The claim
A sharepic shows the dried-up Elbe in Dresden in 1904 and is intended to prove that there is no climate change, since there were already periods of heat and drought back then.
Our conclusion
Weather is not climate. Individual weather extremes cannot be arguments against or for climate change. Only when such events accumulate over decades (which is also predicted) can we speak of climate events.
There is climate and there is weather. We have already explained what the difference is in an article (see HERE ).
Important: Not every weather phenomenon proves climate change, because it is not the individual weather that matters, but the frequency of a weather event within several decades. And exactly this problem applies to the dried-up Elbe in Dresden in 1904: The event alone is not an argument against or for climate change. However, the frequency does.
The sharepic with the dried up Elbe
Since many rivers in this country are currently drying up, it was actually only a matter of time before someone dug up this betting event and used it as “counter-evidence”:

Under the picture with the dried up Elbe and walkers in the riverbed is the text “ Elbe in Dresden 1903. This climate change is already blatant…. and a laughing emoji.
The photo is real
It was not in 1903, but in 1904, when a stable high pressure situation from June to September ensured that moist Atlantic air could not flow over the country and cause rain, which led to the water level of the Elbe continuing to fall, as " Sächsische.de ” reported.
The dried-up river bed caused a true disaster of tourism in Dresden at the time: many people traveled from far away to marvel at the Elbe, which had been reduced to a trickle, and to look for “treasures” in the river gravel (although the yield was rather sobering).
A question of frequency
As already mentioned above and the Federal Environment Agency also writes : Individual weather events do not in themselves indicate climate change and are therefore not an argument against it. Only when a certain pattern forms, i.e. certain weather phenomena occur more frequently and regularly, can they be attributed to climate change.

Since 2011, a characteristic sequence of drought years has been evident, as the Federal Hydrology Institute “ Correctiv ” announced, and since 1990 there has also been a tendency for there to be less water in the Elbe. Although this indicates a trend, it could also be due to natural circumstances, for example between 1960 and 1990 the low flow increased and remained the same.
The currently dry rivers are a result of the current heat period, but are not yet direct evidence for or against climate change. What is more interesting is not the development of the effect (dry rivers), but the cause, namely the high temperatures.
And we already have a clearer picture, because according to the DWD, the global surface temperature has risen very significantly in the last few decades:

As a result, periods of heat and drought are increasing, which in turn affects the water cycles . The periods of heat and drought are increasing, but the current low water levels have not yet shown any significant change - although this may change in the next few decades.
According to the “ Climate Impact and Risk Analysis 2021 for Germany ” by the Federal Environment Agency, several research projects indicate that low water situations may become more frequent and more intense, meaning that the reduction in low water flow that has been ongoing since 1990 actually represents the beginning and that the situation will intensify.
Let's summarize
The dried-up Elbe in 1904 is not evidence against climate change. Likewise, the currently dry rivers cannot be taken individually as an argument for climate change. weather events that occur from time to time .
However, the global surface temperature is undoubtedly increasing, and with it the frequency of periods of heat and drought, as well as the frequency of dry rivers. Although low water flow is currently still within the norm, this could change significantly in the next few decades.
The sharepic with the dried-up Elbe is therefore not an argument against climate change, because it oversimplifies the consequences of a single weather extreme without the appropriate context.
Further source: dpa
If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:
📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.
Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!
* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )

