Once again, Warmists just can’t help themselves.
Flooding the system: Climate change could knock the Internet offline
(Yammering about losing contact during Hurricane Katrina)
The Internet may not be a true necessity like food or shelter, but Brown’s story illustrates how important a decent connection is in the event of a disaster. While the global Internet seems a genuine model of resilience, events like Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012 have shown how quickly it can break down on a local level. With climate change set to increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather, there is a fear that extreme events could unpredictably wreak havoc on parts of the Internet.
Yet, it hasn’t. We’ve been hearing this for decades, yet, there has been no increase in intensity nor frequency. The weather is always doing things, anway.
The Internet depends on buildings, wires, servers and conduits. And that physical infrastructure is just as vulnerable as any other. That has government, industry and nonprofits all working to build sturdier infrastructure before the next catastrophic storm hits.
With temperatures rising and sea levels mounting, storms like Katrina will become both more common and more dangerous, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment. A stretch of the East Coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts will be especially vulnerable to storm surge — a wall of ocean water pushed onto shore — as it experiences considerably greater sea level rise than the worldwide average, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study. Other parts of the country will continue to see increases in flooding, droughts and wildfires, detrimentally affecting critical infrastructure.
Again, this hasn’t happened, and, even if it did, there is no proof that it would be mostly/solely caused by human activities (other than tampering with the raw data, that is)
After Hurricane Sandy, New York City moved to assert greater regulatory control over telecom companies that operate in the city. It’s pushing for greater oversight at the federal and state levels too. The city is working with telecom companies to receive more information about outages — a major blind spot during Sandy.
Huh. More government control of private industry and the means people use to communicate. Huh. Imagine that.
Teach can you explain why putting solar on house roofs is giving the government more control than they already have with government regulated power companies?
The conservative International Energy Agency predicts an eventual cost of solar power to be 4 cents a kilowatt and with storage 6.4 cents. Teach what do you currently pay ?
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/03/solar-power-costs-headed-toward-4ckwh/
What do you think fossil fuels will cost in 2050?
And yes fossil fuels do fund the GOP and like most of the GOP policies it is on a downward slope.
Of course, that figure from john is for brand new panels assuming maximum efficiency. In reality, the panels come nowhere close to the rated power output even when new.
But maybe john can tell us how his solar panels are doing.
You do have solar panels installed on your home, right john? You did this because of your commitment to the environment that you want everyone else to take on so you were in the vanguard of leadership in this. Of course, it is such an important strategy that you paid for the costs of the panels and installation yourself, forgoing any tax breaks or rebates of other people’s money.
Don’t worry john, we know you don’t have panels and are only interested in making others do what you will not.
With more and more people going to internet connections via satellite, you’d think this would be a diminishing, not increasing, concern.
John, How do fossil fuels fund the GOP? Only the GOP? This should be interesting if not laughable.