Almost half of Europe’s soil is dryer than normal
vis4.net
vis4.net
This is very common in south of the UK, and usually doesn't have too much risk involved (especially if the foundations were built under soil considerations) but I wonder what impact this might have in the close future, with temperatures soaring and so many old buildings/homes over 100 years old.
Climate change will impact on things that don’t even cross our minds.
For those wondering what I'm talking about: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie...
In a "perfectly normal" year half of soil would be drier than normal, half would be wetter than normal, and none would be exactly normal.
The most reasonable way to interpret the headline would be to say soil is slightly wetter than normal, which is obviously not the intended message.
Though given how much glsl I write, I appreciate that
So I think this example fails, at least. The original article is trying to make the point that Europe's soil is alarmingly, abnormally dry.
[1]: http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/factsheets/factsheet_s...
Even if we are looking at the mean average, it's still not necessarily the case that half the soil will be on one side of the mean average; long tails tugs that mean average above and below the median.
But if what's meant here is the median, then yes, half will always be below.
Excuse me now while I go and beat myself up in the car park for being that person on HN.
The point I was trying to make though is that "normal" is not in any way equivalent to any kind of average. It always refers to a range or distribution, even if that range is very small (eg if there is only one normal value, the normal range is the margin of error). 5'8" and 5'10" are both normal heights; you would not say they are taller or shorter than normal. They're shorter/taller than average.
Yao Ming is taller than normal. Dwarfism is by definition abnormally small size. Normal can't be the average, because there wouldn't be anything to describe the range of heights between abnormally short and normal height. Also, normally short and normally tall would be the same thing. Makes no sense.
> Any distribution can define a normal range relative to that distribution.
Any particular sample will always have a corresponding probability in a normal distribution. So what you're saying is kind of right- values always fall within the range of a normal dostribution. That's not what it means to be outside the normal distribution, though. If you have another year that only partly overlaps with the expected distribution, you'll have an area that does not overlap despite being within the same range. That area is the fraction of values outside the normal range.
Log-normal is extremely common in hydrology. Turns out an anomaly in this case is defined as outside one standard deviation[1], so in a perfectly normal year you would expect ~15.9% of soil to be dryer than normal.
[1]: http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/factsheets/factsheet_s...
This way of thinking about language is not just logical and economical but also conforming with a friendly approach on communication. Of course, this is something unattractive to many people who celebrate their incredible and superior intelligence for the purpose of grandstanding. And I fear this attitude is relatively more normal on HN.
It's not "dryer than normal". It's "dry like the new normal". Also "lower end of dryness of tomorrows normal".
Climate change is happening. It's a bad take to make it sound like something's going back to a "normal" that will probably never happen again. What is "normal" is changing and we need to think how to deal with this, not consider it an anomaly.
Climate change has always been happening. What is "normal" has always been changing. The Azolla event led to the decrease of atmospheric CO2 from 3500ppm to 650ppm over the period of 800k years. Humanity has (so far) increased atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. Yes, we're faster than Azolla. But we'll probably stop or be stopped before we reach 3500ppm.
One of my favourite recent HN comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20496507):
> So, this is all a part of natural cycle. Humans are part of life on Earth. Some life on Earth captures CO2, and the other emits CO2, until it runs into some consequences; then the cycle repeats.
At least we haven't been getting heat waves, I guess.
That's the nice scenario anyway. The not-so-nice one is the desertification of everything not on the coast.
It doesn't even matter if the dryness has no negative effect whatsoever (which it certainly does), because it's a measurement of a trend and it WILL eventually cause issues.
It was also clear on a recent visit to family in Poland. The corn, potatoes and beets looked yellow and awful for all fields except the parts where somehow there was some water (for example, valleys).
• Low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the 1950s, due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends;
• High confidence that the frequency and intensity of drought since 1950 have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa (although 1970s Sahel drought dominates the trend) and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia;
• Low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence owing to observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term trends;
• High confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions.
Unlike with medieval plagues, we understand this problem and most of its effects. We can deal with it, as long as we don't deny it nor use it to push unrealistic beliefs.