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

131–140 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#131

Post by ams6110 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #121
recusancy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)." There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"

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, not in a position of influence, and my beliefs and behavior on the matter are inconsequential.

I don't think that moving away from coal and petroleum is bad though. Those are dirty, polluting energy sources. I think we should be developing nuclear and electrically powred transportation and battery technology. So either way, I support moving away from burning fossil fuels.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#132

Post by antod »

kevinskii wrote: post #111
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…

This is not an accurate characterization of the debate. "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue. If you want to be skeptical of the skeptics, fine. We all should be. But the notion that the bias is one-sided is silly.

> "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue.

Really? I think a lot of countries have scientific agencies whose job it is to as accurately as possible monitor and predict the climate because those countries economies (eg especially important for planning in agricultural economies) depend on it. If they had scientists that could show it was a non issue, those governments would be all over that. And after all those scientists would still need to be employed predicting the natural climate cycles anyway.

The world would fall at the feet of scientists that could scientifically refute this. That would be the hugest money making opportunity for any climate scientist, and instant fame. To contend that whatever secret international cabal in favour of promoting climate change can outcompete the fossil fuel industry for resources is frankly nutty. If these academics are as corruptible as you seem to claim, why would they choose the low reward side of the debate?

You seem to be trying to inject some false "balance" to this.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#133

Post by Scaevolus »

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…

Impugning the broad base of climate science by comparing it to some garbage results from dietary research is unfair.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#134

Post by OldHand2018 »

rayiner wrote: post #66
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of tim…

> Have I missed something? Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.

> Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.

That really depends on where you are. You could do a lot worse than waiting for a train in Chicago [1] [2]. Amtrak sold development rights to a parking structure across the street from Union Station and got a boatload of money, which they are spending on upgrades and restoration, including a 400-room luxury hotel on the roof of Union Station that will give them a nice continuous revenue stream to continue developing rail projects.

[1] https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/6/24/12024162/chicago-transp... [2] https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/11/28/13764122/chicago-archi...

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#135

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#136

Post by the8472 »

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 theory is not falsifiable.

That is fundamentally wrong. At the worst you would have to run an experiment with many earth-replicas and individual changed variables. Quite impractical but not relevant for determining falsifiability of a theory.

But more importantly models don't just have to fit data of the past, they also make predictions of the future which will automatically be tested as time advances. And pretty much all climate models do not make a singular prediction they map some input domain to an output domain. Decrease factor A by x% and the global averages of effect M will stay within some confidence interval with the mean y% lower etc.

Of course it is complex, but complexity is no excuse to throw up your arms and claim we can't possibly know anything when it's inconvenient.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#137

Post by flukus »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108
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.

> "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…

> 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.

The President of the United States thinks it's a hoax (from snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warmin...):

  The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

  Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2013

  NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2014

  Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

  Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014
If you want solutions we need to stop elected politicians that go out of their way to block solutions.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#138

Post by anigbrowl »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108
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.

> "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…

You can't have a meaningful conversation about solutions with someone who rejects the premise on which your predictions are based, in my experience. At best you'll end up being asked to build sea walls at taxpayer expense to protect oil refineries before anything else.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#139

Post by forkandwait »

flukus wrote: post #137
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…

> 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. The President of the United States thinks it's a hoax (from snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warmin... ): The concept of global warmin…

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

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#140

Post by jacobolus »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108
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.

> "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 about not just sea-level rise displacing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people, but also lethal heat waves every summer in many parts of the world, permanent severe drought in some places, raging wildfires, severe storms, collapse of many ecosystems, collapse of agriculture in many places, etc.

Post reply on HN