Sinister 'hunger stones' with dire warnings have surfaced as water levels drop(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Sinister 'hunger stones' with dire warnings have surfaced as water levels drop
https://www.businessinsider.com/sinister-hunger-stones-dire-warnings-surfaced-europe-2018-8
78 comments
Original article on Science Alert instead of this BI reheat with its annoying adblocker popup:
https://www.sciencealert.com/sinister-hunger-stones-dire-war...
https://www.sciencealert.com/sinister-hunger-stones-dire-war...
If you disable JS you don't need to worry about it. ;)
You also don't need to worry about 90% of the web, either. ;)
Good thing the 10% that actually matters doesn't require JS. If your content is actually important, it'll be accessible without JS.
Yup, Basically the only website I have JS enabled on is my Bank. All other stuff I have no need to enable it.
Be honest with yourself -- are you a representative sample of most people?
Honestly, I'm probably not. But what does that matter? I save bandwidth and don't have to be annoyed by a lot of ads.
You guys dont use Google Docs, Netflix, or Youtube?
Not surprisingly, I don't use 2 of those things. I find YouTube to be too much of a distraction so I've gotten rid of it. I don't use google docs because it's too slow (in comparison with native word processors.) and I don't have a google account. Netflix, I watch on my Amazon fire. :)
Edit: oops the rest of my comment contradicted my first part.
Edit: oops the rest of my comment contradicted my first part.
Same, on my laptop I run OpenBSD. Like you, I don't care for Youtube but if I do find myself wanting to watch a video there, I use youtube-dl. I also don't do Google, and instead of a word processor I use a text editor for just about any text manipulation; if I need "pretty printing" I use Markdown and send the output to a PDF. Netflix I get through my TV's Netflix app, or my Fire tablet.
No.
Reminds me of the stones in Japan warning not to build homes below them.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/03/ancient-tsunami-warnin...
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/03/ancient-tsunami-warnin...
I was thinking the same thing. There is also the interesting discussion about how to label nuclear waste disposal sites with signs that need to be understandable for ~10,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin...
Our ancestors were not dumb people. This is terrifying as it didn't happen just once, but multiple times. We have a working model here.
"If you see me, you will weep. So low was the water in 2018."
"If you see me, you will weep. So low was the water in 2018."
I get the feeling that droughts have happened before, are happening now, and will happen again; and we are just not able as humans to control the climate.
In fact I found this study that proves that history does repeat.
https://www.clim-past.net/9/1985/2013/cp-9-1985-2013.pdf
Thankfully, due to technological advancement though - it is nowhere near as damaging as it once was - in fact now these are barely a blip on the radar on human life. In times past, it is easy to forget that a simple drought halted all commerce, caused great famines, and without transportation and local food sources available, people were dying.
Just take a look at the history and see the trend lines for the evidence of improvement that advancements like electricity and internal combustion have given us:
https://ourworldindata.org/famines
Here's one for technology!
In fact I found this study that proves that history does repeat.
https://www.clim-past.net/9/1985/2013/cp-9-1985-2013.pdf
Thankfully, due to technological advancement though - it is nowhere near as damaging as it once was - in fact now these are barely a blip on the radar on human life. In times past, it is easy to forget that a simple drought halted all commerce, caused great famines, and without transportation and local food sources available, people were dying.
Just take a look at the history and see the trend lines for the evidence of improvement that advancements like electricity and internal combustion have given us:
https://ourworldindata.org/famines
Here's one for technology!
I get the feeling that droughts have happened before, are happening now, and will happen again; and we are just not able as humans to control the climate.
Great! Hope you're not wrong. The vast majority of people who are in the best positions to know think you are.
Great! Hope you're not wrong. The vast majority of people who are in the best positions to know think you are.
I agree that humans can not control the climate. We are probably able to change it, unfortunately. We've sure punched up CO2 levels over the last hundred years.
Do you believe in Venus?
Do you believe in Venus?
> and we are just not able as humans to control the climate
https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
> "Neplac holka, nenarikej, kdyz je sucho, pole strikej." (Don't cry, girl, don't fret. When it's dry, just spray your field wet.)
Is this some weird Czech euphemism?
Is this some weird Czech euphemism?
I think they were just trying to make it rhyme in English by choosing approximate translations. The original says “[don’t cry] [girl], [don’t lament/wail], [when] [(there) is] [drought], [field] [spray (water)]”.
Nope. Native Czech speaker here. The style is akin to a nursery rhyme or an old folk song. It doesn't carry any hidden meanings. A better English translation might be "..spray the field wet". The pronoun "your" is not present in the Czech phrase.
no, it doesn't work in original
Huh, so is it just a rhyme? The translation definitely makes it sound like it was originally a euphemism, if only because it seems such a strange thing to write :)
Pedantic quibbling: is "ancient societies" a proper designation for 15th century Europe?
I have heard people discuss 19th century America as an "ancient society". Personally I'm all for calling anything between the Sumerians and the last Pharaoh of Egypt ancient but then the Denisovans and Neanderthals feel left out.
only if you consider the 15th century the very distant past. へ‿(ツ)‿ㄏ
As far as some people are concerned, it was ~8–10% of the Earth’s entire history ago, instead of 0.0000001% of it.
Reminds me of Japan's Tsunami Stones [1]. There are other examples around the world.
I spend a lot of time in Guatemala at Lago Atitlan. Only the white people live at water level, the indigenous generally live up higher given the ever changing water line. Probably a combo of white colonialists 'know better' mindset + more $$ so it's not as much as a big deal (waterfront premium as a vacation versus subsistence home).
Too bad we repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/asia/21stones.html
I spend a lot of time in Guatemala at Lago Atitlan. Only the white people live at water level, the indigenous generally live up higher given the ever changing water line. Probably a combo of white colonialists 'know better' mindset + more $$ so it's not as much as a big deal (waterfront premium as a vacation versus subsistence home).
Too bad we repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/asia/21stones.html
I was there in 2005 and again 2012 and was astonished at how high the lake had risen, buildings were swamped out, beaches w1here we used to go gone.
The lake was also getting dirty. Actually saw a documentary the other day on how this has only gotten worse. Some terrible pictures of how the lake looks at certain times of the year.
The lake was also getting dirty. Actually saw a documentary the other day on how this has only gotten worse. Some terrible pictures of how the lake looks at certain times of the year.
One reason whites live at low altitude in mountainous South America is that they don't suffer so many difficulties carrying pregnancies to term. The natives are better adapted to local conditions.
Doesn't really apply here, as the lake side to homes a bit higher up is maybe <100m. IIRC 1600 - 1700. That difference is not effecting anyone.
Fair enough.
I guess if the Great Barrier Reef starts recovering, we could etch some dire warning into the rock about to be covered by life, to be seen the next time things get this bad.
"If you see me, you will weep. So barren was our ocean in 2018."
If only, the Reef is likely irreversibly dying by now.
Any other applications?
"If you see me, you will weep. So barren was our ocean in 2018."
If only, the Reef is likely irreversibly dying by now.
Any other applications?
Areas that used to be covered by glaciers.
Seems like in front of a glacier's path when it's about to start growing is a bad place to put something that you want to survive for future generations to read.
It's so odd to see this article appear on HN alongside https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17868840
What's weird? The landlocked Czech Republic has different water level trends than coastal Miami?
It's almost as if this has happened before...
But no, it's record breaking drought.
The 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.
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.
Not 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_...
[1]: Report about draught from Czech meteorological agency, http://www.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/TZ_...
Edit: wrong link, correct one is http://portal.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/tiskove_zpravy/2018/...
I was summarizing the source document for this article, which is actually a few years old at present.
What 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.
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.
It … 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.)
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.)
How can it have happened before and be record breaking?
Why the unrelated note? Why assume I am an idiot?
Why the unrelated note? Why assume I am an idiot?
“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.
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.
Would you include these stones as data?
They're certainly a record of low water levels.
A "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 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 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?
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 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?
>So, who are you quoting when you use the phrase 'record breaking drought'
Quoting the article on which this comment is being made.
Quoting the article on which this comment is being made.
The article does not use the phrase "record breaking drought".
The phrases are: 1) "They are known as the "hunger stones," and they were chosen in the past to record low water levels", 2) "As Europe wilts in the sweltering, record-breaking harshness of summer 2018", 3) "with water levels hitting record lows in Europe".
The last two provide links where I think it's clear that they refer to modern record keeping, eg, daily measurements of temperature, rainfall, water depth, etc.
The phrases are: 1) "They are known as the "hunger stones," and they were chosen in the past to record low water levels", 2) "As Europe wilts in the sweltering, record-breaking harshness of summer 2018", 3) "with water levels hitting record lows in Europe".
The last two provide links where I think it's clear that they refer to modern record keeping, eg, daily measurements of temperature, rainfall, water depth, etc.
No, they are not the record being referred to here.
Clearly not.
When you just dismiss any records that are below the current drought, then all droughts can become record breaking.
That 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.
> 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.)
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.)
[deleted]
Um, the fact that the last time it was this bad was 400 years ago is pretty much the definition of "record breaking".
uhhh... the fact that there was a time that was "this bad", means that at most it's record equaling.
The fact that it hasn't been this bad in 400 years suggests that it's a capital-B Big problem though.
We 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.
The 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.
I think it depends on when the record keeping of the event began. So in this case if they started keeping records 250 years ago and they haven't experienced this level of drought since then, then it is considered record breaking. It doesn't mean that there haven't been worse droughts say, 300 or 400 years ago. It just means that either the official record keeping doesn't go that far, or that there may not be scientific research available to show that worse drought did occur before the the record keeping began.
I get that.
But clearly there are records there, records etched into stone in fact, that show that these events have occurred previously. That everyone turns this point into climate change denial is ridiculous.
Hmmmm, 'Science Alert' has a headline that calls stones 'Sinister'?
Methinks science has taken a backseat to rhetoric, regardless of the substance of the story.
Methinks science has taken a backseat to rhetoric, regardless of the substance of the story.
Perhaps that water ended up in the great lakes, which currently contain near record high amounts of water?
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/content/news/Lake-Superi...
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/content/news/Lake-Superi...
AFAIK, the Elbe doesn't drain into lake superior.
I think the idea is that wet areas are getting wetter, while dry areas are getting drier as the climate becomes more extreme.
They'd probably call it Über-See over there.
I realize you’re joking, but Übersee is a german word that denotes everything across the ocean. (Der See => the lake. Die See => the ocean)
Ah yes, I'm a native German speaker, but it hadn't occurred to me that "Übersee" does indeed mean "Overseas". It's a different meaning for both "über" and "see" than I had in mind.
The same water has been flooding homes and destroying infrastructure all over the upper midwest for the last couple weeks.
>> Also, because of a dam on a tributary of the Elbe, it's seen more often now than it used to be — although the current river levels are still exceptional.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641331544/drought-in-central-...