Live data from Hacker News

Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

bloomberg.com

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Of course it's done! For one thing, you don't need to fit your model to the full historical record. So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI.

But yes, models fit to the full historical record can only be validated in real time.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#162
“More than a year and a half later, Amtrak, a private company whose stock is primarily owned by the federal government and which depends on congressional funding to operate, has yet to repeat its analysis for the network as a whole.”

So, _not_ a private company.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2015/03/0...

(From 2015 – Supreme Court says Amtrak is more like a public entity than a private firm)

"" All the justices agreed to overturn the lower-court ruling in which the Association of American Railroads had prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: that Amtrak was a strictly private entity and as such Congress was wrong in 2008 to set up a system that allowed it to issue regulations.

The lower court had based the decision on Congress’s command that Amtrak “is not a department, agency or instrumentality of the United States Government.”

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said saying so does not necessarily make it so.

The government puts all sorts of demands on Amtrak — maintaining service between Louisiana and Florida, for instance, or offering reduced fares for elderly or disabled passengers — not to mention giving it subsidies of about $1 billion a year, Kennedy said.

“Amtrak was created by the Government, is controlled by the Government, and operates for the Government’s benefit,” Kennedy wrote. Thus, in working with the Federal Railroad Administration to issue the “metrics and standards” for performance, “Amtrak acted as a governmental entity for purposes of the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions.” ""

In Ireland we call entities like this semi-state companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_bodies_of_the_...

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#163
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.

> If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

It’s going to be a positive thing for many companies. Defences need to be engineered, built and maintained. It isnt bad for everyone.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#164

This is nothing compared to the estimated $3.5 billion to redirect the tracks underground in San Diego. Coastal bluff failures are occurring within several feet of the tracks on a regular basis. I spend time at this beach and I don't know how this track will be viable in a couple years, with or without rising sea levels. Once it is deemed unsafe, San Diego will be completely cut off by rail. https://www.latimes.com/l…

Given HN's general policy of disallowing paywalled links maybe we should also consider disalling GDPR-walled links. Sure, proxies and VPN's exist but it's a PITA just to read an LATimes article.

And SD will still have the trolley from TJ at least.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course it's done! For one thing, you don't need to fit your model to the full historical record. So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI. But yes, models fit to the full historical record can only be validated in real time.

> So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI.

This doesn't work in an adversarial context; there's no guarantee that the modeler didn't cheat.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's done! For one thing, you don't need to fit your model to the full historical record. So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI. But yes, models fit to the full historical record can only be validated in real time.

> So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI. This doesn't work in an adversarial context; there's no guarantee that the modeler didn't cheat.

Hey, science is adversarial. Climate datasets are publicly available. And there are mechanisms to detect and punish cheating.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI. This doesn't work in an adversarial context; there's no guarantee that the modeler didn't cheat.

Hey, science is adversarial. Climate datasets are publicly available. And there are mechanisms to detect and punish cheating.

Science as practiced is generally not adversarial. Witness the reproduction crisis.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just that: The rest of the world are running around with matches and lighters, are watching us, thinking "Damn, I want one of those" and have started building their own flamethrowers.

Now we're telling them to stop building flamethrowers while we keep insisting that we keep our own.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, science is adversarial. Climate datasets are publicly available. And there are mechanisms to detect and punish cheating.

Science as practiced is generally not adversarial. Witness the reproduction crisis.

Well, that's psychology, and calling it "science" is arguably iffy. I've attended a fair number of seminars in physics, biochemistry and molecular biology. In the right hands, a "dumb question" can be a deadly weapon. And if the presenter is a prospective hire, it's often all the more intense.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#170

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…

"And now you are standing up for them."

Um. That's not what I said. Not at all. Please re-read the Note: at the end and my (lack of) faith in human nature. I'm not defending anyone. But by the time we get done running around in circles and settle on what punched a whole on the bottom of the boat, we're going to be water-above-head. Is that not what we're seeing? Still?

As for "higher waters", the original article was about water levels and Amtrak. I stuck to that. If you want you make the problem bigger and even more overwhelming, sure, we can go your route. But from what I've seen that kitchen-sink approach - again see the Note: - isn't working out well. At some point we have to come to terms with what isn't working, and try another approach.

I agree with you (sans the "standing up for them" bit). But I'm far less naive, far less trusting of human nature.

Post reply on HN