Live data from Hacker News

Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

science.org

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#81

I assumed referring to the Plague of Justinian, but apparently that happened a few years later in 541-549

Plague of Justinian is assumed to be related, as it spread through crop-failure-driven migrations across a population already weakened by famine. There's a reason the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are depicted as riding together: famine, war, plague, and death usually accompany each other.

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be even more bleak because we have 100X the population. I live near San Francisco and yesterday it rained more than usual which resulted in some highways literally shutting down and hours long traffic diversions. I have pretty low faith in us.

Coordination of governing bodies at the regional level is really bad in the US. A different agency manages the highways than the roadways than the waterways, each having their own incentives and budgets.

In this case the problem (other than weather) was 100% infrastructure: many of these roadways are built below grade, which means that when it rains, they flood. Floods are generally not part of the threat model for Bay Area infrastructure (though perhaps they should be), so when civil engineers trade off drainage vs. earthquake safety vs. land use vs. traffic, drainage is usually the first thing sacrificed. The mid-peninsula had 5 consecutive avenues underneath El Camino & the Caltrain tracks washed out; most of them have been recently rebuilt as grade-separated underpasses as part of the Caltrain electrification project, so that traffic would not need to cross the tracks. They probably would not have flooded as at-grade intersections.

Arguably this was the right choice, as everybody just stayed home during this storm, so real impacts were relatively light. By contrast, Bay Area traffic is a disaster every rush hour, so getting a few folks to take Caltrain instead of driving or avoiding just one collision on the tracks already puts you ahead of the cost of this weekend's storm.

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#83

I hear 1348 wasn't too great either.

"By June 24 – The Black Death pandemic has reached England,[1] having probably been brought across the English Channel by fleas on rats aboard a ship from Gascony to the south coast port of Melcombe (modern-day Weymouth, Dorset);[2][3] by November it will have reached London and by 1350 will have killed one third to a half of its population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1348 Dying of respiratory or cardiac failure…

They blamed cats, not knowing it was the fleas.

It wasn't until the 1800s that hand washing was tied to health (Semmelweis). The 1300s would have been a filthy, filthy existence it's not a great surprise the plague spread like wildfire (past its initial vector). Basic hygiene has helped humanity massively.

> Dying of respiratory or cardiac failure is horrifying enough

That is how you die, regardless of events it's ultimately brain death due to lack of oxygen to the brain - pray your heart stops one day (everything else is worse).

> Dying of respiratory or cardiac failure is horrifying enough

I know you were making a reference to c19. Yes, being kept in solitary confinement while you suffocate to death by order of the state would be a miserable way to go (tax extracted and left in an "exit room").

Here in NZ the state forced an elderly man to watch from the roadside as his wife was buried but politicians were allowed to go swimming during the same lock down... Disgusting.

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#84
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we will lose recent years first, so that could impact what sort of research would still be possible

Not at ice divides (like hydrological divides) where ice cores are taken (ice cores are almost always taken at divides because the ice flows apart, so the stratigraphy is not as disturbed). It's too cold to melt out there anytime soon. These are high-elevation locations, so there is either no melting (East Antartica ones ~3000 m) or extremely minimal melting, rarely, during the height of summer (Greenland and some ot…

Tangent but do you happen to use a Colemak-layout keyboard?

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#85
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, if that is all true then vertical farming is even less relevant to this scenario than I thought. I'm not sure I'm qualified to check your figures and I suspect some of your assumptions are more pessimistic than mine, but the fundamentals pass a reality check vs. amount of energy delivered by the sun (lots). (Just to preempt some likely replies from other people: I'm sure there is a big difference between "Americ…

> but the fundamentals pass a reality check vs amount of energy delivered by the sun (lots). Solar panels produce about 150 watts of energy per square meter since most solar panels operate at 15% efficiency this translates to 15 watts per square foot. Which is 100 Watts solar energy per square foot, so 35 Watts certainly has the right order. (LEDs are not 100% efficient, sunlight is not 100% efficient with chlorophyl…

The root scenario is if a large volcanic eruption causes prolonged limited sunlight. So solar isn't the best option in this case.

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#86
post #84
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at ice divides (like hydrological divides) where ice cores are taken (ice cores are almost always taken at divides because the ice flows apart, so the stratigraphy is not as disturbed). It's too cold to melt out there anytime soon. These are high-elevation locations, so there is either no melting (East Antartica ones ~3000 m) or extremely minimal melting, rarely, during the height of summer (Greenland and some ot…

Tangent but do you happen to use a Colemak-layout keyboard?

Curious. What made you ask that question?

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ice in Antarctica and Greenland is not going to melt altogether and it would take thousands of years for it to melt away at current pace even if trends aren't reversed by another series of similar volcanic events.

This is way too optimistic, and the melting rate is accelerating. Not thousands of years. Centuries probably, but also maybe only decades.

> decades

The ice in Greenland is up to 3000 meters thick, and Antarctica is up to almost 5000 meters. Are you suggesting the net melt could average up to half a meter a year?

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#88
post #24

*in Europe and Asia. I kind of weep for the loss of oral and comprehensible physical histories in the Americas and Africa, since scholarship like this shows that one can combine those with unlikely natural records and scientific analysis to triangulate on remarkable narratives about our past.

Trees in North America, at least, also reflect this effect -- their rings in these years are extremely narrow, showing poor growing conditions.

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#89
post #57

> The team deciphered this record using a new ultra–high-resolution method, in which a laser carves 120-micron slivers of ice, representing just a few days or weeks of snowfall, along the length of the core. Each of the samples—some 50,000 from each meter of the core—is analyzed for about a dozen elements. The approach enabled the team to pinpoint storms, volcanic eruptions, and lead pollution down to the month or ev…

They match the ice samples up with tree rings. There exists tree ring data of 7k+ years, the ice contains more info, but the tree rings allow for absolute pinpointing on a year. They match them on common info. I am reading "tree story" by valerie trout.

My understanding was that dendrochronology records go back about 12k years. Is there anything about that in the book you’re reading?

Re: Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)

#90
post #76

> The repeated blows, followed by plague, plunged Europe into economic stagnation that lasted until 640. Islam first appeared on 610. I wonder if these events had any effects on that.

Definitely! The Byzantine and Parthian empires had just fought a long war, and were very weak. That left the near East easy pickings for the Muslim invaders coming up from the Hejaz.
Post reply on HN