Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

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

#91

Post by Beltalowda »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #59
quickthrower2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich countries are also going to be outbidding each other though. Some nations may decide not to sell it all because they need to eat themselves. This would be worse due to limited supply and no way to quickly ramp up.

Countries like the US and Canada, who are net food exporters, would basically be fine. China would face huge problems. Failed states would experience catastrophic famine.

They are currently net food exporters, but with catastrophic harvest failures that would probably change. I'm not sure if anyone has run a detailed analysis taking all the factors in to account, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume they would "be fine".

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

#92

Post by Moksha108 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #44
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We have the most extensive data available for recent years, though. Ice core samples are also nothing new, they've been extensively studied for decades. Many of these cores are carefully removed and placed in ice cold storage warehouses: https://qz.com/1590747/an-antarctic-ice-core-may-show-1-5-mi...

The data for recent years may be lost if the ability to read the encoded 1s and 0s is lost.

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

#93

Post by garbagecoder »

I read a book called like Justinian’s Flea I believe that argues the plague was the real end of any chance at a Roman state in the west because it stopped the East’s reconsolidation of the west and wounded the successor kingdoms. A different book on the collapse of Britain I will always remember for the quote “the horseman ride together.” Anyway, I still doubt this is true. The worst year was probably long before 536.

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

#94

Post by navane »

physicles wrote: post #89
navane wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I had forgotten the exact number, i knew it was at least 7k. I didnt want to lie in my comment, but im almost sure you are right.

Im at work right now so cant look it up.

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

#95

Post by chrisco255 »

Moksha108 wrote: post #92
chrisco255 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the most extensive data available for recent years, though. Ice core samples are also nothing new, they've been extensively studied for decades. Many of these cores are carefully removed and placed in ice cold storage warehouses: https://qz.com/1590747/an-antarctic-ice-core-may-show-1-5-mi...

The data for recent years may be lost if the ability to read the encoded 1s and 0s is lost.

Again, the physical ice core samples are permanently kept in giant freezer warehouses. And we know how to store binary archive data for thousands of years securely.

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

#96

Post by mjhay »

zrkrlc wrote: post #84
mjhay wrote: 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?

No, regular qwerty. Is there a tell from how I was writing?

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

#97

Post by Moksha108 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #95
Moksha108 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data for recent years may be lost if the ability to read the encoded 1s and 0s is lost.

Again, the physical ice core samples are permanently kept in giant freezer warehouses. And we know how to store binary archive data for thousands of years securely.

In 10000 years the earths crust moves warehouses are destroyed. The discovered binary has to be decoded and translated. Humankind has changed, evolved or devolved in ways we cannot yet know. Looking forward from now the two proposed future reality are equally valid. We have no way of knowing that outcome.

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

#98

Post by zrkrlc »

mjhay wrote: post #96
zrkrlc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, regular qwerty. Is there a tell from how I was writing?

You wrote 'feetback' instead of 'feedback', and Colemak is the only popular layout (vs Qwerty and Dvorak) where 't' and 'd' are right next to each other.

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

#99

Post by henearkr »

gcanyon wrote: post #87
henearkr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes.

"Thousands of years" is clearly wrong, so it is at best several centuries.

About "decades": I'm not saying it will, but that it could.

It is completely in the plausible, and scientists have been proven to be too much conservative, to the great surprise of everyone including themselves.

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

#100

Post by chrisco255 »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #60
chrisco255 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't eat electricity or insulation. There's close to 1 billion acres of farmland in the U.S. alone. If we were to suffer a decade of volcanic winter, large parts of the midwest would become non-productive. If the reports of the sun being as dim as the moon due to the ash are true, there would be massive crop failure. One or two years like that, we might be ok. But any longer than that and our stores would be rap…

The vast majority of that food is grown as animal feed. Only 27% is consumed directly by people. That's a huge buffer in an emergency.

No it's not. This is false. First of all, for example, WRT to soybeans, only 20% of the bean can be used to derive oil, which is the ingredient most often used in processed human foods (not the healthiest but I digress). The other 80% of the bean would have to be discarded if not used for meal to feed chickens and pigs [1]. But if the beans do not grow at all you don't get meal or oil. Same is true of corn silage. These parts of the plant are not edible by humans.

But by far the biggest fallacy in your argument is that you don't recognize that animals are eaten by humans and provide valuable nutrition and essential nutrients. If the livestock is dying off because there's not enough feed, there are humans downstream of that who will not be getting fed. Livestock and crops have symbiotic relationship with humans and with each other. A lot of wasted plant matter that humans would have to discard (not to mention grass that cows, deer and other ruminants eat) can be consumed by farm animals. And animal manure can be used as fertilizer to re-invigorate soil and improve crop yields. In addition, animals upcycle crops into higher quality proteins and essential amino acids.

Needless to say though, if our agricultural systems are producing 73% less crops and livestock there will be ~73% less humans.

1. https://ncsoy.org/wp-content/uploads/11731980513_d53ca2a99e_...

Post reply on HN