Historical # Numbers

[EERecordist]

Professor Edward Tufte https://www.edwardtufte.com/ has been cited many times by ASR participants. His books and seminars are recommended.

 

[EJ3]

I find it extremely unfortunate the media and writers alarm with "millions" and the like, while not revealing percentage. People percentages, budget percentages, numbers spread over years vs one year, more.

In social science, a small percent can have a large impact. How we get information in numbers and discuss them is falling into disrepair with falling education, along with knowledge of statistics.

I read polls. More trustworthy polls use respected sampling. The exact question wording is important - read that. Then read the crosstabs, breakdown by demographics: age, sex, ethnography, income, views, etc. It is like tests we do in audio, the equipment and conditions. It is like the experimental conditions and measurements in a scientific paper, documented so it can be independently reproduced as a test.

So around numbers is a framework of honesty and trust.

My math education petered out with complex number calculus. The book the Tao of Physics by a physicist proposes that as mathematicians create new mathematics systems, scientists find a way to use them to solve problems.

Of course, we ASR geeks are used to numbers in dB for noise floor and distortion when tested to a specific output level. Percentages were the old way when the technology made them high.

Well I agree with most of what you say: but I still want to know what percentage of the world human population was killed off during each of these calamities.
Because I believe that, if, for example, there is 10,000 people & 1,000 disappear, that means that there are 10% less people (only a small percentage of whom will be truly knowledgeable in a way that spreads across larger swaths of the earth back before we, say the communications of the 19th century to spread knowledge easily world wide).
So it affects the propagation of knowledge (from all cultures). And percentages work well with the basic understanding of that, without getting into the minutia that causes many (most, probably) to just roll their eyes & take it with a grain of salt.

 

[antcollinet]

Well I agree with most of what you say: but I still want to know what percentage of the world human population was killed off during each of these calamities.
Because I believe that, if, for example, there is 10,000 people & 1,000 disappear, that means that there are 10% less people (only a small percentage of whom will be truly knowledgeable in a way that spreads across larger swaths of the earth back before we, say the communications of the 19th century to spread knowledge easily world wide).
So it affects the propagation of knowledge (from all cultures). And percentages work well with the basic understanding of that, without getting into the minutia that causes many (most, probably) to just roll their eyes & take it with a grain of salt.

Well the % of people killed by the black death in England was sufficient (again I think around 50%) to change the nature of society forever. Suddenly there were insufficient "peasants" to work the land, and the resulting power shift towards labour eventually ended the feudal system.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Well I agree with most of what you say: but I still want to know what percentage of the world human population was killed off during each of these calamities.
Because I believe that, if, for example, there is 10,000 people & 1,000 disappear, that means that there are 10% less people (only a small percentage of whom will be truly knowledgeable in a way that spreads across larger swaths of the earth back before we, say the communications of the 19th century to spread knowledge easily world wide).
So it affects the propagation of knowledge (from all cultures). And percentages work well with the basic understanding of that, without getting into the minutia that causes many (most, probably) to just roll their eyes & take it with a grain of salt.

If I understand you correctly, you want something like this?

 

[EJ3]

If I understand you correctly, you want something like this?

Yes, ideally. Maybe not as detailed but certainly the general Idea. (on the other hand, the explanations of what the probable setbacks were is pretty good).
Thank you.

 

[Cbdb2]

Something wrong with your solar figures there.

A GW of power will generate around 3,000GWh/year on it's own (assuming average around 8h per day generation - 1GWx365x8). If 2023 and 2024 each added 1GW per day, that would be 730 additional GW just from those years, generating 2.2million GWh /year just from those two years installations.

Somewhat more than the 4600GWh/year you claim is currently being produced.

My mistake, that should have been 4,600,000 Gwh per year for solar. Thats still a small fraction of the 180,000,000 Gwh and an extra 1,000,000 year is only .6% of the total.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I like the Data is Beautiful YT channel – history + numbers!
For example:

 

[antcollinet]

My mistake, that should have been 4,600,000 Gwh per year for solar. Thats still a small fraction of the 180,000,000 Gwh and an extra 1,000,000 year is only .6% of the total.

Thanks for the clarification. So that is around 2.5% of global generation. Actually not bad for a not yet matured technology

I always find a contrast with Uk generation interesting. In the last 12 months we have 5% solar generation. This is despite our climate being far from ideal, AND despite our climate/location being one of the best in the world for wind - especially offshore wind.

I don't know if the figures for solar include individual home generation that is consumed as it is generated - rather than being fed back to the grid.

More than 30% of our generation was wind.
Nuclear managed just under half that of wind at 14.8%

Right now, at 09:55 this is our mix of generation:
(From - the always fascinating - at least for an engineer - National Grid Live)

 

[EJ3]

Thanks for the clarification. So that is around 2.5% of global generation. Actually not bad for a not yet matured technology

I always find a contrast with Uk generation interesting. In the last 12 months we have 5% solar generation. This is despite our climate being far from ideal, AND despite our climate/location being one of the best in the world for wind - especially offshore wind.

I don't know if the figures for solar include individual home generation that is consumed as it is generated - rather than being fed back to the grid.

More than 30% of our generation was wind.
Nuclear managed just under half that of wind at 14.8%

Right now, at 09:55 this is our mix of generation:
(From - the always fascinating - at least for an engineer - National Grid Live)

View attachment 427201

May we have the numbers for which ones destroy the most atmospheric oxygen enriching grasses, other plants, trees which re-enrich the ground when they die?
What about he environmental destruction of the land that replenishes the oxygen we breathe. (hectares of land?)
With ocean wind farms and many more dead whales washing up on the East Coast of the USA?
There are tradeoffs for these "FREE POWER" technologies. (Just as there are for other ways of generating power, including hydro electric).
Just sayin' that "There is no FREE LUNCH".

 

[Doodski]

May we have the numbers for which ones destroy the most atmospheric oxygen enriching grasses, other plants, trees which re-enrich the ground when they die?
What about he environmental destruction of the land that replenishes the oxygen we breathe. (hectares of land?)
With ocean wind farms and many more dead whales washing up on the East Coast of the USA?
There are tradeoffs for these "FREE POWER" technologies. (Just as there are for other ways of generating power, including hydro electric).
Just sayin' that "There is no FREE LUNCH".

Interesting ideas although we just need to get close to cleaning up the environment and not be perfect about it. Some GHGs are OK just not flooding the atmosphere.

 

[EJ3]

Interesting ideas although we just need to get close to cleaning up the environment and not be perfect about it. Some GHGs are OK just not flooding the atmosphere.

I agree that there needs to be a balance of what is being done. It would not be good to be lowering the atmospheric oxygen level in the name of clean air. Both issues will kill (& not just us).
Apparently we don't actually know what specifically is suddenly cause the whale deaths. But in never happened at 20 times the quantity as before the off shore windmills.
So, it likely has something to do with them that is not benign to the whales.

 

[Newman]

Or how about Genghis Khan... "According to genetic studies, around 8% of all males descend from Genghis Khan. This is due to the widespread distribution of his Y-chromosome lineage across the region of the former Mongol Empire, likely resulting from his extensive conquests and large number of descendants" Assuming, but can't be verified, that an equal number of females descend from him, that makes 16% of the current human population...

Since numbers are paramount in this thread, I hope you don't mind me correcting you: it's not 16%, it's still 8%! .

 

[Doodski]

I agree that there needs to be a balance of what is being done. It would not be good to be lowering the atmospheric oxygen level in the name of clean air. Both issues will kill (& not just us).
Apparently we don't actually know what specifically is suddenly cause the whale deaths. But in never happened at 20 times the quantity as before the off shore windmills.
So, it likely has something to do with them that is not benign to the whales.

Where are these whale deaths occurring? The most I am aware of is near Vancouver where they get jammed in the bulbous bow of ships and have some sort of issue with submarine test area sonar emissions.

 

[Newman]

Gentle nudge: didn't the OP ask for this thread to be about historical numbers?

 

[EJ3]

Where are these whale deaths occurring? The most I am aware of is near Vancouver where they get jammed in the bulbous bow of ships and have some sort of issue with submarine test area sonar emissions.

Since 2023, at least 10 whales have washed ashore on the New York and New Jersey coastlines. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Whales
News Release 21-Nov-2024

Exploring the impact of offshore wind on whale deaths #ASA187​

Some experts are worried wind farm survey noise adds stress and increases whale deaths.

Reports and Proceedings
Acoustical Society of America


image:
Researchers retrieve an instrument package from the Cook Inlet. Could noise from these surveys like these have led to the death of almost a dozen whales during winter of 2022-2023?
view more

Credit: Michael Stocker
MELVILLE, N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024 – In the winter of 2022-2023, nearly a dozen whales died off the coast of New Jersey, near the sites of several proposed wind farms. Their deaths prompted concern that related survey work being conducted in the area somehow contributed to their deaths.
Michael Stocker of Ocean Conservation Research will present his work Thursday, Nov. 21, at 3:29 p.m. ET in a session dedicated to examining the circumstances surrounding these whale deaths, as part of the virtual 187th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, running Nov. 18-22, 2024.
In pursuit of clean energy goals and to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions, developers are increasingly exploring building wind turbines in the waters off the East Coast of the United States. Three offshore wind farms are already in operation, with several more planned or underway. These wind farms stand to generate a significant amount of carbon-free electricity, which can help coastal states meet their decarbonization goals.
The increased presence of these turbines in coastal waters, along with the noise from construction and surveys, has led to concerns of their impact on marine life. In particular, cetaceans such as whales and dolphins are likely to be sensitive to the noises and increased marine traffic brought by these turbines.

 

[Vacceo]

Well the % of people killed by the black death in England was sufficient (again I think around 50%) to change the nature of society forever. Suddenly there were insufficient "peasants" to work the land, and the resulting power shift towards labour eventually ended the feudal system.

It also forced the crown to enact draft for the 100 years war, which further galvanized peasants. It only required Tyler, Ball and Straw to formulate it clearly.

That said, another number that had been recently debatet is the aftermath of Caesar in Gaul: an estimate of a million dead.

 

[Blumlein 88]

One town in Bolivia produced 40,000 tons of silver over a couple hundred years in the 16th and 17th century. Most of it to produce the Spanish pieces of Eight the first international currency. At one time despite being 13,000 ft (4000 m) in elevation the population was 160,000 people. Eventually by the end of the 19th century 150,000 tons of silver were shipped away from this one Bolivian town of Potosi. This silver treasure in a sense created the real existence of truly global trade as it became the basis of trade over the entire world.

Potosí Silver Mines

Mountain of unimaginable riches that bankrolled the Spanish Empire, complete with its own underworld god.

www.atlasobscura.com

.

 

[Galliardist]

This for you history buffs or number nerds... often embodied in the person. I know that we've got some professional historians like @Vacceo and @Willem as well as ex military guys like @AdamG, who have interesting numbers at their fingertips. This is about historical numbers that seem too outrageous to be true... yet are. For example, in Henry VIII's 36 year reign, he executed approx. 57,000 people, mostly his own subjects. Do the math and you come up with 4.3 killings every day for 36 years.

Or how about Genghis Khan... "According to genetic studies, around 8% of all males descend from Genghis Khan. This is due to the widespread distribution of his Y-chromosome lineage across the region of the former Mongol Empire, likely resulting from his extensive conquests and large number of descendants" Assuming, but can't be verified, that an equal number of females descend from him, that makes 16% of the current human population... or 1.2 billion humans carry his genetic material... YIKES!!!

Let's not turn political or too gruesome please... even though I lead with Henry's tallies. Let's say anything before the 17th century has more leeway in that regard, otherwise no subsequent death tolls please. Otherwise... let's keep it related to history, or science/math. Watch ya got?

On the executions under the reign of Henry VIII, it's necessary to consider the circumstances of his reign, and what is determined as an "execution by Henry VIII" when determining the figure.

Going further involves so many breaches of policy at this site that I really don't want to go there.

 

[Galliardist]

Gentle nudge: didn't the OP ask for this thread to be about historical numbers?

The causes of many of these historical numbers still resonate in modern times in so many places, that I am surprised the thread is still alive. That's before ploughing into aspects of the modern day climate debate.

There are claims across this thread now that can't be responded to without going into politics, regardless of voracity. That to my mind just makes the thread political.

 

[Jimbob54]

This thread is teetering on the edge of somebody going THERE. If anyone does I am locking it down.

Tread carefully , stay away from policy as opposed to facts . And nobody mention the P word .

Thanks