Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/
179 comments
This might be a good opportunity to rebuild the whole thing. It has always been slow because of basic problems anyway.
The US east coast has post-glacial rebound and Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowdown to compound their sea-level problems. But most the rise is nothing special compared the rest of the world, which is the worst part of this.
Calculating what the sea level rise will be if certain amount of ice melts is quite complicated because of gravitational attraction due to the large mass of the ice, changes in ocean circulation due to the temperature and saltfree content of ice meltwaters, change in the earths axis of rotation due to ice melt, change in ocean currents, etc.
When part of the Greenland ice sheet melts the global mean sea level rises, but it is likely to cause sea level drops in some places around the northern Atlantic. How and where is going to be almost impossible to model and we will just have to wait and see how it plays out. Journal articles here [1,2]
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9935-... [2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
When part of the Greenland ice sheet melts the global mean sea level rises, but it is likely to cause sea level drops in some places around the northern Atlantic. How and where is going to be almost impossible to model and we will just have to wait and see how it plays out. Journal articles here [1,2]
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9935-... [2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
Won't post-glacial rebound counteract rising sea levels?
It depends on where you are. If you were underneath the ice sheet (which is Long Island and further north), then you are rebounding since the ice was pushing down on you. If you were further south, then you are slowly sinking due to the rebalancing of weight.
Unfortunately no, not here. The metaphor I've heard is continent as couch cushion: the glacier was "sitting" on the upper part of North America, pushing up the edges. Now that weight is gone, the coasts are dropping slightly.
Ah, that’s interesting and believable. Do you know where you heard that?
I found this article, which talks about a slightly different effect: If Antarctic ice melts more quickly than arctic ice, then the Antarctic land rebound will shove southern-hemisphere water north, raising sea levels in the northern hemisphere. The opposite effect happens if arctic ice melts before Antarctic ice.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/01/cities...
I found this article, which talks about a slightly different effect: If Antarctic ice melts more quickly than arctic ice, then the Antarctic land rebound will shove southern-hemisphere water north, raising sea levels in the northern hemisphere. The opposite effect happens if arctic ice melts before Antarctic ice.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/01/cities...
The article doesn't even mention the effect of gravity, which is also significant. Ocean water is currently gravitationally attracted to the ice caps, and when an ice cap disappears, all that "bunched up" water will spread around the globe. This effect reduces sea level rise in a large area around the ice cap, and increases it everywhere else.
This other article in The Guardian does mention it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/...
This other article in The Guardian does mention it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/...
Here the Woods Hole oceanographers talk about it without the couch analogy:
https://www.whoi.edu/news-release/why-is-sea-level-rising-hi...
https://www.whoi.edu/news-release/why-is-sea-level-rising-hi...
If it's sitting on top, wouldn't it push down? Or do you mean upper as in north?
It’s fantastic and even mildly hilarious that this is a real effect at such a massive scale.
As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.
> On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.
Why?
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.
It's not going to magically get replaced by a better service if it disappears. The way I see it they have limited capital and no shortage of antagonist political forces. The NE corridor was often worth riding despite other options, and the train connecting portland with seattle was pleasant as well, for me.
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 the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
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.
> (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.
I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.
It is nice to just walk up to the train and board at your leisure. And having a power outlet and legroom is also nice too.
> Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train
Baggage? Taking one or two bags up to 50lbs each on Amtrak looks to be always included.
Baggage? Taking one or two bags up to 50lbs each on Amtrak looks to be always included.
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 time you don't have to spend when you take the train.
Roll all that together, and I'm not sure that the train is much slower. And it costs less, and the scenery is better. So from where I sit, it doesn't look like a no-brainer at all.
Have I missed something?
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 time you don't have to spend when you take the train.
Roll all that together, and I'm not sure that the train is much slower. And it costs less, and the scenery is better. So from where I sit, it doesn't look like a no-brainer at all.
Have I missed something?
One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times.
That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.
That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.
On the east coast Amtrak is doing this thing where they pull the dining cars off of long distance trains and have snack cars only and offer lower roomette fares in return. Reviews are mixed.
The food is worse than airline food? Wow. Is that even possible?
How can the food be worse than airline food? I haven’t been on a flight in years that had anything other than prepackaged snacks available at any price.
I have eaten one Amtrak meal.
It was a burger in a plastic wrap, which was microwaved to heat it.
I've had bad airline food, like British Airways ten years back, and food from British trains, but Amtrak's offering was easily the worst. Hopefully they've improved by now.
The best meal was on a Swiss train (in Germany). That was also the cheapest Swiss food I've ever had.
It was a burger in a plastic wrap, which was microwaved to heat it.
I've had bad airline food, like British Airways ten years back, and food from British trains, but Amtrak's offering was easily the worst. Hopefully they've improved by now.
The best meal was on a Swiss train (in Germany). That was also the cheapest Swiss food I've ever had.
> 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.
Have you never taxied at an airport waiting for a gate to open or had a flight delayed/cancelled?
That's relatively rare on routine domestic flights compared to Amtrak outside the NEC. To pick a completely random data point: there were 5 trains between Seattle and Portland yesterday. 501 Cascades left 2 hours and 48 minutes late. 517 Cascades left 1 hour and 18 minutes late.
Day before yesterday was better. The 501 was only 22 minutes late, but arrived 44 minutes late. The 517 left 10 minutes late and arrived 34 minutes late. The 507 left 10 minutes late and arrived 28 minutes late.
But Monday was worse again. The 501 left 26 minutes late, arriving 21 minutes late. The 11 Coast Starlight left 58 minutes late, arriving an hour and 20 minutes late. And the 517 Cascades left 39 minutes late, arriving 56 minutes late.
I can't remember the last time I had a routine flight between nearby cities delayed.
Day before yesterday was better. The 501 was only 22 minutes late, but arrived 44 minutes late. The 517 left 10 minutes late and arrived 34 minutes late. The 507 left 10 minutes late and arrived 28 minutes late.
But Monday was worse again. The 501 left 26 minutes late, arriving 21 minutes late. The 11 Coast Starlight left 58 minutes late, arriving an hour and 20 minutes late. And the 517 Cascades left 39 minutes late, arriving 56 minutes late.
I can't remember the last time I had a routine flight between nearby cities delayed.
==I can't remember the last time I had a routine flight between nearby cities delayed. ==
My brother-in-law had a flight from Chicago to Cincinnati (1h and 15min flight time) cancelled on Friday. Shorter flights don't gain as much altitude and tend to use smaller planes so they are more impacted by weather.
More broadly, through November, flights have been on-time 78.7% of the time in 2018 [1]. Keep in mind that on-time can still be as much as 15 minutes late.
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/reso...
My brother-in-law had a flight from Chicago to Cincinnati (1h and 15min flight time) cancelled on Friday. Shorter flights don't gain as much altitude and tend to use smaller planes so they are more impacted by weather.
More broadly, through November, flights have been on-time 78.7% of the time in 2018 [1]. Keep in mind that on-time can still be as much as 15 minutes late.
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/reso...
> 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...
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...
I'd gladly pay $79 to take the train since I don't have to go through that silly TSA crap at the airport.
Don't forget to add airport overhead and potentially the time it takes to get to airport over train station (if you live in the city), getting through security, boarding the plane, waiting to depart, etc. Might not even be a time savings when it's all said and done.
For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying.
Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station): 1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city 2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic 3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc.
And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too.
It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.
For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying.
Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station): 1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city 2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic 3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc.
And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too.
It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.
The Northeast corridor is one thing, but the rest of the country has an entirely different experience with Amtrak. I once took a train from Pittsburgh to Chicago which was scheduled to depart at 8 AM. Instead we ended up boarding at noon, and apparently this is a completely typical delay. I hate airports, but the unimaginable volatility of Amtrak will more than erase the benefit of not trudging through airport security, as well as make it impossible to schedule any connecting transport at your destination.
As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
I assume the NEC is a pretty special case for Amtrak. It would be interesting to see what % revenue for Amtrak comes for the NEC, too. It's such a cornerstone to NE travel. Sold out often, etc.
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?
Northeast corridor is not perfect, but very usable. Much preferred to flying between most of Boston, NY, Philly, DC, etc.
I commuted on Amtrak for two years between DC and Baltimore. The train was routinely 15 minutes late, and regularly 1 hour+. Destroying it might allow something else to be built in its place.
Why didn't you use MARC?
MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the nose.)
It was mostly a joke, I ride the Amtrak multiple times per month. It's pretty awful. Unless you're taking the Acela you need to budget 2+ hours for the inevitable delays.
On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.
On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.
Even a decade ago, some long stretches through connecticut reminded me a lot of the tramway sequence in Spirited Away: https://vimeo.com/91985775
The train I get along the Fife coast on the way into Edinburgh is so close to the sea I often find myself wondering if you could jump from the train into the sea...
Probably could between Aberdour and Burntisland, as you pass silver sands
In the Bay Area today, a section of Amtrak's Capital Corridor passes through the salt ponds and the Baylands marshes which is also quite reminiscent.
the California reference document on this topic might be .. a 71 page April 2017 pdf .. "Rising Seas in California -- an Update on Sea-Level Rise Science" through California OPC_SAT
Link: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-...
It's a few pages before it becomes California-specific.
It's a few pages before it becomes California-specific.
> 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 to fix it already!
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 to fix it already!
>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.
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.
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.
Like you I see very few climate-change deniers, here or elsewhere. I see instead most disagreement and heavy discussion on what to do and what is the most efficient way to go forward. I have gotten many downvotes in the past referencing the recent study that listed "the most effective individual steps to tackle climate change", since it lists car ownership as being worse than eating meat.
I would therefore say that the debate is on what action that both individually and as a society that needs to be done. Abolishing coal mining vs replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, car ownership vs vegetarianism, carbon tax vs bans, and so on. We are collectively so divided that even if we all mostly agree that climate-change exists and is directly caused by us humans we can still not agree on what to do next.
I would therefore say that the debate is on what action that both individually and as a society that needs to be done. Abolishing coal mining vs replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, car ownership vs vegetarianism, carbon tax vs bans, and so on. We are collectively so divided that even if we all mostly agree that climate-change exists and is directly caused by us humans we can still not agree on what to do next.
> "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 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."
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to be clear, dietary fat is not good as implied by your statement:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIR.000000000000...
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIR.000000000000...
Nah, that's BS. It's an argument from authority, there is no actual science done in that paper.
Now if they actually took people, and replaced saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fat, holding other variables constant, then measured whether they lived longer, they'd have something. But they haven't done that.
Their reasoning is that this measure of blood lipids is associated with CVD, so if we do something that lowers that measure of blood lipids, it will also lower the incidence of CVD. That's just bad science, and they should know better.
Now if they actually took people, and replaced saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fat, holding other variables constant, then measured whether they lived longer, they'd have something. But they haven't done that.
Their reasoning is that this measure of blood lipids is associated with CVD, so if we do something that lowers that measure of blood lipids, it will also lower the incidence of CVD. That's just bad science, and they should know better.
Impugning the broad base of climate science by comparing it to some garbage results from dietary research is unfair.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
The thing is, it's not a debate against people who are well informed and honestly think the above (or outright denial). It's against lobbyists who will say anything to prevent regulation, and the uninformed who repeat whatever they heard last from those lobbyists (or some false middle ground between science and lobbyists).
Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.
Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
The problem is that we really can't do anything to fix it; it's much too late. And there's zero possibility we're going to convince enough people and leaders to change things to alleviate the problem, so we might as well just sit back and watch it burn. The wise course of action is to get yourself out of the house and let the rest of the inhabitants suffer the consequences of their own making.
Funny :)
But we're all running around with flamethrowers. And we can't imagine life without them. That's the hard part.
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.
Now we're telling them to stop building flamethrowers while we keep insisting that we keep our own.
Just so.
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.
> 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 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
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.
> 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.
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.
There's a saying about the risks of underestimating adversaries. And a clever adversary always acts weaker and crazier than they actually are.
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 direct a motivation to address those externalities even if they're aware of them - assuming they're unaware in any way.
(aside, coal isn't actually that terrible in terms of contribution to climate change, but reliance on it is definitely contributing, there may be bigger fish but this one has a good bit of meat on it)
Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have direct a motivation to address those externalities even if they're aware of them - assuming they're unaware in any way.
(aside, coal isn't actually that terrible in terms of contribution to climate change, but reliance on it is definitely contributing, there may be bigger fish but this one has a good bit of meat on it)
Amtrak doesn't ship cargo, only passengers. They don't own most of the railways either; they lease them from the cargo railways that own them, and Amtrak trains have lower priority than the cargo trains, causing scheduling problems and delays.
It'd honestly be easier to just shut down Amtrak and do without rail service. As a nation, we simply are not willing to do what it takes to have a decent passenger rail service, and that isn't going to change.
It'd honestly be easier to just shut down Amtrak and do without rail service. As a nation, we simply are not willing to do what it takes to have a decent passenger rail service, and that isn't going to change.
> they end up shipping the vast majority of coal
You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.
You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.
>could at least tax
GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.
GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.
Amtrak (or carriers, in this case I believe Conrail may be what I meant) can charge money for their services. When I mentioned taxing the goods I didn't mean sending in the IRS and instead I was referring to levying an additional fee for the costs induced by the usage of their service.
The word tax has multiple meanings, and my usage above was indeed correctly utilizing one of those meanings.
The word tax has multiple meanings, and my usage above was indeed correctly utilizing one of those meanings.
Companies can use their political influence to get other companies to change. This isn't happening today because everyone on Earth is happier when electricity and gas are cheaper, from the poorest consumer to the wealthiest executive.
If the most vocal people shouting about the problem of climate change were advocating for the mass adoption of nuclear power, huge money into fusion power research, and investment in the R&D of removing CO2 from the air instead of advocating for reduced power usage, transportation restrictions (mass transit), and human population decline as the solutions to "climate change", US society would be a lot more likely to get behind doing something about it.
Using climate change as a club to push ideological policies did not work and now has us in a real pickle. The other side did not fight back by advocating for better solutions to the CO2 pollution problem but instead just decided to ignore reality as an easier short-term tactic.
Using climate change as a club to push ideological policies did not work and now has us in a real pickle. The other side did not fight back by advocating for better solutions to the CO2 pollution problem but instead just decided to ignore reality as an easier short-term tactic.
They would get more done if they didn't ball in societal changes. It's like the autonomous car advocates who also want to do away with private vehicle ownership. People are open to new technologies. They aren't open to political rants. I want an electric car. I don't want a lecture about how people shouldn't be allowed to own cars. I want solar panels on my house. I don't want someone telling me to turn off my TV and read newspapers to save power.
CSX is what you’re thinking of.
Amtrak is passenger only. They share track with CSX and many others.
Amtrak is passenger only. They share track with CSX and many others.
Amtrak owns all their own trackage on the Northeast Corridor.
Good point. I always conflate the Empire Service and western ny train as that’s how I get to the corridor service!
Actually, the track from New Haven to New Rochelle is not owned by Amtrak but by Metro North (the local commuter rail). Apparently Massachusetts (via the MBTA, also the local commuter rail) also owns the NEC in Massachusetts.
> most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it.
Hmm. And how do you measure this? Yes, Company X ships the coal, but everybody uses the steel that is produced with that coal. Tax the coal, and the steel will be more expensive. Same for the cement. Or electricity. Companies that don't profit from coal transportation still enjoyed a good price for the steel and concrete of their headquarters and warehouses; for the steel structures of the bridges and the hulls of the ships that move their goods; for the machinery that produce all this stuff. The value of the salary they pay to their employees is measured in relation to what can be bought with it: make stuff more expensive, and the people will be poorer. Everybody is profiting from cheap stuff. Everybody should, and will, pay.
Hmm. And how do you measure this? Yes, Company X ships the coal, but everybody uses the steel that is produced with that coal. Tax the coal, and the steel will be more expensive. Same for the cement. Or electricity. Companies that don't profit from coal transportation still enjoyed a good price for the steel and concrete of their headquarters and warehouses; for the steel structures of the bridges and the hulls of the ships that move their goods; for the machinery that produce all this stuff. The value of the salary they pay to their employees is measured in relation to what can be bought with it: make stuff more expensive, and the people will be poorer. Everybody is profiting from cheap stuff. Everybody should, and will, pay.
> The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially.
You also need to convince them that any local mitigation action (maintenance, waters management, etc.) will impact them financially more than a global concerted effort to stop co2 emissions. Which seems a very difficult argument to make.
You also need to convince them that any local mitigation action (maintenance, waters management, etc.) will impact them financially more than a global concerted effort to stop co2 emissions. Which seems a very difficult argument to make.
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!
>If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.
The life span of the average business is about 10 years. The median employment tenure (years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer) in 4.2 years. It's awefully tough to get anyone today to care about the bottom line in Q3 2068.
The life span of the average business is about 10 years. The median employment tenure (years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer) in 4.2 years. It's awefully tough to get anyone today to care about the bottom line in Q3 2068.
> 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.
It’s going to be a positive thing for many companies. Defences need to be engineered, built and maintained. It isnt bad for everyone.
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.
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.
I don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around.
If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.
If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.
Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.
When there's water under the bridge, it would literally be a decision between putting the past behind and fixing the issue vs trying to point fingers and pin the blame on who was wrong. We'll bite the bullet and pay for all the necessary upgrades necessary. Businesses know it. Govt knows it. People will forget and move on as well. Human memory is short.
> when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it
What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).
What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).
One takes disproportionately from those hurting the environment, providing incentives to cease and desist destructive behavior, while the other assumes that everyone and everything hurts the climate equally.
> based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050.
I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?
I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?
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...
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-report-on-sea-lev...
> temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well
But temperature forecasts don't. Hindcasts aren't predictions.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...
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-report-on-sea-lev...
> temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well
But temperature forecasts don't. Hindcasts aren't predictions.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...
What's noteworthy is that the IPCC forecast for sea level rise is not accepted anymore by many, for some reason. The IPCC used to be gold standard, now it's not alarmist enough. From the report:
> Subsequent to the 2013 IPCC AR5, there has been a focus on the possible worst-case scenario for global sea level rise. Estimates of the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6 to 3 meters [5-10 feet], and even higher. These extreme values of possible sea level rise are regarded as extremely unlikely or so unlikely that we cannot even assign a probability. Nevertheless, these extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise are now becoming anchored as outcomes that are driving local adaptation plans
> Subsequent to the 2013 IPCC AR5, there has been a focus on the possible worst-case scenario for global sea level rise. Estimates of the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6 to 3 meters [5-10 feet], and even higher. These extreme values of possible sea level rise are regarded as extremely unlikely or so unlikely that we cannot even assign a probability. Nevertheless, these extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise are now becoming anchored as outcomes that are driving local adaptation plans
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".
> 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".
I'm not sure if you're aware, but "denier" is a loaded term that is used to equate the questioning of climate science with Holocaust denial. It has no place in a civilized discussion.
As for Climate Audit, the Wegman Report, and Judith Curry: Maybe try reading one of them sometime. I think you'll find that they are nothing like their detractors try to portray them to be.
As for Climate Audit, the Wegman Report, and Judith Curry: Maybe try reading one of them sometime. I think you'll find that they are nothing like their detractors try to portray them to be.
It is astounding how spot on it has all been. The data is so crystal clear.
I keep seeing charts that say otherwise:
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG .
This suggests the models are not accurate.
Who is right?
Who is right?
Certainly not the CEI's (Competitive Enterprise Institute) who distributed your figure. They have a long history of spreading disinformation, going back to the fight over tobacco policy: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise...
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...
https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallac...
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 on the world within a few decades. In response, the humans who make extraordinary amounts of money off of X (and won't be alive in a few decades), pay large sums of money to a few people who say: X isn't that bad.
So an alien examines this situation and thinks: "Hmm... should I believe the overwhelming majority of rationalists, or the few people with financial incentives to be contrarians?" The alien concludes: "Since there are two sides to the debate, that means each side is exactly 50% likely to be right. The answer must be unknowable, and therefore they shouldn't make any decision on it and just maintain the status quo (making the contrarians the victors)." Just kidding. The alien says, "Wow, if this species is stumped on this one, I'll just come back later and harvest their newly melted water and filter all their corpses out."
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 on the world within a few decades. In response, the humans who make extraordinary amounts of money off of X (and won't be alive in a few decades), pay large sums of money to a few people who say: X isn't that bad.
So an alien examines this situation and thinks: "Hmm... should I believe the overwhelming majority of rationalists, or the few people with financial incentives to be contrarians?" The alien concludes: "Since there are two sides to the debate, that means each side is exactly 50% likely to be right. The answer must be unknowable, and therefore they shouldn't make any decision on it and just maintain the status quo (making the contrarians the victors)." Just kidding. The alien says, "Wow, if this species is stumped on this one, I'll just come back later and harvest their newly melted water and filter all their corpses out."
Maybe, but if the alien wants water, the easier path is to just go to Europa, which has more water than Earth, plus a lower gravity well. We have no way of stopping them from harvesting resources from anywhere in this star system.
what the heck ... (my karma in this thread is like the stock market today) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
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!
I'm certainly convinced at this point that climate change is a real thing that we should be concerned about, but that's only because I have (to the best of my ability as a cs person) critically examined the position taken by the climate scientists.
no one is immune to bias and misaligned incentives, especially on contentious political issues, and especially in fields where your entire job depends on government funding. in general, I am quite skeptical of academics.
no one is immune to bias and misaligned incentives, especially on contentious political issues, and especially in fields where your entire job depends on government funding. in general, I am quite skeptical of academics.
I'm not saying we should accept it all unquestioningly, but I feel like that ship has sailed a long time ago. As a society, we should be taking action yesterday, not still asking if it's real or not. The only reason why we are still doing it is because of malicious high-influence individuals holding everyone back, trying to squeeze every last drop out of society.
Scientists and academics indeed have their own biases, but when you look at the big picture of the distribution of peoples' motivations, very clear patterns emerge that scream out: there is a lot of bad-faith, deliberate disinformation out there, and we need to take that into account. As rational people, it's tempting to just take arguments at face value and focus on the information. But this is all taking place in a larger context where psychology and game theory play a role. Impartiality is exploitable - tying up people's judgement is just a victory for the status quo.
Scientists and academics indeed have their own biases, but when you look at the big picture of the distribution of peoples' motivations, very clear patterns emerge that scream out: there is a lot of bad-faith, deliberate disinformation out there, and we need to take that into account. As rational people, it's tempting to just take arguments at face value and focus on the information. But this is all taking place in a larger context where psychology and game theory play a role. Impartiality is exploitable - tying up people's judgement is just a victory for the status quo.
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.
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.
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.
Climate change science isn't the result of a small cabal of academics, it's a vast interdisciplinary study involving all fields.
Bias isn't a binary proposition: it's not that since both sides have some bias, they should be equally distrusted. It's that one side has 0.02 bias and the other side has 0.6 bias, so weigh accordingly.
Bias isn't a binary proposition: it's not that since both sides have some bias, they should be equally distrusted. It's that one side has 0.02 bias and the other side has 0.6 bias, so weigh accordingly.
Study of the history and effects of climate change is indeed a vast interdisciplinary science. But the study of cause is much more narrowly focused.
Of those scientists who have backgrounds that would qualify them to contribute in this particular area, the consensus is not at all clear. But the ones who seem most concerned about rapid AGW appear to be those with skin in the game.
Of those scientists who have backgrounds that would qualify them to contribute in this particular area, the consensus is not at all clear. But the ones who seem most concerned about rapid AGW appear to be those with skin in the game.
It's not "attacking the motive" to question whether a source is reliable.
I never understood why "climate change" advocates don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some action advocated to "stop climate change", the source comes back to some progressive group. They are always advocating some pet progressive agenda like mass transit, human population reduction, or the reduction of living standards by forcing energy use reductions. Hello??? It's so frustrating.
We need to find ways to reduce CO2 emissions that will improve the lives of people instead of making them worse. How about massive R&D into nuclear power to make it safer, education about radiation so that people are not so irrationally afraid of it, fusion power research, a carbon tax and research into how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that, if we can get cheaper power, we can use it to fix the problem. The Tesla Roadster and the Model S is how you get people to switch to electric cars, not at huge gas tax (they tried that in Europe, btw).
We need to find ways to reduce CO2 emissions that will improve the lives of people instead of making them worse. How about massive R&D into nuclear power to make it safer, education about radiation so that people are not so irrationally afraid of it, fusion power research, a carbon tax and research into how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that, if we can get cheaper power, we can use it to fix the problem. The Tesla Roadster and the Model S is how you get people to switch to electric cars, not at huge gas tax (they tried that in Europe, btw).
> I never understood why "climate change" advocates don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some action advocated to "stop climate change", the source comes back to some progressive group. They are always advocating some pet progressive agenda like mass transit, human population reduction, or the reduction of living standards by forcing energy use reductions. Hello??? It's so frustrating.
That's not quite true - there are plenty of non-partisan and even conservative groups that accept climate change. For example, the US military and the Department of Defense: not exactly a progressive think tank. Yet they accept the reality of the situation, since they are pragmatic and actually have to deal directly with the consequences. They study how climate change affects world stability and combat and are actively preparing for it. Many oil companies have finally admitted to the facts and tip toe around the issue for PR safety. Even Trump is building sea walls around his vulnerable properties while milking the political benefits from denialism.
As for your second paragraph, yes, I agree, let's focus on the implementation. There's a lot of imperfect solutions that we need to sort through. I just wish we could already all be at that stage.
That's not quite true - there are plenty of non-partisan and even conservative groups that accept climate change. For example, the US military and the Department of Defense: not exactly a progressive think tank. Yet they accept the reality of the situation, since they are pragmatic and actually have to deal directly with the consequences. They study how climate change affects world stability and combat and are actively preparing for it. Many oil companies have finally admitted to the facts and tip toe around the issue for PR safety. Even Trump is building sea walls around his vulnerable properties while milking the political benefits from denialism.
As for your second paragraph, yes, I agree, let's focus on the implementation. There's a lot of imperfect solutions that we need to sort through. I just wish we could already all be at that stage.
> Certainly not the CEI's (Competitive Enterprise Institute) who distributed your figure.
The CEI is only one of many places that "distribute" this figure. As you can see from the lower left of the figure, it was actually made by John Christy, a climate scientists who showed it in testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2015. A good discussion of the chart and what it means is given in the Judith Curry article I linked to in another post upthread.
The CEI is only one of many places that "distribute" this figure. As you can see from the lower left of the figure, it was actually made by John Christy, a climate scientists who showed it in testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2015. A good discussion of the chart and what it means is given in the Judith Curry article I linked to in another post upthread.
Notice that all the graphs in the previous charts have that weird step where warming stops for while around 2005 then suddenly shoots up after 2015 to get back to predicted levels? Your graphs end at 2014.
There’s a good analysis of what seems to be the same chart (and more like it) here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar...
TL;DR: it is using every trick in the book to mislead.
TL;DR: it is using every trick in the book to mislead.
Every trick in the book?
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-refere...
Who is right?
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-refere...
Who is right?
My favorite article on this topic was from The Independent in 2000 that stated snowfalls in England were a thing of the past and children would not know what snow is within a few years.
The Independent finally deleted the article but here’s a summary of it:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27/headline-2000-snowfa...
The Independent finally deleted the article but here’s a summary of it:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27/headline-2000-snowfa...
Sea level rises is currently only 8cm in the last 20 years, but it has happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File%3...
PS: It’s all’s up 18 cm from 1897 but recent rise has been much more obvious.
PS: It’s all’s up 18 cm from 1897 but recent rise has been much more obvious.
The $78 million is for ten miles of the 457-mile corridor for the sea-level rise estimated for 2050. And the rise will only accelerate after 2050.
But yes, that does seem like a low figure.
But yes, that does seem like a low figure.
I was on a road trip throughout a lot of different parts of America last month. A park ranger in Big Bend told me that a tributary creek of the Rio Grande was a hundred feet wide, when normally you can just jump over it. A lakeside highway rest area in North Carolina was flooded up to a permanently mounted bench and trash can.
Huh? Big bend is nowhere near sea level..
Rising temperatures melting glacial/mountain ice more dramatically contributing to river water carry? I'm not saying that's specifically the case, just throwing out a possible hypothesis. Plenty of others exist (bad rainy season, tributary re-routing due to industry, removal of forested areas that would have previously soaked up water, etc).
Could be a global warming thing, could be a seasonal thing, could be anything really.
Could be a global warming thing, could be a seasonal thing, could be anything really.
As a general rule, higher temperatures lead to atrophied snowmelt rivers because there's not as much accumulation. That's one of the contributing factors for water problems in a lot of Western (U.S.) areas.
Good point, but OP didn't mention if this was an isolated incident (the hot summer that burns off more cap snow which will never get replenished) or a sustained thing (this used to be a 4 foot stream, but for the last 5 years it's been 100 feet wide instead). Who knows what's actually going on in this story.
I'm not saying it's anything one way or the other since this is a hyper-empirical piece of data to be working off of. Based on context I'm assuming OP meant to imply that this is a sign of rising water levels, but I was just posting some alternate theories.
I'm not saying it's anything one way or the other since this is a hyper-empirical piece of data to be working off of. Based on context I'm assuming OP meant to imply that this is a sign of rising water levels, but I was just posting some alternate theories.
Yes, hyper-empirical is exactly right. I totally don't know what caused the bigger creek in Big Bend or how that relates to the larger climate. I was hoping Hacker News would chime in with exactly this kind of analysis.
Blessing in disguise here for Amtrack and a great opportunity to do an overhaul of a subset of the one of the oldest railroad infrastructure in the USA. Many lessons we can learn from European counterparts.
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 one of dozens of problems that are just as urgently in need of investment.
Amazing how most of the reactions equate “move” to
“relocate to a different corridor” without offering
the costs of “elevate the trackage in the same corridor”.
Not cheap, to be sure, but avoids the land cost/urban planning morass of how to relocate major infrastructure.
While we’re at it, make the elevated passenger trackage be serious high-speed rail, instead of the max. 125mph (~200kph) it is now.
While we’re at it, make the elevated passenger trackage be serious high-speed rail, instead of the max. 125mph (~200kph) it is now.
"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 traveling alternatives(buses, cars, planes). Heck, it is economical to travel from NYC to DC by bus vs train. Train gets you in 3 hours for $200 and bus gets you in 4 hours for $19. For me, $200 is worth paying if I get to DC in an hour!
Yes there will be job displacements while the overhaul is underway. But for numbers sake, more job will be created as part of the overhaul.
By politics I assume you meant unions. It is a rabbit-hole debate but I will say this that unions have done more damage to the infrastructure progress than any other political entity in northeast USA.
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 traveling alternatives(buses, cars, planes). Heck, it is economical to travel from NYC to DC by bus vs train. Train gets you in 3 hours for $200 and bus gets you in 4 hours for $19. For me, $200 is worth paying if I get to DC in an hour!
Yes there will be job displacements while the overhaul is underway. But for numbers sake, more job will be created as part of the overhaul.
By politics I assume you meant unions. It is a rabbit-hole debate but I will say this that unions have done more damage to the infrastructure progress than any other political entity in northeast USA.
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.
Amtrak's long-term vision did involve moving away from the coast and swinging up future HSR via Hartford and western Massachusetts.
I say "did", because politicians from eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island were understandably not thrilled about losing their existing high-ish speed services.
I say "did", because politicians from eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island were understandably not thrilled about losing their existing high-ish speed services.
> 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 like they are going to cost us billions to trillions to mitigate between now and 2100.
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 like they are going to cost us billions to trillions to mitigate between now and 2100.
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 generations. It will affect us and our direct descendants.
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 generations. It will affect us and our direct descendants.
Well, that is because things aren't literally apocalyptic.
The science says that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years. That won't end the world.
The science says that climate change will cause trillions of dollars of damages, over the next hundred years.
Trillions of dollars in damages is bad. But it is on the same scale of "badness" as another iraq war.
I'd want to prevent a third Iraq war, but I am not going to pretend that it would put billions of lives in danger.
The science says that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years. That won't end the world.
The science says that climate change will cause trillions of dollars of damages, over the next hundred years.
Trillions of dollars in damages is bad. But it is on the same scale of "badness" as another iraq war.
I'd want to prevent a third Iraq war, but I am not going to pretend that it would put billions of lives in danger.
Science can't predict the economic effects of such a change over a 100 year period. Economic forecasting just isn't that good.
That's also not the right way to look at Iraq war costs. A lot of the war cost is just "shuffling".
Eg pay $1,000,000 in soldier salaries, the money is moved from taxpayers to soldiers. Then the soldiers spend the money. What was lost?
The real cost is the alternative work the soldiers could have done. The private sector could presumably have put them to better use. This would be more acute if the economy had full employment.
Bombs and munitions are worse, as there is real destruction of material. But much of the money is still recycled back into the domestic economy.
By contrast, a trillion simply lost from a catastrophe is just lost. It's a loss of real infrastructure. It's a loss of whole cities such as Miami, etc
To speak of "science" in this context is to misuse the term.
That's also not the right way to look at Iraq war costs. A lot of the war cost is just "shuffling".
Eg pay $1,000,000 in soldier salaries, the money is moved from taxpayers to soldiers. Then the soldiers spend the money. What was lost?
The real cost is the alternative work the soldiers could have done. The private sector could presumably have put them to better use. This would be more acute if the economy had full employment.
Bombs and munitions are worse, as there is real destruction of material. But much of the money is still recycled back into the domestic economy.
By contrast, a trillion simply lost from a catastrophe is just lost. It's a loss of real infrastructure. It's a loss of whole cities such as Miami, etc
To speak of "science" in this context is to misuse the term.
But a lot of the catastrophe cost is just "shuffling".
Eg pay $1,000,000 in construction worker salaries, the money is moved from taxpayers to workers. Then the workers spend the money. What was lost?
The comment about alternative work still applies, but much of the money is still recycled back into the domestic economy.
So it's not a trillion simply lost.
All in all, I think the comparison to war is very apt.
Eg pay $1,000,000 in construction worker salaries, the money is moved from taxpayers to workers. Then the workers spend the money. What was lost?
The comment about alternative work still applies, but much of the money is still recycled back into the domestic economy.
So it's not a trillion simply lost.
All in all, I think the comparison to war is very apt.
Real resources go into the building of those buildings though. You could have built other things, but instead you must rebuild new york.
Whereas, soldiers probably weren't doing much economically productive in the first place. And as long as there is spare capacity in the labour force, moving people from "unemployed" to "soldier" isn't a massive misallocation of resources.
It's not nothing - taxpayers could habe spent the money better had they kept it. But it's not the same as if you levelled a city.
Further, the vast bulk of costs associated with the iraq war are interest on debt. That is really just shuffling money around. Especially if the debt is held by americans.
Money is just a unit of exchange. It isn't synonymous with wealth itself. Climate change will actually directly destroy wealth: it will level capital stock, it will lower crop yields, etc.
This is very different from movements of money back and forth that leave the physical economy untouched.
Iraq suffered destruction of capital during the Iraq war. Not sure if a dollar figure was attached to it, but that would be a more comparable situation.
Iraq's economy is $200 billion per year. I'm guessing the dollar loss to them was much less than 2.4 trillion. And yet I'm sure the real hardship caused by capital loss is greater than americans feel from their financial loss - even if you account for population size differences.
Whereas, soldiers probably weren't doing much economically productive in the first place. And as long as there is spare capacity in the labour force, moving people from "unemployed" to "soldier" isn't a massive misallocation of resources.
It's not nothing - taxpayers could habe spent the money better had they kept it. But it's not the same as if you levelled a city.
Further, the vast bulk of costs associated with the iraq war are interest on debt. That is really just shuffling money around. Especially if the debt is held by americans.
Money is just a unit of exchange. It isn't synonymous with wealth itself. Climate change will actually directly destroy wealth: it will level capital stock, it will lower crop yields, etc.
This is very different from movements of money back and forth that leave the physical economy untouched.
Iraq suffered destruction of capital during the Iraq war. Not sure if a dollar figure was attached to it, but that would be a more comparable situation.
Iraq's economy is $200 billion per year. I'm guessing the dollar loss to them was much less than 2.4 trillion. And yet I'm sure the real hardship caused by capital loss is greater than americans feel from their financial loss - even if you account for population size differences.
It is still not literal end if the world. We destroyed lots of cities in Iraq. That didn't end the world.
Yes, hundreds of thousands died. But not billions. Not even close. That's the only point I am making.
Yes, hundreds of thousands died. But not billions. Not even close. That's the only point I am making.
The main difference here is that the Iraq war was funded by the government. The trillions of dollars for climate change will be put on homeowners, property owners, businesses, localities, etc and will be used to replace something, rather than be transferred. Further, for places where building dikes / walls are practical, that money will have to come from somewhere and I just don't know where that is right now.
I very much doubt the Federal government will be providing (or will have the funds to provide) much of the assistance required to mitigate this kind of rise, and it will come down to cities / states handling it themselves for a lot of this.
As for the lives in danger - I was considering this in terms of economic damage to the NE United States, but I'd imagine globally it could be on the scale of millions having to migrate / move.
I would not personally equate the impacts of climate change to the Iraq war because of the overall scale and global impact, but I understand how it compares in terms of order of magnitude for a mental model.
I very much doubt the Federal government will be providing (or will have the funds to provide) much of the assistance required to mitigate this kind of rise, and it will come down to cities / states handling it themselves for a lot of this.
As for the lives in danger - I was considering this in terms of economic damage to the NE United States, but I'd imagine globally it could be on the scale of millions having to migrate / move.
I would not personally equate the impacts of climate change to the Iraq war because of the overall scale and global impact, but I understand how it compares in terms of order of magnitude for a mental model.
> 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.
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....
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....
From my understanding that is likely going to be local to the eastern US seaboard. The gulf stream goes northeast towards Europe, and "pulls" water away from the east coast, effectively making the sea level on the east coast about 6' lower. So the gulf stream just has to lose a little strength to make local sea levels rise drastically, even if globally sea levels are barely rising.
When people talk about sea level rise, they usually mean the global average sea level, or the change in total amount of liquid water in the ocean. When talking about local sea level rise, they usually mean the change in maximum high tide. Given all the unique coastlines, gravitational/water tides, and temperature differences, an average global sea rise means different things to different regions.
A shallow bay in the tropics that is right in the way of ocean currents, for example, can see an order of magnitude more change in high tide than the global sea level, let alone during surges and swells.
A shallow bay in the tropics that is right in the way of ocean currents, for example, can see an order of magnitude more change in high tide than the global sea level, let alone during surges and swells.
> 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 down to Antarctica to go stake my land claim right now before it all gets gobbled up.
I mean, if this manmade global warming stuff is real, and it's as bad as they say it is.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20100817023019/http://www.indepen...
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 down to Antarctica to go stake my land claim right now before it all gets gobbled up.
I mean, if this manmade global warming stuff is real, and it's as bad as they say it is.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20100817023019/http://www.indepen...
King is not stating that here. He just says that the earth was no fun place to be, the last time greenhouse gasses were as high as they’ll likely be in 2100.
> "No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life, he said.
> Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100"."
[Emphasis mine]
He literally did say that, unless you think "would not sustain human life" is compatible with "habitable". That quote was an asinine statement to make and only serves to provide ammunition to those who want to convince people that climate change is not a real problem.
> Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100"."
[Emphasis mine]
He literally did say that, unless you think "would not sustain human life" is compatible with "habitable". That quote was an asinine statement to make and only serves to provide ammunition to those who want to convince people that climate change is not a real problem.
Imagine if I were to say "the last time that large amounts of people walked around in suits on daily basis, we had two world wars!". This is both true and misleading.
No scientist believes that climate change will cause such sire circumstances.
The experts on the matter believe that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years.
If you believe that this will end the world, then you should know that the experts disagree with you, and that you should go read some more science.
So yes, it is true that "the last time C02 levels were at this level, the world could not sustain life". But it is also misleading as it implies causation.
The scienctists do not believe that these levels would cause mass extinction of human life. The badness is closer in scale to another Iraq war.
No scientist believes that climate change will cause such sire circumstances.
The experts on the matter believe that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years.
If you believe that this will end the world, then you should know that the experts disagree with you, and that you should go read some more science.
So yes, it is true that "the last time C02 levels were at this level, the world could not sustain life". But it is also misleading as it implies causation.
The scienctists do not believe that these levels would cause mass extinction of human life. The badness is closer in scale to another Iraq war.
I read the article. King does seem to be stating that. At least, he says the last time co2 was as high as it will be in 2100, then only antarctica was suitable for human life.
Now, there's a lag to warming, so it might only reach the full temperatures by 2150 or so, but King did explicitly seem to be saying we're likely to make the world uninhabitable. Or at least that the last time co2 was that high, the world was uninhabitable.
I haven't figured out why people don't take this more seriously. A child born today can expect to live past 2100. People have children and grandchildren, and yet....
Now, there's a lag to warming, so it might only reach the full temperatures by 2150 or so, but King did explicitly seem to be saying we're likely to make the world uninhabitable. Or at least that the last time co2 was that high, the world was uninhabitable.
I haven't figured out why people don't take this more seriously. A child born today can expect to live past 2100. People have children and grandchildren, and yet....
King is being maliciously misleading with his statements.
He is implying causation, but no scientist actually believes that the world will be uninhabitable by 2100. That is the opinion of the experts.
He is implying causation, but no scientist actually believes that the world will be uninhabitable by 2100. That is the opinion of the experts.
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.
Should we talk about JFK being under water as well? see NY map.
Speaking of Amtrack with such fast news cycle, did they find out the cause of two recent crashes (I believe New Jersey /Connecticuit) ? Ine over some oassage-bridge. I cant find anything on it anymore.
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/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sd-del-mar-bluf...
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sd-del-mar-bluf...
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.
And SD will still have the trolley from TJ at least.
It will be interesting to see how fast Boring company progresses and if that will be a scalable solution. If there is going to be a large capital investment, it would be great if it also sped up travel times.
Misleading title: should be 'will drown.' Not once in the article was any current drowning of the infrastructure mentioned.
Rather than thinking like a train company, wondering how to protect or move the tracks, what if they thought like a transportation company, and figured out how to move the same and projected number of people?
Although if climate inaction generally prevails, eventually the area won't be viable for that many people to live, work and commute. Problem solved.
Although if climate inaction generally prevails, eventually the area won't be viable for that many people to live, work and commute. Problem solved.
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_...