5 ms·
It's almost as if this has happened before... But no, it's record breaking drought.
by soperj 8y ago
It's almost as if this has happened before...
But no, it's record breaking drought.
- klmr 8y agoIt … can be both?! And given that the stones explicitly warn of catastrophe associated with the drought it doesn’t seem like a too common occurrence. (Also, on an unrelated note, it’s important not to confuse drought (for which there’s precedence) with global warming and recent heat waves (for which there isn’t precedence). The two are probably connected but they’re not the same.)
- soperj 8y agoHow can it have happened before and be record breaking? Why the unrelated note? Why assume I am an idiot?
- klmr 8y ago> Why the unrelated note? I’m calling it “unrelated” because I’m giving you the benefit of doubt — in other words, I don’t assume you’re an idiot. But, on the other hand, this is a fairly common confusion that was repeatedly made by the press and otherwise informed people over the course of the summer. So it’s not that unrelated. (And just to clarify, those people still aren’t idiots. But they’re wrong.)
- mikeash 8y ago“Record” refers to past data. “Record breaking” means you’ve exceeded the past data, not that you’ve exceeded anything that has ever happened. For example, regular and reliable temperature records only go back to the late 1800s, so any “record breaking” temperature just means it hasn’t happened since 1888 or whatever.
- soperj 8y agoWould you include these stones as data? They're certainly a record of low water levels.
- mikeash 8y agoNo, they are not the record being referred to here.
- soperj 8y agoClearly not. When you just dismiss any records that are below the current drought, then all droughts can become record breaking.
- mikeash 8y agoThat is not what’s being done. “The record” is a defined set of data that’s considered to be reliable. In this case, it covers the period starting when consistent, scientific meteorological observations were being regularly recorded.
- eesmith 8y agoA "record" has multiple shades of meaning. For example, temperature records must be officially observed, using (sufficiently) modern weather instrumentation. That's why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records says "remotely sensed observations such as satellite measurements, since those values are not considered official records." This thread spun off into pedantry when you used the phrase "record breaking drought". I know that there have been record breaking temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave comments that in Germany "Both April and May set new temperature records as the warmest April and May since modern record-keeping began in 1881." Note the 'modern record-keeping' associated with 'new temperature records', and that those records are only 150 years old. It's certainly true that there are older weather records. 10.1023/A:1005505113244 describes weather journals including one which covers the drought of 1540, which was "the most outstanding" one of the last half of the 1000s. 10.1007/s10584-014-1184-2 is "Based on more than 300 first-hand documentary weather report sources" from that time, to describe the 11-month-long Megadrought of 1540. So, who are you quoting when you use the phrase 'record breaking drought', and what definition are they using?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bsder 8y agoUm, the fact that the last time it was this bad was 400 years ago is pretty much the definition of "record breaking".
- soperj 8y agouhhh... the fact that there was a time that was "this bad", means that at most it's record equaling.
- pdpi 8y agoThe fact that it hasn't been this bad in 400 years suggests that it's a capital-B Big problem though.
- soperj 8y agoWe will only see the comet lovejoy every 622 years, that doesn't suggest it's a problem at all, let alone a big one. The fact that the water levels are very low suggest there's a big problem, that we haven't seen them this low in 400 years suggests only that we've seen them this low before and that the world has survived that.
- ABCLAW 8y agoThe planet isn't going to die if we irradiate ourselves into caves, but that doesn't mean irradiating the surface of the planet for shits and giggles is a good idea.
- mortenjorck 8y agoWhat you are saying is not greatly removed from “well if the world’s gettin’ so dang warm, why’s it so cold right now?” Climate science is much more complex than isolated data points such as a local temperature or river level, and to counter multivariate studies with anecdotal reductionism is the tool of demagogues.
- soperj 8y agoWhat you're saying is that you want to argue on the internet about something completely unrelated to what I've said. You can clearly do that without me.
- mywittyname 8y agoThe associated study claims that these stones have been seen many times - they are likely to appear about five times per century. The study points out that the causes of droughts have changed. Previous droughts were largely due to a lack of precipitation. The current levels of precipitation is actually as high as it has even been. The cause of the current drought is record levels of heat. Despite statistically high levels of rain fall, the temperature of the region is so high that the rivers are drying up anyway.
- pydook 8y agoNot entirely true, at least locally. Precipitation in Czech republic in August is just 40% of normal state for this month [1]. The lack of rains is a big deal here. [1]: Report about draught from Czech meteorological agency, http://www.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/TZ_sucho_22082018.pdf http://www.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/TZ_...
- mywittyname 8y agoI was summarizing the source document for this article, which is actually a few years old at present.
- pydook 8y agoEdit: wrong link, correct one is http://portal.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/TZ_sucho_28082018OS.pdf http://portal.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/...