Water Conflict Chronology(worldwater.org)
worldwater.org
Water Conflict Chronology
http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/
42 comments
I think it's hard to overestimate how much more visibility events of the last 20 years have on a global scale, and how much smaller the events that become visible are. Even looking from the first half of the 20th century (mostly world war-related conflicts: dam bombings etc) to the end of the second half:
> A report suggests that proposals were made at a meeting
> of fundamentalist groups in Tehran, under the auspices of
> the Iranian Foreign Ministry, to poison water supplies of
> major cities in the West
Even if the second thing happened in 1924, we might never have known about it.
Looking at this list, I think some of the frequency is also exacerbated by the increasing centralization of water supply, especially as more of the world develops. If everybody is a subsistence farmer with a well and the aquifer is running dry there will be conflicts, but those conflicts will be on a much smaller (less historically notable) scale than "Country X is threatening Country Y's water supply".
Even if the second thing happened in 1924, we might never have known about it.
Looking at this list, I think some of the frequency is also exacerbated by the increasing centralization of water supply, especially as more of the world develops. If everybody is a subsistence farmer with a well and the aquifer is running dry there will be conflicts, but those conflicts will be on a much smaller (less historically notable) scale than "Country X is threatening Country Y's water supply".
> 3. Despite #2 its hard to ignore the more than tripling of events from 1900-2000 to 2000-2100 (and we are only 20 years in this century)
Taking a brief look at the data, it's almost certainly reporting bias. Most of the entries for "trigger" in 2019 are variations on the theme "man stabs neighbor [sometimes only maybe] because water." The sources for these are generally local news reports, which are far easier to find in 2019 than they are in the 20th century. Indeed, the first such listing I see is in... 1999.
In general, the quality of the curation of this debate doesn't inspire much confidence in me (the Lesotho coup, I noticed, is listed twice as well... how did that get missed?).
Taking a brief look at the data, it's almost certainly reporting bias. Most of the entries for "trigger" in 2019 are variations on the theme "man stabs neighbor [sometimes only maybe] because water." The sources for these are generally local news reports, which are far easier to find in 2019 than they are in the 20th century. Indeed, the first such listing I see is in... 1999.
In general, the quality of the curation of this debate doesn't inspire much confidence in me (the Lesotho coup, I noticed, is listed twice as well... how did that get missed?).
To be frank the "water wars" seems suspiciously zeitgeist and "trope-driven" like Bloomberg's "backdoor chip" story. There is no need for them to add a separate chip when they are fabbing the damn thing. It seems far more "apocalyptic symbolism" than any remotely rational connection beyond "Step one: water instability. Step two: ??? Step Three: War!". It completely ignores all conflict resolution mechanisms, deals, and trades and just assumes foreordained war.
I'd go a step further and also add that there seems to be a sentiment that everything needs to be explained as having water instability as the cause (or at least the predominant cause). Several entries in the list are basically "X happened for several reasons, including water." And worse, anything that involves water is included, even if it's not really about control of water for human use--the Fashoda incident is on the list, which is really about competing French and British colonial claims for their desire for a contiguous east/west or north/south (respectively) African empire.
The implication is that these are conflicts over water, but they're not. They're "conflicts" in that something happened that somehow involved water in the periphery. Very misleading list.
I disagree unless your comment is directed to the data provided by the OP. In that case I agree (only to a small degree) as factualness dilutes as one goes back in time also these are broad statements. As to my list that I posted above simply aggregates the data provided in the OP.
I was curious so I correlated it against world population, and it still grows a lot. from 5ish events per billion around 1500 to 100 or so per billion now. That said, record keeping biases make a straightforward comparison fairly meaningless.
There's more and more of us, at an accelerating rate. Kind of makes sense that conflicts around the 2nd most life-sustaining substance would also escalate.
There may also be the effect of surviving historical records. Lots of things from the more distant past wouldn't end up being recorded.
I was hoping this would pop up. An example of why:
> Two members of the right-wing "Order of the Rising Sun" are arrested in Chicago with 30-40 kg of typhoid cultures with which they allegedly planned to poison the water supply in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. Experts say the plan is unlikely to cause health problems due to water chlorination.
Imagine planning a terrorist act, and never bothering to check whether it could work even in theory. I wonder how that conversation went.
“Been hearing a lot about this typhoid stuff.”
“I know a guy that can get some.”
“Sweet, I just so happen to know how to get into the local water plant. Let’s drop it in and see what happens.”
jail happens
“What’re you in for?”
“A plan that couldn’t cause harm even in theory, to further my political agenda.”
> Two members of the right-wing "Order of the Rising Sun" are arrested in Chicago with 30-40 kg of typhoid cultures with which they allegedly planned to poison the water supply in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. Experts say the plan is unlikely to cause health problems due to water chlorination.
Imagine planning a terrorist act, and never bothering to check whether it could work even in theory. I wonder how that conversation went.
“Been hearing a lot about this typhoid stuff.”
“I know a guy that can get some.”
“Sweet, I just so happen to know how to get into the local water plant. Let’s drop it in and see what happens.”
jail happens
“What’re you in for?”
“A plan that couldn’t cause harm even in theory, to further my political agenda.”
> Two members of the right-wing
They were left wing.
Killing a lot of random people through the water supply is a very left wing idea, you'll see the general idea often on HN with anti-population rants without a clear way forward. A lot of don't believe Bill Gates and his development reduces population.
RISE hijacked a plane and ended up in Cuba.
And they were looking at putting it into food stuff and had aerosol models.
One of their ideas of putting typhoid in the water supply seems valid to me. If you put a drop of typhoid in a glass of tap water, I would have expected it to still be bad. Perhaps not, but direct injection into waterlines is easy. If the clusterfuck of bad reporting about them includes a bad analysis of typhoid and chlorined water lines, I wouldn't rule it out.
Mental illness also played a part.
They were left wing.
Killing a lot of random people through the water supply is a very left wing idea, you'll see the general idea often on HN with anti-population rants without a clear way forward. A lot of don't believe Bill Gates and his development reduces population.
RISE hijacked a plane and ended up in Cuba.
And they were looking at putting it into food stuff and had aerosol models.
One of their ideas of putting typhoid in the water supply seems valid to me. If you put a drop of typhoid in a glass of tap water, I would have expected it to still be bad. Perhaps not, but direct injection into waterlines is easy. If the clusterfuck of bad reporting about them includes a bad analysis of typhoid and chlorined water lines, I wouldn't rule it out.
Mental illness also played a part.
I had a feeling it'd turn out this way considering this weird comment seems to be pushing conspiracy theories about bill gates, but I did feel compelled to check to see the order of the rising sun was a right-wing group or not.
No surprise, they absolutely were right-wing. Neo-Nazis even. "dedicated to creating a new master race,"
No surprise, they absolutely were right-wing. Neo-Nazis even. "dedicated to creating a new master race,"
This is cool. Some context I needed:
> Items are included when there is violence (injuries or deaths) or threats of violence (including verbal threats, military maneuvers, and shows of force). We do not include instances of unintentional or incidental adverse impacts on populations or communities that occur associated with water management decisions, such as populations displaced by dam construction or impacts of extreme events such as flooding or droughts. (Based on this new definition, some previous entries were removed in May 2018.)
http://www.worldwater.org/water-conflict/
> Items are included when there is violence (injuries or deaths) or threats of violence (including verbal threats, military maneuvers, and shows of force). We do not include instances of unintentional or incidental adverse impacts on populations or communities that occur associated with water management decisions, such as populations displaced by dam construction or impacts of extreme events such as flooding or droughts. (Based on this new definition, some previous entries were removed in May 2018.)
http://www.worldwater.org/water-conflict/
Why does this also include imaginary/fabled events ?
They left off the attempted coup d'état of Bolivia by the Quantum organisation to seize control of their water supply in the 22nd Bond Movie, Quantum of Solace (2008).
Arguably this 'event' drew more public attention to the potential of Future Wars over Water than the rest of the list combined.
Arguably this 'event' drew more public attention to the potential of Future Wars over Water than the rest of the list combined.
What, the bible isn't the literal truth, or do you doubt the Epics of Gilgamesh? They should have been in a different list.
The other thing is notice how few events there were in the "dark ages", 500-1500 ad. Bet things were popping up but not known to westerners like me in those lands that eventually became part of modern China.
The other thing is notice how few events there were in the "dark ages", 500-1500 ad. Bet things were popping up but not known to westerners like me in those lands that eventually became part of modern China.
Very cool, but why is one fictional fairy-tale story ("Moses parts the Red Sea") included among historical facts?
Either keep the list factual, or include other notable fictions that illustrate the idea.
Either keep the list factual, or include other notable fictions that illustrate the idea.
"Whiskey is for fightin, water is for killin." - [a guy who owns water]
With the water shortages around the world, can residential rain barrels provide a sufficient alternative? Is there a study for the number of barrels per person per climate?
That depends on average rainfall, land area controlled per person, the variability of rainfall, and usage patterns.
The simple answer is to look at average per-capita or household water use, average annual rainfall, and determine how much surface area (often a rooftop) is required to supply residential needs.
Example: 15" (380mm) of rainfall over a 3,000 ft^2 (280m^2) roof is 28,000 gallons (100k litre) per year. That's 75 gallons/day (290 l/day). And would be typical of amounts that a Northern California suburban household might expect.
Since rainfall is mostly in the winter months (November -- May or so), you'd likely want to have storage for at least half of that, which would be roughly the size of a typical backyard swimming pool (10' * 20' * 4' avg depth).
Keep in mind that in many parts of the world, high populations corresponde to very high population densities, and the actual land-surface area per person is low. There are also regions in which residences are ephemeral or unstable, such that long-term investment is not attractive or individually sensible.
Many high-population areas are also located in regions in which there is high rainfall (east, southeast, and southern Asia especially, also the Philippines and portions of South and Central America). Water may not be a limiting factor in those places.
Water availability and access tends to be highly localised. There is a lot of water on the planet, the problems are having it where people are, when people need it. Household usage is one question, but if you're looking at agricultural water, the quantities and other requirements (when and where irrigation is required) scale up tremendously.
Which is a long way of saying "it depends". Which is what I said at the beginning anyhow.
The simple answer is to look at average per-capita or household water use, average annual rainfall, and determine how much surface area (often a rooftop) is required to supply residential needs.
Example: 15" (380mm) of rainfall over a 3,000 ft^2 (280m^2) roof is 28,000 gallons (100k litre) per year. That's 75 gallons/day (290 l/day). And would be typical of amounts that a Northern California suburban household might expect.
Since rainfall is mostly in the winter months (November -- May or so), you'd likely want to have storage for at least half of that, which would be roughly the size of a typical backyard swimming pool (10' * 20' * 4' avg depth).
Keep in mind that in many parts of the world, high populations corresponde to very high population densities, and the actual land-surface area per person is low. There are also regions in which residences are ephemeral or unstable, such that long-term investment is not attractive or individually sensible.
Many high-population areas are also located in regions in which there is high rainfall (east, southeast, and southern Asia especially, also the Philippines and portions of South and Central America). Water may not be a limiting factor in those places.
Water availability and access tends to be highly localised. There is a lot of water on the planet, the problems are having it where people are, when people need it. Household usage is one question, but if you're looking at agricultural water, the quantities and other requirements (when and where irrigation is required) scale up tremendously.
Which is a long way of saying "it depends". Which is what I said at the beginning anyhow.
Rain is an intermittent resource. You need to size your capacity to some standard deviation above the mean to get to some confidence level you’re agreeable with. In Central Texas, where I’m at, 10k gallon of for a family of four is sufficient for a Western style life. That’s about 200 barrels — which is way bigger & more expensive than a single system.
Rain is intermittent sure, but there's many earthship homes in New Mexico that catch rainwater and are mostly self-sufficient. They get like 2 inches of rain per year, and on dryer years maybe need to pay $100/year for water to be delivered/trucked in.
I think if we could catch a lot more water than we allow to evaporate, especially in places like Utah where we've been flooding lately and are STILL in a drought.. I can't wrap my head around that. Why aren't we trying to collect all that excess water like a rancher trying to catch stray cattle that wandered onto their ranch?
I think if we could catch a lot more water than we allow to evaporate, especially in places like Utah where we've been flooding lately and are STILL in a drought.. I can't wrap my head around that. Why aren't we trying to collect all that excess water like a rancher trying to catch stray cattle that wandered onto their ranch?
It is being collected, that’s what dam’s do. Economy of scale means letting the water runoff into streams etc and just building a single collection point on a river is vastly less costly than millions of individual storage systems on each property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in...
A fair amount is required to flow out of state due to laws and water treaties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in...
A fair amount is required to flow out of state due to laws and water treaties.
That ... still depends.
There are areas with highly permiable soil and scattered watersheds. Much of the rain that falls in such places either isn't captured by reservoirs, or is directed elsewhere (absorbed into the ground, perhaps refreshing aquifers or the water table, evaporation). Reservoirs themselves have evaporative losses (especially in dry and windy climates). At smaller scales, localised cisterns could make sense, especially as supplemental storage and when integrated into initial designs (the case for many traditional building styles in dry climates).
Considering that existing building styles already provide virtually all that's necessary for rainwater capture except the storage containment itself, the additional marginal costs are fairly modest.
There are areas with highly permiable soil and scattered watersheds. Much of the rain that falls in such places either isn't captured by reservoirs, or is directed elsewhere (absorbed into the ground, perhaps refreshing aquifers or the water table, evaporation). Reservoirs themselves have evaporative losses (especially in dry and windy climates). At smaller scales, localised cisterns could make sense, especially as supplemental storage and when integrated into initial designs (the case for many traditional building styles in dry climates).
Considering that existing building styles already provide virtually all that's necessary for rainwater capture except the storage containment itself, the additional marginal costs are fairly modest.
It’s possible to minimize evaporative losses by covering reservoirs. Cisterns don’t generally do that well by comparison because they have so much surface area exposed to dry air compared to their volume as well as leaks etc. https://www.awtti.com/reservoir-covers-info/
What’s not obvious is how cheaply these things contain water. The hover dam for example can hold back back over 14,000 m3 of water per 1 m3 of concrete. Ignoring profit from hydroelectric power in 2020 money it cost about 1$ to store ~13,000 gallons for 85 years and counting. With the added upside of minimizing flooding and hydroelectric power.
Of course that water is stored a long way from where it initially fell, but that’s a different story.
What’s not obvious is how cheaply these things contain water. The hover dam for example can hold back back over 14,000 m3 of water per 1 m3 of concrete. Ignoring profit from hydroelectric power in 2020 money it cost about 1$ to store ~13,000 gallons for 85 years and counting. With the added upside of minimizing flooding and hydroelectric power.
Of course that water is stored a long way from where it initially fell, but that’s a different story.
The cost vs. stored capacity question is an appropriate one. Looking around, rainwater capture systems vary in cost, though a rough average of about $2,500 for a 5,000 gallon system is given.
Keep in mind that the comparsion shouldn't be against the largest and most efficient reservoir (e.g., Hoover Dam), but against the best incremental option (marginal cost) of providing alternative impoundment.
I'd already pointed at part of that issue above: there are only so many Hoover Dam / Lake Mead opportunities available. Most have been exploited, and the environmental externalities are high. Rainwater capture is generally proposed where alternatives aren't viable (few homeowners can build a Hoover Dam on their own property, or even as a collective community project), where the terrain and hydrology don't support buillding dams, where environmental concerns are to great, or (and probably realistically the most significant issue) where legal claims on water rights make stream impoundments nonviable.
How this maps out in dollars per gallon over time remains unclear, though again, it's a good question.
(Lifetime is another key consideration. The anticipated lifetime of structures is another question, and Hoover Dam faces challenges on several fronts here, with both siltation and drought limiting effectiveness of the structure).
Keep in mind that the comparsion shouldn't be against the largest and most efficient reservoir (e.g., Hoover Dam), but against the best incremental option (marginal cost) of providing alternative impoundment.
I'd already pointed at part of that issue above: there are only so many Hoover Dam / Lake Mead opportunities available. Most have been exploited, and the environmental externalities are high. Rainwater capture is generally proposed where alternatives aren't viable (few homeowners can build a Hoover Dam on their own property, or even as a collective community project), where the terrain and hydrology don't support buillding dams, where environmental concerns are to great, or (and probably realistically the most significant issue) where legal claims on water rights make stream impoundments nonviable.
How this maps out in dollars per gallon over time remains unclear, though again, it's a good question.
(Lifetime is another key consideration. The anticipated lifetime of structures is another question, and Hoover Dam faces challenges on several fronts here, with both siltation and drought limiting effectiveness of the structure).
> Why aren't we trying to collect all that excess water like a rancher trying to catch stray cattle that wandered onto their ranch?
Capitalist society, no profit = no initiative
Capitalist society, no profit = no initiative
[deleted]
Right. I should clarify that I meant for eating & drinking (survival), not necessarily showering or gardening
Having gone down this path while sizing my water system ... it depends: (1) environment; (2) precisely what you mean by "survive"; and, (3) how healthy the water is.
There's a lot of variation there. If you look at off-grid and deep-back-packing sort of sites, they'll give you a good idea.
For me, it came to 500 gallons per person, for Central Texas, to "stay alive through the worst historical drought I know of". We don't have any natural place to get rid of sewage (we're on a solid limestone hill), so that really complicates things for us.
There's a lot of variation there. If you look at off-grid and deep-back-packing sort of sites, they'll give you a good idea.
For me, it came to 500 gallons per person, for Central Texas, to "stay alive through the worst historical drought I know of". We don't have any natural place to get rid of sewage (we're on a solid limestone hill), so that really complicates things for us.
Keep in mind that your storage requirements are also dependent on other supplementation.
Ready.gov suggests one gallon (4 litres) per person per day (https://www.ready.gov/water)
It's helpful to look at actual empirical usage. Van Lifers often give their own usage statistics. This article gives a 6.15 gal/day (23 litre/day) figure: https://musingsonentropy.com/2014/10/07/motorhome-living-one...
Household-level usage might be closer to 60 gal/day (225 litre/day) (1996 New Mexico water usage report, table of estimated usage).
Keep in mind that individual usage varies, emergencies (heat, illness, freezing) may change patterns, and that there is discretionary and nondiscretionary usage.
Don't undercount sanitation requirements -- regular bathing and flushing toilets will keep you healthy. It's possible to reduce those demands, but entirely eliminating them (unless methods are changed) is likely a bad idea.
Ready.gov suggests one gallon (4 litres) per person per day (https://www.ready.gov/water)
It's helpful to look at actual empirical usage. Van Lifers often give their own usage statistics. This article gives a 6.15 gal/day (23 litre/day) figure: https://musingsonentropy.com/2014/10/07/motorhome-living-one...
Household-level usage might be closer to 60 gal/day (225 litre/day) (1996 New Mexico water usage report, table of estimated usage).
Keep in mind that individual usage varies, emergencies (heat, illness, freezing) may change patterns, and that there is discretionary and nondiscretionary usage.
Don't undercount sanitation requirements -- regular bathing and flushing toilets will keep you healthy. It's possible to reduce those demands, but entirely eliminating them (unless methods are changed) is likely a bad idea.
I've been researching micro-homes, alternative housing, etc. Mostly for affordability but also to be environmentally friendly.
There are these earthship houses in New Mexico that are amazing. They stay 62-72 degrees year round. They have orange and banana trees in the atrium. They reuse all water, the water that goes down the sink/bathtub is used in the greenhouse/entry/atrium, then it goes to the toilet, then it goes outside to a kinda marshland or wetland area where they have all kinds of greenery or maybe vine-grown vegetables and fruits (don't want black water on root veggies).
There are these earthship houses in New Mexico that are amazing. They stay 62-72 degrees year round. They have orange and banana trees in the atrium. They reuse all water, the water that goes down the sink/bathtub is used in the greenhouse/entry/atrium, then it goes to the toilet, then it goes outside to a kinda marshland or wetland area where they have all kinds of greenery or maybe vine-grown vegetables and fruits (don't want black water on root veggies).
Thanks for the introduction - that is a research line I might get stuck down for a few days!
Its a bit sad too see how the mainstream system pushes people way from this way of living. "It can be difficult to obtain a mortgage for an earthship home. Many banks are unwilling to lend money for earthship homes, since there are few (if any) comparable sales in the area the lender can use to determine the home’s value."
https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/earthship-home/
Its a bit sad too see how the mainstream system pushes people way from this way of living. "It can be difficult to obtain a mortgage for an earthship home. Many banks are unwilling to lend money for earthship homes, since there are few (if any) comparable sales in the area the lender can use to determine the home’s value."
https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/earthship-home/
A slight tangent, but the degree of control imposed through financing and insurance mechanisms is staggering.
I'd first recognised this by an aside in James Burkes's Connections, where adoption of the latten-rigged sail was delayed by over 1,000 years in the west by the fact that the financiers and insurers of sailing ship voyages would not permit ships with this "new" (it had been used throughout the Arabian region for centuries) and "unproven" technology.
(It's worth considering that much of modern banking, finance, business, and insurance practices came directly from the shipping world.)
More recently you can look at redlining in mortgage and small commercial insurance markets. Paul Baran, one of the co-inventors of packet-switched networking in the 1960s wrote of this in one of his RAND publications on the ethics of computer-science and information applications in the 1960s.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/baran_paul.html
I'd first recognised this by an aside in James Burkes's Connections, where adoption of the latten-rigged sail was delayed by over 1,000 years in the west by the fact that the financiers and insurers of sailing ship voyages would not permit ships with this "new" (it had been used throughout the Arabian region for centuries) and "unproven" technology.
(It's worth considering that much of modern banking, finance, business, and insurance practices came directly from the shipping world.)
More recently you can look at redlining in mortgage and small commercial insurance markets. Paul Baran, one of the co-inventors of packet-switched networking in the 1960s wrote of this in one of his RAND publications on the ethics of computer-science and information applications in the 1960s.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/baran_paul.html
Yeah, there are little nudges everywhere, some good, some bad - and then big weird technicalities.
Want to renovate your house, but might need to tap the bank for a bit more mortgage ... think twice before you rip out the last bathroom and the kitchen - To mortgage a house without a kitchen or bathroom, many lenders will see it as uninhabitable and won't consider it suitable security. But I need the money to do put in the kitchen and bathroom ...
Want to renovate your house, but might need to tap the bank for a bit more mortgage ... think twice before you rip out the last bathroom and the kitchen - To mortgage a house without a kitchen or bathroom, many lenders will see it as uninhabitable and won't consider it suitable security. But I need the money to do put in the kitchen and bathroom ...
Thank you for the insight
Rain is also strongly seasonal, so i'm not sure thinking about it as a random variable, via its standard deviation, is helpful.
You should be considering both.
There's the seasonality, which is to say, the expected duration of dry spells.
There's the variability, which is to say how much the total quantity varies year-to-year. There might be additional concerns such as bimodal or heavily-skewed averages --- a mix of very dry and very wet years, with few near the "average" arithmetic mean, for example, would change the calculus for how large collection and storage areas need be.
(I suspect that much of California might be subject to such patterns given the El Nino / La Nina ENSO cycle.)
There's the seasonality, which is to say, the expected duration of dry spells.
There's the variability, which is to say how much the total quantity varies year-to-year. There might be additional concerns such as bimodal or heavily-skewed averages --- a mix of very dry and very wet years, with few near the "average" arithmetic mean, for example, would change the calculus for how large collection and storage areas need be.
(I suspect that much of California might be subject to such patterns given the El Nino / La Nina ENSO cycle.)
In some locations you are not allowed to do this because rain water is collected by someone downstream of you, and so your barrel is taking water from someone else. Check your local situation.
Note that this depends on the doctrine of water rights. The situation described is common in the Western US, where seniority of claims has priority over location in the watershed. Elsewhere, upstream users may have the rights to water.
There's also been an increasing amount of explicit exception to seniority rules for the specific purpose of rainwater collection, though this may include limitations, notably that the water be used only on the property in which it was originally collected. That is: you cannot collect rainwater, then sell it to others.
There's also been an increasing amount of explicit exception to seniority rules for the specific purpose of rainwater collection, though this may include limitations, notably that the water be used only on the property in which it was originally collected. That is: you cannot collect rainwater, then sell it to others.
Taken from the top comment in another thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28233819
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28233819
BC 27
500-600 1
0-500 1
1100-1200 1
1200-1300 1
1500-1600 2
1600-1700 4
1700-1800 2
1800-1900 14
1900-2000 184
2000-2000 21
2000-2100 667
Grand Total 925
Edited for structure
Some personal observations:
1. Interestingly a sharp rise in 'events' since Industrial Age.
2. We also don't have much data on year before the Industrial Age. The world simply wasn't as connected (from a information availability perspective) so lots of events could have gone unnoticed unless the really really large ones. This dilutes observation #1.
3. Despite #2 its hard to ignore the more than tripling of events from 1900-2000 to 2000-2100 (and we are only 20 years in this century)
----- Some more data ----
Other 3 0.32%
Europe 76 8.22%
Americas 118 12.76%
Africa 234 25.30%
Asia 494 53.41%
Grand Total 925 100.00%
Makes me curious how strongly this correlates to the size of population on said continent.