermediate low” scenario projects 50 cm rise; the “intermediate high” projects about 110 cm, and the “highest” scenario projects 200 cm. These are the estimates NOAA started with, and then found reasons to adjust upward.

    So it appears that what Professor Barford is calling an “official NOAA scenario” is the most extreme worst possible case scenario anyone can justify to what is laughingly called the “peer review community”.

Comments are closed.