×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Global Warming To Hinder Wi-Fi Signals, Claims UK Gov't

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the stock-up-on-tinfoil dept.

Wireless Networking 280

radioweather writes with news of a government report from the UK's Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which warns of global warming's harmful effect on Wi-Fi and other communication protocols. Quoting the Guardian: "Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications, rainstorms can impact the reliability of the signal, and drier summers and wetter winters may cause greater subsidence, damaging masts and underground cables. The threat posed by climate change to internet and telephone access is a rare example of when the developed world would be hit harder than developing countries, which are in general more at risk from increased floods, droughts and rising sea levels. 'If climate change threatens the quality of your signal, or you can't get it because of extreme fluctuations in temperature, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question,' said Spelman, 'and just imagine in the height of an emergency if the communications system is down or adversely affected.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

UK Government Hinders WiFi (3, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077072)

The UK Government and it's insipid reports hinders WiFi.

E

Re:UK Government Hinders WiFi (4, Funny)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077418)

no they are right, I just tested it out with the aid of my bath. My wi-fi router does not work under water.

Re:UK Government Hinders WiFi (1)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077598)

I trust all reports from the Information Policy Unit. But I only when I'm wearing my government-approved tinfoil hat.

Re:UK Government Hinders WiFi (2)

matrim99 (123693) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077892)

With the higher temperatures causing more people to bathe and increasing rainfall causing more people to use bathtubs as boats, an economic and societal crisis looms within the bathtub manufacturing industry. "The current bathtub manufacturing capacity simply cannot provide enough new bathtubs to satisfy demand in 30 years", an industry insider stated. No solution is in sight.
Back to you, Kate.

To say nothing of the fact that (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077094)

global warming will disrupt the economy, and people won't be able to afford internet or phone service

Inception (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077188)

Global warming will disrupt living conditions worldwide, and people won't be around to have an economy that won't be able to afford internet or phone service.

Re:Inception (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077342)

Global warming will blow up the earth, so there won't be a place for people to live.

Re:Inception (3, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077374)

Global warming will come and go, just like every other supposed crisis which is solved as soon as technology brings us to the tipping point of financial advantage.

Re:Inception (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077682)

You speak of technology saving a world that still burns turds to heat food. The rate of change isn't pacing the technology needed to solve the problem, and if you were thinking that everyone will recognize the altrustic need to stop spending making petro-dollars to convenience an ostensible financial advantage, I have a bridge on 59th St in Brooklyn to sell you.

The pace is faster than what we can deal with. You may be living in ocean front property in the High Sierras by the time someone figures out the "the technology (that) brings us to the tipping point..."

Electric cars need a supply chain that simply doesn't exist. Deforestation in the face of that nice new kitchen table and that new west wing to your chateau is going to thwart things.

Re:Inception (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078326)

The electric car supply chain is already in action, granted it is small but the manufacturers are tooling up their plants and parts suppliers to support electric car manufacturing and the technology behind electric and battery life is moving forward. However, the biggest contributor to global warming is electricity generation not autos. Natural Gas is becoming a more viable and is cleaner option. As one example, there are already big cities using natural gas powered buses. The technology centered around solar and wind is also moving forward. People would not be investing in this technology if they didn't think it will payoff big in the future. I also doubt this development is being done to combat global warming. It sounds good in the companies press releases but it is the potential to make a lot of money that is driving these changes. The next Exxon could end up being a company that supplies the alternative energy market instead of petroleum market. We are lucky that the countries supplying 80% of the oil today are unreliable, erratic, and unstable to inject some urgency into to speeding up the introduction of alternatives. I also think it is safe to say that in the future alternative energy solutions will be cheaper.

Re:Inception (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078450)

I love your encouraging words, but they're all your optimism, rather than the actual state of things. In every podunk town in the US and Canada, there's a filling station that fills you with petrofuels, not joules, not compressed hydrogen, not LNG.

The ecosystems are diffuse and therefore none of them is winning, and none will likely win because the leadership of both countries is coopted by the petro-suppliers. We can agree that each technology could make a lot of money, and I'll state that none of them will until it's very late in the game. The urgency is a direct f(x) of consumer pain, and the lag time to elections where somebody's mandate becomes clear-- probably a petro company that dives into one of the alternate sources.

Your future is a long time away. The sun beats down each day, and few harvest its power. The moon moves the oceans each day, and very few harvest its power. The potentials you see are dashed against the rocks of entrenched organizations with record profits on a roll, enforced by world religious turmoil that plays in its favor. If the Middle East ever gets organized, the oil companies will simply find another monopoly facade to exploit. It is the nature of things. So are the bribes. To change it happens one person at a time, and the pace of that change is that of a glacier.

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077778)

Also, global warming will eventually put a big part of London underwater.

Since wi-fi has a hard time traveling through water, I think the UK government has a point.

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (3, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078350)

It will do far more damage to Tokyo, when it wakes up Godzilla.

-jcr

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077852)

"global warming will disrupt the economy"

I'm investing in temperature futures, you insensitive clod.

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078136)

global warming will disrupt the economy, and people won't be able to afford internet or phone service

But maybe the disruption will be in a way that cancels out the negative impacts on the economy of the massive shit sandwich of debt that the Democrats who control the US government are shoving down our throat.

Remember when 300 or 400 billion dollars a year in deficits were signs of out-of-control spending? Well, what do you call it when Obama's MONTHY deficits are reaching the same values as Bush's YEARLY deficits?

Remember when 5 or 6% unemployment under Teh Eeeevil BOOOOSH! was a sign of mismanagement? Well, what do you call sustained rates over 9% with the beginnings of runaway inflation?

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078192)

It costs alot of money to recover from a horrible recession like the one Republicans caused. The Bush recession also decreased tax revenues, making the deficit even worse.

We are still recovering from retarded Republican policies.

Can't you fucking morons at least wait till we are finished cleaning up your mess before you moan and complain like this is our fault instead of yours?

Fuck you, and the dumb, incompetent, disastrous politicians you support.

Re:To say nothing of the fact that (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078358)

>We are still recovering from retarded Republican policies.

I wish!

No, the Democrats haven't deviated from Bush's policies, they've only accelerated them.

-jcr

Scraping the bottom of the barrel (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077114)

They really are getting desperate, aren't they?

BTW, wasn't Britain supposed to get drier winters with no snow because of 'global warming', not wetter ones? When did that change?

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077196)

Exactly! If this is the only thing that we need to worry about, then go ahead, burn all the coal and oil and gas!

But seriously, there are much larger problems than this non-issue. For example, Bangladesh is very near sea level. Many island nations are near sea level already. Or Netherlands.

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 25% of its area and 21% of its population located below sea level, and 50% of its land lying less than one metre above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands [wikipedia.org]

Significant sea level rise, which will happen, will cause major problems for over 1 billion people living within a few meters of sea level.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (5, Insightful)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077264)

Sea levels have risen and sea levels have fallen in the past.

Its just civilization has now cropped up and made these changes inconvenient. It used to be that man would migrate if his surroundings became inhospitable. Now they just try and control nature.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (2)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077316)

It used to be that man would migrate if his surroundings became inhospitable. Now they just try and control nature.

They??? Are you not one of us? If not, WTF are you?

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077382)

It used to be that man would migrate if his surroundings became inhospitable. Now they just try and control nature.

They??? Are you not one of us? If not, WTF are you?

*HE has left the room so I'll type quick*

It's the C-A-T-S!

SHHHHHHHH!

keep it down!!!!

THEY are waiting and at the right time, they'll cast us aside for good.

Oh God! Noooo..

YES, I'd like 20 cases of the poultry and the beef stew along with several dozen live mice.

Got that! Good!

Huh?

Oh yeah, whole milk!

Very good.

OK HE is gone, again. SHHHHHH!

Really, we have to be very careful, but the global warming with the subsequent sea rise CAN be of service! THEY hate the water!

SHHHHHHH!

AND I'll need the plush heated cushion. Thank you!

Gotta go! SHHHHHHHHH!

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077740)

Sea levels have risen and sea levels have fallen in the past.

Its just civilization has now cropped up and made these changes inconvenient. It used to be that man would migrate if his surroundings became inhospitable. Now they just try and control nature.

where the hell are my mod points /.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078314)

Considering how few acted on the common sense advice voiced by the late Sam Kinnison [youtube.com], relating to the obvious and immediate problem of hunger... I suspect even fewer will do anything about a possible issue with slowly rising water... ;-)

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077710)

Various countries rise and fall for tectonic reasons. But if you are worried about sea level, worry no more. It's reached a peak, and is now going down again. Here is the latest data: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077236)

They really are getting desperate, aren't they?

I may have missed something, but are you saying manmade climate change isn't happening?

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077276)

I may have missed something, but are you saying manmade climate change isn't happening?

Considering that they can't even decide whether 'manmade climate change' would cause drier winters or wetter winters, I think the answer is an obvious yes.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077388)

Duh, this is why the nomenclature was shifted from "global warming" to climate change... so you can be right no matter what happens, not just 50% of the time

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077550)

They changed the name because people are too stupid to understand what "average global temperature" means.

'but... but... it snowed this winter! That proves that global warming is a scam!!!!1'

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077696)

That meme is even stupider that this report. You do know what the CC in IPCC stands for, right? If anyone tried to change the nomeculture it was Frank Luntz [google.com.au] who was advising the Bush admin on strategies to play down the treat of AGW.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078268)

The name hasn't been changed. You're just looking at the wrong sources. And duh, of course it is something like the sun doing the warming, because y'know, there is no way climatologists would have factored that into their data, there's no way they're /that/ intelligent. I mean, someone has to stand up to these experts and tell them their wrong about the things they study with our silly ignorant speculations.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077436)

I may have missed something, but are you saying manmade climate change isn't happening?

Considering that they can't even decide whether 'manmade climate change' would cause drier winters or wetter winters, I think the answer is an obvious yes.

Or maybe it's both. Adding energy to a system (turning up the heat) tends to make for wider excursions around the "norm". Some areas may have drier winters, others wetter winters.

The only problem is that there's only one way to find out - and we're all test subjects.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077278)

Are you saying natural climate change isn't happening?

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077328)

Are you saying natural climate change isn't happening?

No, he's saying that, as a rationale for restructuring the entire planet's energy production, degraded WiFi capability is a pretty bad idea.

It's responsible to reduce carbon emissions because of the effects CO2 has on sea level, on crop productivity, etc. Degraded WiFi capability is not part of "etc."

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (1)

Truth_Quark (219407) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077678)

No, he's saying that, as a rationale for restructuring the entire planet's energy production, degraded WiFi capability is a pretty bad idea.

Then he didn't read the relevant report. Or, more likely, he's got an agenda, and so prefers to use a straw man than a sound argument. The study recommendations for the ICT sector impacts paper are on page 24 of that summary, and not one of them is "restructure the entire planet's energy production". There are many reasons for restructuring energy production. The cost of infrastructure changes of climate change is part of that calculation, and the cost of ICT infrastructure changes is part of that, and the increase in wireless infrastructure requirements and maintenance costs is part of that. Overall its a pretty good idea.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077336)

Climate is always changing. It has been warmer, it has been cooler. It has been wetter, it has been drier. The issue is how much can we blame on CO2 verses everything else, like the sun solar cycle.

Or like the one guy I heard recently talking about the tides affecting low lying areas of Japan ... trying to blame it on Global Warming and not the HUGE EARTHQUAKE the dropped the island a few feet. It is freakin religion to some of these idiots.

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (4, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077334)

BTW, wasn't Britain supposed to get drier winters with no snow because of 'global warming', not wetter ones? When did that change?

citation [independent.co.uk] needed [newscientist.com]

Re:Scraping the bottom of the barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077876)

"BTW, wasn't Britain supposed to get drier winters with no snow because of 'global warming',"

No, Britain was supposed to get winters more extreme winters (think Russian winter), due to the Gulf Stream moving south, away from the UK. I haven't heard of any recent studies on the Gulf Stream's position, but more extreme winters, like the ones we've had the last few years, are predicted for at least the next decade.

its for the kids (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077116)

or wifi..... what? wifi? What are they smoking to be this desperate?

Re:its for the kids (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077558)

It's very simple, and not at all alarmist.

Signal propagation depends on temperature and humidity. It is possible to design a wireless network around a minimum number of antennas by taking the current climate into account. If you do so, and if the local climate warms, the optimum network may change, and you may have problems.

The paragraph is not trying to scare people into "Saving the Climate to Save WiFi" It's trying to warn the people who employ network engineers to have the calculations rerun, so that when the climate warms, the networks will remain fully functional.

Re:its for the kids (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078114)

Isn't most Wi-Fi used inside climate controlled buildings? Perhaps this is an attempt to notify wardrivers to stay in the lanes closest to buildings...

Also, the amount of signal degradation caused by passing through a wall is going to be so enormously larger than that caused by the atmosphere in any climatic conditions survivable by humans that I can't imagine that this would have any noticeable impact.

I suppose that if you were trying to cover a large open area outdoors with no trees or structures with Wi-Fi, then you might need to worry about this. But even then, if you're putting your access points at the maximum possible separation, your network is probably not really going to be very usable over most of the area. Finally, diurnal and seasonal variations in temperature and humidity are going to be a much larger effect on Wi-Fi planning than climate change anyway.

In short, I think that the whole premise, while just barely technically correct, is still quite ludicrous. However, IANA network engineer, so I do not know enough to truly evaluate it fully and am just relying on my intuition, but I also have no need to evaluate it fully either.

Re:its for the kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078408)

So your theory is that there are engineers who would design a network that would be unreliable due to changes in signal propagation that would be associated with the range of weather conditions expected in England due to global climate change? And but for the government's guidance, this "optimum" network would fail? And this is your definition of an optimum network?

It begs the question: what is your definition of an optimum engineer? I presume he wins the day by pulling the stuff out his butt like you do?

Balderdash. Pure balderdash.

Never mind (2, Interesting)

dmiller (581) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077118)

Never mind the millions displaced by rising sea levels or changed rainfall patterns effecting their crops, we might lose a few bars of wifi reception!

Re:Never mind (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077286)

Never mind the millions displaced by rising sea levels or changed rainfall patterns effecting their crops, we might lose a few bars of wifi reception!

You had me at losing a few bars!

Greentards will say anything (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077122)

And so will corporate interests. Too bad we can't get anyone moderate to talk about this. Either we're all already dead, or everything is great. As long as those are the only two choices, nothing worthwhile will be accomplished. *sigh*

Re:Greentards will say anything (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077144)

"Either we're all already dead, or everything is great. "

The two are not mutually exclusive. Gaia will cleanse herself.
8-P

Re:Greentards will say anything (5, Insightful)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077908)

That is an interesting statement. When we (the collective we) hear "We're all doomed," we assume if all humans die, well, everything just stops. How many global-level extinctions have there been, 4? If we are screwing up the biosphere, and we go kaput, seems like we deserve it. The earth won't really care that much. Bring on the crab people!

Re:Greentards will say anything (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077658)

Really slashdot mods? You gave a fuckwit who used the word 'greentards' 4 - insightful?

By the way, as long as people like parent still use *tards words to poision a debate, nothing worthwhile will get accomplished.

Re:Greentards will say anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077942)

Too bad we can't get anyone moderate to talk about this.

There are plenty of moderate people talking about it - but "moderate" doesn't make for good headlines.

Re:Greentards will say anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078294)

http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

All depends on what you think the "moderate" course of action is. It might be doing a little less than what we're doing now and finding something else to get hysterical about.

WiFi works in: (5, Insightful)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077142)

...countries that are hotter (Southern Europe), Wetter (Hong Kong), Colder (Sweden), Dryer (Greece) and more legally obtuse (USA) than the UK. I think we'll be fine. FUD off.

This is just retarded (3)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077168)

Subject says it all. I honestly can't comment further. The fail is strong with these morons.

Re:This is just retarded (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078384)

Indeed, this very near plumbs the depths at which Al Gore's dumb-assed absurdities dwell, but not quite.

In your apartment? (2)

saikou (211301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077186)

Sure, as soon as you get global warming effects in the form of floods or snow or drought in your apartment, your WiFi coverage will suffer tremendously :(
Frankly, when the roof is missing, people tend not to get too upset about bad WiFi reception.

For normal outside activities just use cell 3G/4G signal :)

Hey, Sony! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077198)

Global warming pwned your customers' credit cards!

Oh jeez. (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077210)

Yes rain and snow attenuates radio waves. But not by a huge amount. The human race would likely go extinct from Heat stroke before anybody noticed any real decline in WiFi connectivity. This article smacks of "the sky is falling" fearmongering. Like this:

"On March 20, 2000, The Independent, a British newspaper, reported that the Dr. David Viner of the UK's Climate Research Unit warning within a few years snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." Indeed, Viner opined, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Similarly, David Parker, at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only "virtual" experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists opined confidently in 2004 scientists claim winters were becoming warmer and less snowy. In 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bemoaned that children would be robbed of the childhood joys of sledding and skiing in the DC area due to global warming. A year later, the area set a new seasonal snowfall record with 5 to 6 feet of snow and sleds and skis were the only way to get around." http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/apr/13apr2011a3.html [nipccreport.org]

If the models can not predict snowfall, how can they be counted-upon to predict anything else in future weather?

Re:Oh jeez. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077368)

snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event."

That's already true, judging by the Doctor Who Christmas episodes. It's either ashes from the Sycorax space ship, or ballast from the Capricorn Cruiseliner Titanic, or artificially created by the TARDIS.

Re:Oh jeez. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077578)

Expanding Sun becomes red giant affecting wifi all over the planet! Film at Eleven!

Re:Oh jeez. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077830)

Humidity GREATLY effects microwaves. (and WiFi are microwaves) If you're sending and receiving long distances at those ranges, rain, and ice, will have a huge impact. However, since most people use WiFi indoors, I'd not expect to see much difficulty. Yes, climate changes will have impacts, but there will be sufficient impacts that we don't need to make stuff up to scare people, or, more precisely, to get people to think it's not happening.

Ham radio will get through, when other stuff doesn't. Partly because they can use a variety of different frequencies, to suit the conditions.

Re:Oh jeez. (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078218)

If you think climate models are even attempting to predict snowfall then you have no idea what they do.

... said that eventually British children could have only "virtual" experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

Note he said "eventually" which is pretty open ended. It could mean 100 years from now. Same thing applies to the DC comment. That's the problem with talking about future effects of global warming. Everyone wants to interpret it as something that happens in the next 5 or 10 years instead of something that changes over several/many decades.

One thing is for sure, the approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperatures we have seen so far has raised the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by about 4%. That means more water is available for precipitation. Also, the snowiest years are the warmer winters. The colder air is the less water vapor it holds and so the less water is available for precipitation. Ever notice how it doesn't really snow much when the temperature is below 0F (-18 C)?

Y2K!! (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077216)

I know! I know! Y2K, I mean, global warming will cause airplanes to fall from the sky, pacemakers to fail, and toasters to become sentient and kill us all!!!1!

Re:Y2K!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077628)

I love it when global warming "skeptics" bring this up, it makes exactly the opposite point that y'all mean to.

Y2K was real. Yes, it was never going to destroy the world Skynet-style, but there would have been considerable economic damage if it weren't for the large-scale effort to fix it. We didn't just stick our finger in our ears and wait for it to go away, millions of lines of code had to be fixed.

Huh. Wifi has always worked fine in southern US (3, Informative)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077230)

Wifi was working just great in Tuscaloosa, AL until the tornadoes hit. At that point, they had bigger problems. It's still working fine in NE Georgia where I live, when 100F+ temperatures are the norm in the summer. In fact, whenever our signal degraded, it was because a squirrel had chewed through an outside line, not because it was too hot or humid. I think TFA is missing the elephant in the room here.

She also pointed out... (2)

beefmusta (1616667) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077260)

...that houses with television antennas are at greater risk of lightning strikes. This is a rare example of when the developed world would be hit harder than developing countries. If climate change threatens the quality of your television signal, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question.

Re:She also pointed out... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077386)

Developing countries tend to rely on pure cell phone service. Developed countries have lots of legacy POTS equipment. So when signal degrades, the developing countries will be without communications, but the developed countries will still have some comm lines open.

Near the end of the hype? (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077272)

If this is the best "DOOM!" Climate Change story the legacy media can whip up today maybe we are near the end of the scare.

Then we who are sane can set about purging the defilers from the temples of Science! and setting it to rights.

Climate Change can't possibly be science, it fails one of the most basic tenets in that it isn't falsifiable. Try it if you doubt, ask a True Believer masquarading as a scientist what test could falsify their theory. There isn't one. IT gets warmer, Global Warming. Cooler? Climate Change. Drier? Wetter? More ice? Less ice? More clouds? Less clouds? And so on. All data lead the Warmist to the exact same conclusions and more importantly the exact same policy prescriptions. And of course a real scientist wouldn't dare propose policy on such a complex question in the knowledge of his ignorance of too many other fields.

Re:Near the end of the hype? (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077604)

there is always a scare. there is always an enemy. there is always something to fix.

when all three of those rules fail then something bad really did happen.

allah the word means 'everyone'

i don't want to spoil the ending for you, but the truth is really out there. and i was able to handle it. it is a little sad but oh well.

Re:Near the end of the hype? (-1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077798)

Better watch out. You're speaking heresy against doctrine. I'm sure that the warmists and the church of global warming will come along and mod you, and me into oblivion any time now.

Re:Near the end of the hype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078050)

I guess I'm not clear on what you mean exactly. It seems like most major science agencies propose a model of warming with an observation of ~0.7 deg C increase in average global temperature observed over the past century and that climatological models predict further increases of ~1-6 deg C over the next century. Presumably the falsifiability would surely come from comparing these predictions to actuality? I'm not a zealot on this issue by any means, but - not being an expert - I tend to look at what appears to be a scientific consensus (based on the myriad science organizations which endorse global warming models; see link 2) and draw the conclusion that actual experts believe global warming is occurring. Do you disagree with these organizations? If so, on what basis?

Link 1: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1
Link 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Re:Near the end of the hype? (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078086)

GW would be easily falsified by a statistically significant (i.e. long) period of temperatures going down that could not be explained by some other clearly observing and temporary phenomenon. So far we haven't seen such a thing.

ONN will have a field day with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077282)

...assuming that they're not the source. Please, someone, restore my faith in humanity and show me this is just the modern equivalent of A Modest Proposal.

Anyone? [youtube.com]

The awesome power of Global Warming (2)

geekpowa (916089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077304)

Not least it's ability to make seemingly educated adults believe absurd things, like this article or that the end of civilisation as we know will occur in their life time. (Who else believed that the end of days was going to occur within the span of their natural life?).

If only there was a way we could harness this awesome power... and use it to fuel our civilisation. Go beyond fossil fuel with global warming power. There is no problem it can't create.

Re:The awesome power of Global Warming (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077988)

"Not least it's ability to make seemingly educated adults believe absurd things..."

Ahem. Scientology?
(Though does that include educated adults?)

Religious Fanatics (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#36078276)

The answer is "Religious Fanatics." Your question was, "Who else believed that the end of days was going to occur within the span of their natural life?"

The Cult of Global Warming is to the early part of the 21st Century as The Church was to the Middle Ages. Zealots seeking converts, indulgences available for the right price, End Times forecast less than a generation away unless the sinners repent, a high priesthood -- the Old Time Religion's got nothing on this new one.

Global Dimming (4, Insightful)

Drew M. (5831) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077312)

If we're so worried about global warming just counteract it by increasing global dimming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming [wikipedia.org]

Re:Global Dimming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077416)

For once, Americans, conclusively and uncontested, lead the way! Weer numbah whun!

Re:Global Dimming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077648)

di-hydrogen monoxide anyone?

what a breath of hot air... (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077358)

Well, if hot air really can interfere with WiFi, perhaps shutting these guys up would be a first good step.

Desperation (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077362)

This is a pathetic attempt to get people to care about global warming again I mean "climate change". Follow the money.

Whoopsie! (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077408)

Sounds like someone bought the "Global Warming" excuse from their local IT department! *tears a page off the excuse calendar*

Re:Whoopsie! (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077672)

on the plus side, you now have a "reputable" article to send doubters to when you use that excuse.

Wow (1)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077424)

People will blame everything under the sun accept for their own inability to produce dependable products. We are supposed to be able to adapt to anything and everything nature has to throw at us. Instead of crying about the possible effects how about people get on the ball and make things more dependable, on all levels.

Operational lifetime... (2)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077430)

So Global Warming is supposed to take place over centuries.
The operational lifetime of WiFi equipment is 10 years at best. (Anyone still using just 802.11b?) We wouldn't develop new standards and better equipment to deal with the environment?

Ig Nobel? Nah; it's warmist stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077440)

The 'great recession' wasn't enough to shake out this nonsense. We're going to need true sovereign debt crises among significant western nations before this heinous shit ceases; the global warming romper room will remain open until government liquidity dries up.

D'oh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077538)

I thought it was Global Cooling this week?!?!

Stupid -- ordinary weather effects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36077540)

This is really pathetic. Yes, storm frequency and intensity might increase. Yes, temperatures might increase (depending on location -- some areas might even go down in temperature). Yes precipitation patterns might change, but this "implications of global warming for communications" article is ridiculous.

Hello? If it would be affected that much then it would be affected by ordinary fluctuations in weather on a bad storm day or a particularly hot summer day. If your communications system isn't built to handle that ordinarily weather fluctuation then it is a communication system that is generally unreliable regardless of anything to do with global warming or any other long-term trend. In other words, it is symptomatic of the fact that your communication system SUCKS, and is liable to fail in severe weather when you might really need it. Nothing this idiot presented has anything to do with global warming.

which is the cart, which is the horse? (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077608)

It wasn't too long ago that we were warned how much the Internet electron-pushing was contributing to global warming [spiegel.de].

Now, we hear that global warming is inhibiting our ability to download our Internet pr0n?

Sounds to me like a self-regulating system with a negative feedback loop.

They have a point... (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#36077972)

While it sounds ridiculous on the face of it, they have a point, especially in respect of cell towers and longer-range Wifi, or even wired. For example, after very heavy and prolonged rain, our own ADSL connection deteriorates because the underground cable between our house and the street connection (which is rather long) gets waterlogged. It's a definitely noticeable effect.

I've seen this effect before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36078166)

Makes sense, we have some pretty nasty seasonal rainfall and our long links (20km+) love to drop out during the really heavy downpours.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...