Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

Hidden 'Hunger Stones' Reveal Drought Warnings From the Past 120

Posted by BeauHD from the if-you-see-me-then-weep dept.
atcclears shares a report from ScienceAlert: An intense drought is shrinking rivers across Europe, revealing stones carved centuries ago to give future generations a warning of hard times ahead. The Miami Herald reported that locals said the centuries-old boulders, known as "hunger stones," reappeared last week as rivers in Europe ran dry due to drought conditions. One such stone is on the banks of the Elbe River, which begins in the Czech Republic and flows through Germany. The boulder dates back to 1616 and is etched with a warning in German: "Wenn du mich seehst, dann weine" -- "If you see me, then weep," according to a Google translation of the phrase.

In a 2013 study, a team of Czech researchers wrote that these boulders are "chiseled with the years of hardship and the initials of authors lost to history," adding that the "basic inscriptions warn of the consequences of drought." "It expressed that drought had brought a bad harvest, lack of food, high prices and hunger for poor people," researchers wrote. "Before 1900, the following droughts are commemorated on the stone: 1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, and 1893." These "hydrological landmarks" last surfaced during a 2018 drought, NPR reported. But the current drought Europe is experiencing could be the worst in 500 years, according to Andrea Toreti, a senior researcher at the European Commission's Joint Research Center.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hidden 'Hunger Stones' Reveal Drought Warnings From the Past More

Hidden 'Hunger Stones' Reveal Drought Warnings From the Past

Comments Filter:

  • "Wenn du mich seehst, dann weine" -- "If you see me, then weep," according to a Google translation of the phrase.

    This is the problem with Google translate, it gives you some sort of translation but lacking any context if often gets it wrong. "seehst" is an old-fashioned form of "see", the sea. "weine" is the plural of wine. So what the message actually says is "when you go to sea, I [drink] lots of wine". It's a touching love-letter from a girl to her boyfriend/husband, nothing to do with hunger no matter what some Google bot tells you.

    • Maybe you are correct with that example, I'm not a German linguist, so can't say. That would be one cool lady who learnt stonework.

      What about the context. There's loads of other very similar drought stones all over Europe. That are more clear with their grammar and dates with water level lines.

    • Re:Google translate, mumble mumble (Score:5, Informative)

      by udittmer ( 89588 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:31AM (#62799605) Homepage

      Nonsense. The translation is right on the mark, the fact that "weine" can have a different meaning is irrelevant. "Seehst" is not an old version of "see", but of "siehst" ("you see"), so "wenn du mich seehst" is nothing at all like "when you go to sea".

    • Well... no. The translation is actually pretty apt.

      "Seehst" is probably supposed to mean "sehest", which is an archaic form of "siehst", which means just what the translator said, see. 1600something was before the standardisation of German, in other words, you'd expect to see a bunch of rather "creative" ways to express the local dialects.

      "Weine" can be the plural of "Wein". But it can also be the imperative singular of weinen, to cry. (imp sing: weine! imp plur: weint!).

      So yes, the translation is correct.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by udittmer ( 89588 )

      The first picture in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], which shows the stone in Decin, makes it clear that the article actually got it wrong. The text is "Wenn du mich siehst", not "Wenn du mich seehst" - in other words, the current form of "you see", not even an older form.

    • Not very good at syntax, are you?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )
      I am assuming that you are making a joke, and not a formal critique. But in case not, or in case some other reader didn't catch your drift:

      * Although the article is from an English-language source, the actual stone is in a place where German is actually spoken. (Today Decin is part of the Czech Republic, but it lies on the border with Germany. In 1616 it was probably a tiny principality of what was then the Holy Roman Empire, but generally German-speaking.) The folks that uncovered today probably und

  • Historical Global warnings? (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:14AM (#62799591)
    These "hunger stones" remind us that back in the day, society was powerless to nature.

    Good thing we have advanced and can deal with these problems.

    • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by franzrogar ( 3986783 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:23AM (#62799599)

      Quote: "... back in the day, society was powerless to nature."

      And... what makes you think "as of today, society has power over nature"?

      I mean, how do you "deal" with draught, or tsunami, or hurricanes, or...

      No, the society is STILL powerless to Nature, another thing is that more of the population can survive her violent attacks... but that is not power, that is luck.

      • At least we can predict short-term weather and prepare for rain!

        • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4)

          by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @06:41AM (#62799701)

          At least we can predict short-term weather and prepare for rain!

          You overestimate the human intellect. We may be able to predict even longer term climate trend with a high degree of certainty but with large numbers of the public being swayed by logic like "there won't be a drought because It rained yesterday" or, "the climate is not becoming warmer because it snowed last week" climate science is powerless.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by sabri ( 584428 )

            climate science is powerless.

            Wrong.

            Climate science is powerless because it is a relatively new field of science. For example, the few universities offering Climate Science majors have started doing so only in the last decade.

            Not to mention that the combined knowledge in the field is ... not that great. There are many things that we don't understand, let alone know how to counteract.

            Otherwise, we'd have Star Trek-like proton beams which would help us get rid of excess CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses, and restore our prev

          • At least we can predict short-term weather and prepare for rain!

            You overestimate the human intellect. We may be able to predict even longer term climate trend with a high degree of certainty but with large numbers of the public being swayed by logic like "there won't be a drought because It rained yesterday" or, "the climate is not becoming warmer because it snowed last week" climate science is powerless.

            But saying "we had a warm last week, that PROVES global warming" is perfectly okay?

            • But saying "we had a warm last week, that PROVES global warming" is perfectly okay?
              If it is in the middle of the winter, when it is supposed to be -20C (or in exceptions, winter 1973, -30C) but right now it is +20C (winter 2017), I would say: yes, it is global warming

              Considering that Germany did not have a real winter since 40 years ...

              • But saying "we had a warm last week, that PROVES global warming" is perfectly okay? If it is in the middle of the winter, when it is supposed to be -20C (or in exceptions, winter 1973, -30C) but right now it is +20C (winter 2017), I would say: yes, it is global warming

                Considering that Germany did not have a real winter since 40 years ...

                So in other words whether "weather is (or is not) climate" depends on whether it's convenient for alarmists in a particular case. Well, at least thank you for openly saying that.

                • I did not say that.
                  Dumb ass.

                  Or is 40 years no winter: weather?

                  • I did not say that.

                    Yes you did say that. And you KNOW it because you "accidently" cut out that part of your post when responding. Well, let me requote it. You said:

                    If it is in the middle of the winter, when it is supposed to be -20C (or in exceptions, winter 1973, -30C) but right now it is +20C (winter 2017), I would say: yes, it is global warming

                    Now please wiggle and lie some more in trying to "prove" how this is not using weather as an argument for global warming.

                    • Now please wiggle and lie some more in trying to "prove" how this is not using weather as an argument for global warming.


                      Are you an complete idiot?

                      Temperature increase by 50C is not wether ... it is global warming. Dumb ass.

                    • Now please wiggle and lie some more in trying to "prove" how this is not using weather as an argument for global warming.

                      Are you an complete idiot?

                      Temperature increase by 50C is not wether ... it is global warming. Dumb ass.

                      Are you a total moron? Temperature increase by 50C is not climate... it's weather.

                      See? I can do that too?

                      Except unlike you I'll also provide an argument: not even biggest alarmists claim climate has warmed by 50C since we sinned by not giving world rule over to some moron teenager you're quoting in your sig. You can't get 50C changes except by random flukes, i.e. weather.

                    • Except unlike you I'll also provide an argument: not even biggest alarmists claim climate has warmed by 50C since we sinned by not giving world rule over to some moron teenager you're quoting in your sig. You can't get 50C changes except by random flukes, i.e. weather.
                      Because climate change is measured in AVERAGE TEMPERATURE INCREASE OvER THE WHOLE PLANT.

                      In Germany winters are roughly up to 50C warmer than 50 years ago, and that is climate. Dumbass.

                      -30C at night, -10C during daytime, 50 years ago.
                      +10C at ni

                    • Oh, so you want people to believe that a +25C is an average day in winter in Germany now? Ok, yeah, guess I'm done talking to you. That's a level of either being brainwashed or deliberate lying that I simply won't debate.

                    • Oh, so you want people to believe that a +25C is an average day in winter in Germany now?Oh, so you want people to believe that a +25C is an average day in winter in Germany now?
                      No, that is the peek around 3h after noon.
                      Idiot.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • How about "because power over nature is not binary"? Yes, we can't stop a hurricane or tornado. We can however stop floods with dams, lessen droughts with reservoirs, we have torn from nature much land that was not arable once, and even the hurricanes - we can predict them much better and weather them out too.

      • Quote: "... back in the day, society was powerless to nature."

        And... what makes you think "as of today, society has power over nature"?

        I mean, how do you "deal" with draught, or tsunami, or hurricanes, or...

        No, the society is STILL powerless to Nature, another thing is that more of the population can survive her violent attacks... but that is not power, that is luck.

        Jeebus K Ryste, We seem to have entered a perfect storm of people making jokes, and people who just don't get jokes.

        I would like to issue a group-wide writ of "Whoosh"

        • Jeebus K Ryste, We seem to have entered a perfect storm of people making jokes, and people who just don't get jokes.

          I would like to issue a group-wide writ of "Whoosh"

          You apparently don't recognize one form of nerd humor: Taking a facetious statement literally and following it, deadpan, several steps further into absurdity, ho ho!

          • Jeebus K Ryste, We seem to have entered a perfect storm of people making jokes, and people who just don't get jokes.

            I would like to issue a group-wide writ of "Whoosh"

            You apparently don't recognize one form of nerd humor: Taking a facetious statement literally and following it, deadpan, several steps further into absurdity, ho ho!

            I recognize it, and I know when there is need for a moment of Whoosh. The original statement was indeed funny. Most of the replies weren't. The need to up their game if they were trying for nerd humor.

        • Them that get the sarcasm, even if wooshy for many, they should not give the clue.

          Do not let anyone know you got it. Enjoy the fake smart people that are just showing how dumb they are.

          Slashdot has people that are the epitome of they know.

      • Quote: "... back in the day, society was powerless to nature."

        And... what makes you think "as of today, society has power over nature"?

        Slashdot really needs a sarcasm font so you can tell when a post is ironic.

      • The amount of people lost to natural disasters has been in decline throughout 20th century and continues to drop.

        See https://www.gapminder.org/ [gapminder.org]

        • The amount of people lost to natural disasters has been in decline throughout 20th century and continues to drop.
          Unlikely.
          Human population is increasing, so a random earthquake obviously kills more people than it would have killed 10,000 years ago.

          Oh ... that was not your point?

          • "Human population is increasing, so a random earthquake obviously kills more people than it would have killed 10,000 years ago."

            Building codes.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ocker3 ( 1232550 )
          Trends can change direction. And just because the number of people lost has gone down doesn't mean that economic losses have also gone down. If you look at insurance industry data, since 1900, the number and severity of natural disasters has gone up. But we have cheaper transport, so the people are getting safe more often, which is good, but there are fewer good places for them to move to, as the climate increasingly bites us back from polluting it so much.

    • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:37AM (#62799617)
      Isn't the real message of these hunger stones, going back as far as the 1400's, that droughts and climate have natural cycles and this year shouldn't be thought of as anything out of the ordinary?

      • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:54AM (#62799639)

        With the main difference maybe being that the medieval warm period [wikipedia.org] was over by then and the world was in the little ice age [wikipedia.org] that followed it.

        • With the main difference maybe being that the medieval warm period [wikipedia.org] was over by then and the world was in the little ice age [wikipedia.org] that followed it.

          All of that is part of cyclical events, with random ones thrown in here and there. We are in another warming period, and various areas will have drought at times, and will be wetter at other times.

          You are correct that in colder times, there is less evaporation, so less precipitation, which means an increased trend towards drought. But still just recurring events.

          • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @08:55AM (#62799995)

            Yeah, just that back then the change was about 0.1 degrees over 100 years and not 1 degrees over 10 years. But aside of that little detail, you're absolutely correct.

            The problem isn't so much that temperatures change. They have done so in the past and if you don't really care whether humans exist, they can rise at least another 10 degrees before there's much of a problem for life itself. What's worrysome is that with the speed of the change, evolution can't keep up. There's no time to adapt to the changing climate and we'll see a mass extinction event.

            The joke about this is probably that this would be the first mass extinction event where we actually know what caused it but we won't be around to enjoy our knowledge. Hopefully we find a way in time to record it for whatever species achieves sentience next.

            • The problem isn't so much that temperatures change. They have done so in the past and if you don't really care whether humans exist, they can rise at least another 10 degrees before there's much of a problem for life itself.

              The planet will probably get to test your idea, as sequestered methane escapes...

              • In the eternal words of the late George Carlin, the planet is fine, we're fucked.

                Life will find a way. It will just be yet another mass extinction event that kills off everything larger than the average cat, but life will somehow go on, don't worry.

                • I'm not worried. I won't be here to see what happens anyway. Seems a bit of a bunk legacy, but probably nobody will ever know about it.

              • The problem isn't so much that temperatures change. They have done so in the past and if you don't really care whether humans exist, they can rise at least another 10 degrees before there's much of a problem for life itself.

                The planet will probably get to test your idea, as sequestered methane escapes...

                This is true. And I haven't even calculated the effects of the oceanic methane clathrates if they start releasing. People sometimes talk about how methane has a shorter life in the atmosphere. Well, that is true. They seem to forget what it decomposes into though.

            • Yeah, just that back then the change was about 0.1 degrees over 100 years and not 1 degrees over 10 years. But aside of that little detail, you're absolutely correct.

              Allow me to make myself perfectly clear. The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere are determined by the gaseous constituents of that atmosphere. If that isn't clear enough, We're altering the atmosphere, and it will have an effect. Physics that can be shown in 5th grade science fairs.

              The problem isn't so much that temperatures change. They have done so in the past and if you don't really care whether humans exist, they can rise at least another 10 degrees before there's much of a problem for life itself. What's worrysome is that with the speed of the change, evolution can't keep up. There's no time to adapt to the changing climate and we'll see a mass extinction event.

              The joke about this is probably that this would be the first mass extinction event where we actually know what caused it but we won't be around to enjoy our knowledge. Hopefully we find a way in time to record it for whatever species achieves sentience next.

              You're too quick to pounce on me as some sort of disbeliever. And that 10 degrees increase better be in F, not C.

              I think if things get really bad, we'll probably extinct ourselves before the temps get us. I'm s

              • You're too quick to pounce on me as some sort of disbeliever.

                Welcome to /.

                In other news, it's refreshing to see someone discuss the climate without reaching for the first hyperbole that comes to mind. Good job.

                • You're too quick to pounce on me as some sort of disbeliever.

                  Welcome to /. In other news, it's refreshing to see someone discuss the climate without reaching for the first hyperbole that comes to mind. Good job.

                  If people would drop that hyperbole, there could be some darn good discussions.

                  In the end, I think that some people who believe are right in initial concept, but just just like to freak out, and so many of the deniers just like that winters haven't been so cold lately, and at some level probably do believe.

                  • If people would drop that hyperbole, there could be some darn good discussions.

                    Ideologues do not like or want debate and there are lot of them here. You've probably noticed the trend by partisans to censor the other guy even more lately. That seems to be where they put their energy. The problem is that certain folks, say for example Communists, probably know how fucked up and wrong they really are, but they are married so tight with their ideas they can't face a discussion of the facts of history.

                    I think that some people who believe are right in initial concept, but just just like to freak out,

                    I think you are onto something there. I wish the self-righteous attitudes and the snobber

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Opportunist ( 166417 )

                And that 10 degrees increase better be in F, not C.

                The planet will survive an increase of 10 degrees Celsius just fine. Ok, we won't, and neither will a good deal of the other animals, but the planet has no problem with this.

                We did have that level. Granted, it was a couple hundred million years ago and humans didn't want to live on the planet back then, but if you don't care about human survival, 10 degrees more is no big deal.

              • The joke way to get rid of methane is to put enough in the atmosphere that lighting a match will solve the problem.

                The real way might be to add 5 genes from methane eaters to the US corn crop. Turns out the corn crop filters the whole atmosphere every couple of years.

      • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:59AM (#62799651) Homepage Journal

        The message they were trying to send with the stones is that if the river is low, things are bad.

        That's still true. How powerful does that make us?

        • Re:Historical Global warnings? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @06:47AM (#62799713)

          The message they were trying to send with the stones is that if the river is low, things are bad.

          That's still true. How powerful does that make us?

          Apparently wilful ignorance of what is happening around you, stuffing your fingers in your ears and loudly chanting: "LA, LA, LA, CLIMATE SCIENCE IS AN ELITIST CONSPIRACY!!" renders you immune to the cruel whims of nature.

        • The message they were trying to send with the stones is that if the river is low, things are bad.

          That's still true. How powerful does that make us?

          LOL, what? Are you seriously telling me that you are today just as worried about having enough food to survive in the next year as the guys in $(whatever years are inscribed on those stones) were?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Your post is rediculous. You laugh at the above poster and then put words in their mouth to make them look stupid.

            That's not what the above poster said idiot.

          • Are you seriously telling me that you are today just as worried about having enough food to survive in the next year as the guys in $(whatever years are inscribed on those stones) were?

            I'm not so much, because I live in a country which is one of the world's largest food exporters. Even if food production is severely curtailed, there will still likely be food for me to eat. Also, I have a pretty big pile of beans and rice laid in, just in case. In a true emergency my problems shift to 1) can I get fuel, and 2) will someone else be desperate enough to take my food from me — because let's face it, almost nobody is in a defensible position if the SHTF. The only defense is defense in dep

      • I wanted to read the comments to see when the first one to come up with this argument would make his thoughts read.

        It will however be too late for most humans by the time historical data is available to tell whether the weather has changed irrevocably or not. Not that Tellus couldn't stand to loose a few humans. If science is to be believed, I vote for that it is.

        • The weather (well, climate actually) will almost certainly never change "irrevocably." That's the problem with the AGW fanatics, you clowns don't have any better grasp of science than the Deniers. What matters isn't "irrevocable" change, or any change, what matters are the ramifications for humans who have vastly overpopulated the planet. The more people we have, the more we require a stable climate and the climate is inherently unstable. I'm all in favor of taking care of the planet, reducing emissions, c

      • Isn't the real message of these hunger stones, going back as far as the 1400's, that droughts and climate have natural cycles and this year shouldn't be thought of as anything out of the ordinary?

        Thanks Noob-Noob - this guy gets it. Yes you do, and apologies to Rick and Morty.

        Droughts to happen, Wet periods to happen. And I'll bet that they happened long before the 1400's, and will happen again.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          How often and how long are kind of import though...sheesh.

      • There are no natural cycles regarding droughts.
        How the fuck would that work?

    • These "hunger stones" remind us that back in the day, society was powerless to nature. Good thing we have advanced and can deal with these problems.

      And how are we doing now during droughts, floods, & storms?

    • Back in the day it would have just been a temporary drought. Problem today is we're looking at a permanent change due to our own actions.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by saider ( 177166 )

      “Man – despite his artistic pretensions, his sophistication, and his many accomplishments – owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

      -- Paul Harvey

  • These more extreme natural climatic events, be it droughts, floods, forest fires, rising/falling temperatures, hurricanes, tornadoes have been occurring for millennia and have nothing to do with the man-made global warming belief.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by imse ( 1142075 )
      Extreme events have always happened, but if the frequency of such events increases, then there is reason for concern.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The Muses ( 10131864 )
        At what point do we determine the frequency has increased? 4.5 billion year old planet, our factual data of such events amounts to less than 150 years and only about 75 years worth of that data encompasses any sort of global reach. If humans are still around in another 100,000 we might have enough data at that point to ascertain any trends/patterns. Until then we are just creating nonsensical assumptions about things beyond our understanding.

        • At what point do we determine the frequency has increased?

          You run your analysis over the span of the data set that you do have, then extrapolate into the future (and/or the past, if you're interested in the past) producing future estimates with their confidence intervals (my emphasis).

          What's that Lassie - you don't know what a confidence interval [wikipedia.org] is? Well, that's alright - you're a dead movie dog, not someone who purports to be a person functioning in modern society. Just stick to pushing Timmy down the we

    • Re:Just goes to show.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by orlanz ( 882574 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @08:04AM (#62799865)

      Your post goes to show that people still confuse climate and weather; making inferences about the former based on the latter.

      Except for temperature, rest of those are not considered "climatic events". Those are extreme weather events; the frequency and extremes of are caused by climate changes. Having more hots days this year compared to the last 10... thats considered an "climatic event". Of course too many 0Cs in Antartica is as exterme as too many 40Cs in southern India or 50Cs in Death Valley. Same with too much rain over the entire year compared to average over last 10 years.

      I would guess a meteoric strike would be an "extreme climatic event" or possibly a very large volcanic eruption.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      The Western U.S. is under severe drought. China is under drought so much that they are seeding clouds. Europe is under drought. Northern Africa is under drought. The Mid-East is under drought. Parts of Africa are under drought. Most of central America is under drought.

      How blind does one have to be before seeing?

  • Tsunami stones (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@nOSpaM.gdargaud.net> on Thursday August 18, 2022 @06:54AM (#62799733) Homepage
    This is similar to the tsunami stones [forbes.com] found in Japan, that were placed at the highest points reached by a tsunami in order to say "do not build below that line"...

  • Climate change (Score:3, Funny)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:12AM (#62799755)
    If only Europeans during "1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, and 1893" extreme weather events due to climate change built more renewables and cut CO2 emissions we wouldn't be here today.

    • If only Europeans during "1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, and 1893" extreme weather events due to climate change built more renewables and cut CO2 emissions we wouldn't be here today.

      The assholes didn't believe in trickle down economics or that gender was a social construct either!

      That shit happened because God was punishing them.

    • I think the difference is you generally have hundreds of years between events and a given location and that the droughts weren't global they were local.

      The climate change we are facing now is both global and it's happening consistently and constantly. Meaning that there really won't be an end to the drought.

      What's causing the droughts it's worth screwing up the water cycle. This fact is not being communicated by our media.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        What about The Akkadian Empire in Syria, The Late Bronze Age Collapse in the Mediterranean, the Maya civilization in Mexico, The Tang Dynasty in China, the Khmer Empire in Cambodia that are all documented as collapsing from droughts? According to any definition I have seen these events also would be attributed to the climate change.
    • 12 dates recorded on the stones over the past 600 years, yet, somehow, "the current drought Europe is experiencing could be the worst in 500 years"? Sounds more like a once-in-50-years drought.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by xalqor ( 6762950 )
        The word "worst" relates how bad it is, not how frequent it is.

        • No one today can know if the present drought is worse in any objective way. We don't know how bad the drought in 1417 or 1616, etc. was compared with today. We have no consistent and comparable metrics from those time periods other than river water levels (which are roughly equal, having exposed these "hunger stones"). No one kept detailed rainfall records, etc. We only have mostly subjective historical descriptions from ages in which no one had fertilizers other than manure.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by xalqor ( 6762950 )

            I don't know much about it, but it seems to me that 1) water level being lower would expose more of the stone, and it's possible some of the commemoration of the worst droughts would be etched into the lowest part of the stones that were exposed at that time, but underwater during lesser droughts; and 2) geologists can get more information about past water levels from the exposed ground, and it's not just about whether the stones were visible, because there can still be a significant range of "how bad was i

            • My original comment above: 12 dates recorded on the stone over 600 years (1417-2022); 600 years / 12 droughts = 50 years/drought (average). And an article that claims "worst in 500 years" without providing anything to substantiate that is going for the sensationalist angle rather that journalism and accuracy.
    • The first 3, possibly 4, examples predate the large-scale conversion of "stored sunshine" (a.k.a "fossil fuels") into atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      (Yes, there was some mining of coal, and use of natural oil seeps before the mid-1700s, but the tonnage used started to accelerate rapidly in the 17th century. Before then, most fuels were wood, charcoal, and dried shit, most of which came out of the atmospheric reservoir of CO2 a few years to decades before so would be classified as "renewable" these days.)

  • One said: put me back you insensitive clod.
    The other one said: if you see me, turn the nuclear reactors back on.

Slashdot Top Deals

It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.

Close