Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor • Hacker News Board

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#101

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #97

sailfast wrote: post #30

> Water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That reflects the median of possible warming scenarios 2 feet is the median!? And things continue to accelerate? I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned? The maps of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut look lik…

I have no idea why people aren't more concerned. I think the desire to avoid sounding "apocalyptic" has led to people not emphasizing the expected damage if we keep using CO2. Anyone with a child born this year can expect that child to live past 2100. A future grandchild will live well past 2100. Even most people reading this can probably expect to live past 2050. It's not an abstract issue that will affect future ge…

> Anyone with a child born this year can expect that child to live past 2100.

Overall life expectancy at birth is not greater than 81 in the US, though it is at 81 for females.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#102

Post by axiometry » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

rfinney wrote: post #89

lifeformed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is biased might be a fallacy in a debate, but not in statistics. In a complex topic, where the data is fuzzy and misrepresentation is easy to do and harder to detect, you must consider biases in your sources. An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc…

what the heck ... (my karma in this thread is like the stock market today) ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Are you serious? The "alien" here is just a metaphor to convey a basic concept. It couldn't even be used as an authority if we wanted it to be-- it's completely made up!

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#103

Post by pdonis » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

throwaway7312 wrote: post #61

sailfast wrote: post #30

> Water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That reflects the median of possible warming scenarios 2 feet is the median!? And things continue to accelerate? I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned? The maps of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut look lik…

> I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned? According to Sir David King (head U.K. climate scientist) in 2004, all continents other than Antarctica will be uninhabitable by 2100 due to manmade global warming.[1] I wouldn't be worried about New York. I'd be on the next ship…

King has no basis whatever for his claim that the rest of the globe other than Antarctica was uninhabitable 60 million years ago. There are fossils from this period, including fossils of mammals, from all continents. The global average temperature during the PETM (which I assume is what he is referring to) was about 8 C warmer than today, which is warm but by no means uninhabitable. It's also a lot warmer than the expected warming by 2100.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#104

Post by neuronexmachina » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:04 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #99

koops wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy, but temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...

> I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy We have no way of knowing because no predictions were made for periods of time prior to now, so we have nothing to compare with the data. The dire predictions of rapid rise in the future are based on the future predictions of climate models being correct, but the models are already known to over-predict future warming. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-…

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

> Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] Curry has agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a "hoax", writing in 2016 that the UN's definition of manmade climate change "qualifies as a hoax".

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#105

Post by graeme » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #101

graeme wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why people aren't more concerned. I think the desire to avoid sounding "apocalyptic" has led to people not emphasizing the expected damage if we keep using CO2. Anyone with a child born this year can expect that child to live past 2100. A future grandchild will live well past 2100. Even most people reading this can probably expect to live past 2050. It's not an abstract issue that will affect future ge…

> Anyone with a child born this year can expect that child to live past 2100. Overall life expectancy at birth is not greater than 81 in the US, though it is at 81 for females.

Oh, I'm in Canada, ours is over 82. Also, for people reading this who have a higher SES, I would expect their children to have a higher life expectancy.

I should have said "anyone university educated". In the US that adds ten years to life expectancy vs those without a high school degree:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/#!po=0....

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#106

Post by paulie_a » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #11

pavel_lishin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me. Why?

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 don't know what your expectations are but I've been taking it for 20 years in the Midwest. It is great every time. Usually I get two seats. It's clean, the seats are pretty comfortable, the conductors are friendly as well as the fellow passengers. I can crack a beer, watch a movie in peace or do some work. What else can you ask for?

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#107

Post by neuronexmachina » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

rfinney wrote: post #73

lifeformed wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why "climate skeptics" don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some "rebuttal" against climate change, the source comes back to a conservative think tank or oil company. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

Isn't "attacking the motive" a logical fallacy? https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallac...

It's not "attacking the motive" to question whether a source is reliable.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#108

Post by chiefalchemist » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

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.

> "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" My sense those people are very few. That is, flat out deniers are few. Most everyone else sees it coming. The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural).

Even if we settle on why (which we won't), it seems to me Amtrak, etc. are still going to be impacted. At some point we need to focus on the ends, and let the means go.

Note: I realize that __if__ we settle on human-made there is, at least in theory, opportunity to slow the change. I understand that. My faith breaks down on ever being able to agree on why. It's as if the building is on fire and we're so busy debating why the fire started that we've forgotten we still need to do something about the fire.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#109

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #53

freehunter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have d…

CSX is what you’re thinking of.

Amtrak is passenger only. They share track with CSX and many others.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#110

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

CodeSheikh wrote: post #91

caymanjim wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not easy to move a rail line. It's politically and economically infeasible. Amtrak hugs the coast in the northeast in part because that land is useless for anything else. Much like the subways, bridges, tunnels, roads, and every other piece of transit infrastructure in the northeast, the rail problems are systemic and it's a huge effort just to keep things moving at all. This isn't a blessing; it's a snapshot of…

"politically and economically" this is the problem right there. When people graciously justify (and subconsciously) roadblock to any advancement and progress economical and political issues. If Amtrack pauses its service segment-by-segment so they get to focus on re-building infrastructure then I believe It will not have that much of a negative impact on travelers, at least. People can always resort to other travelin…

Northeast airspace is overcrowded, as is I-95. Not to mention that Amtrak mostly gets money for NEC from the fares, so pausing it is a non-starter without serious government cash infusions.