Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#151

Post by arduanika »

freehunter wrote: post #33
jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

It must be nice to have a mental model where "businesses" is this big fuzzy blob containing all the fat cats at either the giving or receiving end of an externality. Show the moneypants how much it will hurt him! Then the other moneypants will stop ignoring things!

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#152

Post by kccqzy »

13of40 wrote: post #17
ams6110 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak is hands-down the worst passenger rail service I've ever used, out of services in four different countries. I will say I've never used Amtrak in the Northeast which I understand is somewhat better than the rest of the country, but that's not saying much.

I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take…

Well I have experience using it on the west coast too, and I think it's a decent alternative if you aren't so pressed for time. Travelling from Los Angeles to San Jose by train costs about the same as flying economy, but takes about 8x more time, and in return you get roomy seats, less hassle due to security screening, nice views outside the window, the freedom to walk around and stand up basically any time. It's totally not a no-brainer.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#153

Post by mirimir »

jacobolus wrote: post #140
chiefalchemist wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers…

There’s a team of guys with flamethrowers running around the house lighting everything on fire, and some of the inhabitants are saying “well you can’t discount the possibility that the fires started themselves, and having a house on fire isn’t really so bad, and we probably can’t do anything to fix it anyway.” And now you are standing up for them. Our problems cannot be summarized as “higher waters”. We are talking a…

Funny :)

But we're all running around with flamethrowers. And we can't imagine life without them. That's the hard part.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#154

Post by mirimir »

ams6110 wrote: post #131
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc. They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."

I don't think it's made up but I think there's a good chance we're wrong about the cause. The theory is not falsifiable. There are too many interacting variables. The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa. We've been wrong about other things that were universally accepted as true (e.g. dietary fat is bad) and later turned out to be wrong. Doesn't really matter what I think though. I'm one person, no…

> The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa.

How else could it work? This is a system that's vastly too complicated to actually model from fundamental principles. Or at least, in any simple way. As I understand it, the components are all based on fundamental principles. But they're tweaked as needed to fit historical data.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#155

Post by mirimir »

krapp wrote: post #142
forkandwait wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to say, but no one with a college degree takes the current president at all seriously.

None of those people with college degrees are running the country or setting environmental policy, though. The man who thinks global warming is a Chinese communist plot is.

It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that. Arguably, he's just playing a role that's designed to increase net support. That is, he's a classic populist. And so what he gives us is a mirror to contemplate. Plus lots of policy that benefits his real supporters.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#157

Post by flukus »

mirimir wrote: post #155
krapp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those people with college degrees are running the country or setting environmental policy, though. The man who thinks global warming is a Chinese communist plot is.

It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that. Arguably, he's just playing a role that's designed to increase net support. That is, he's a classic populist. And so what he gives us is a mirror to contemplate. Plus lots of policy that benefits his real supporters.

> It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that.

So far all decisions he's taken are in-line with someone that thinks that, which is far more important than divining what he truly believes.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#158

Post by matt_j »

freehunter wrote: post #33
jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

A lot of business will make a lot of money before climate change affects them, and after, when they pivot to take advantage of a population that all of a sudden needs X (sandbags? boats? water purification?).

Change needs to happen at the government level and be imposed on businesses in spite of what they think. It needs to happen at the alliance level (UN) because governments don't want to act against their economic interests unless they have to, even if their economic foresight is short (a presidential term, maximum).

That they (people with short term economic advantage) have succeeded in making climate change an optional belief is the biggest worry of all. Now we have sheeple (half the general population) blindly running to the precipice while loudly proclaiming anyone that can see it coming as stupid/liar/hands in ears/la la la.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#159

Post by thaumasiotes »

mirimir wrote: post #154
ams6110 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's made up but I think there's a good chance we're wrong about the cause. The theory is not falsifiable. There are too many interacting variables. The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa. We've been wrong about other things that were universally accepted as true (e.g. dietary fat is bad) and later turned out to be wrong. Doesn't really matter what I think though. I'm one person, no…

> The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa. How else could it work? This is a system that's vastly too complicated to actually model from fundamental principles. Or at least, in any simple way. As I understand it, the components are all based on fundamental principles. But they're tweaked as needed to fit historical data.

The valid way for it to work would be to test the model's ability to predict the future. You make your models, collect data, and then reject models that couldn't accommodate reality.

This isn't done, particularly in climate science, because it's slow and difficult, but "model validation is slow and difficult" doesn't add validity to invalid models.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#160

Post by mirimir »

flukus wrote: post #157
mirimir wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that. Arguably, he's just playing a role that's designed to increase net support. That is, he's a classic populist. And so what he gives us is a mirror to contemplate. Plus lots of policy that benefits his real supporters.

> It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that. So far all decisions he's taken are in-line with someone that thinks that, which is far more important than divining what he truly believes.

OK. But there's the fact that he did reality TV for years.

There's a saying about the risks of underestimating adversaries. And a clever adversary always acts weaker and crazier than they actually are.

Post reply on HN