the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Jul 2026
Strong winds in Poland in the 17th century and their consequences, in light of documentary evidence
Abstract. The paper presents a detailed analysis of strong winds in Poland in the 17th century, including their frequency, intensity, and impacts on the natural environment, society and economy. The analysis is solely based on available documentary evidence. Preliminary archival research allowed the construction of a comprehensive database of strong winds for Poland for the study period. The 542 weather notes were used to obtain the following information about strong winds: time, location/region, duration, and indexations of intensity, extent, and damage character. For the first time, 14 years of complete daily weather data were used to analyse the occurrence of strong winds. The methodology follows that utilised by Przybylak et al. (2025) for the analysis of strong winds prior to the 17th century. The number of strong winds in Poland in the 17th century reached 525, with the majority occurring in the second half of the century. In the annual cycle, strong winds were less frequent in summer, whereas the other seasons had similar frequencies. The wind category “fresh and strong breeze” occurred the most frequently (61.9 %), followed by “gales” (26.7 %). The former category dominated in spring and autumn (58.8 %), whereas the latter prevailed in the cold half-year (65 %). Each category of strong wind occurred more commonly in northern and north-eastern Poland than anywhere else. In 13.5 % of reports of strong winds, information about damage was available – most frequently in winter and autumn and least frequently in spring. The most frequently reported damage and destruction involved buildings (residential, agricultural, churches, etc.) and forests. The availability of daily-resolution data significantly improved the reliability of results on strong wind occurrence, particularly for the mildest analysed category (fresh and strong breeze). The changes in frequency of strong wind events in Poland in the 17th century were more similar to those observed in Northern than Southern Europe.
- Preprint
(1930 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(196 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3524', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jul 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3524', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jul 2026
reply
This review is divided into three sections, namely, general comments, specific comments and technical comments.
General Comments:
This manuscript reconstructs the occurrence of strong winds in Poland during the 17th century based on historical documentary sources. As strong winds are among the most destructive natural hazards in Poland and are projected to increase in frequency and intensity under future climate change, studies on pre-modern wind events are both valuable and timely. However, compared with the previous publication (Przybylak et al., 2025), the present manuscript shows only limited novelty. Apart from extending the study period to the 17th century, the research framework, methodology, and overall content remain largely unchanged. In addition, several methodological issues require clarification. Therefore, I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Specific Comments
- Extraction and use of historical documentary sources
①The manuscript introduces several types of historical sources, including handwritten and unpublished sources, published sources, and Diary. As noted in the manuscript, data quality and characteristics vary significantly across document types. It remains unclear whether different research questions use distinct source subsets, or if a formal data fusion process was implemented during extraction. The data processing workflow should be described more explicitly.
Lines 183–184 state that "we primarily used the last category of sources for the analysis, as it provided the most valuable and reliable information." Does this imply that only the third category of sources was used, while others were discarded? That causes considerable confusion regarding the role of the other data sources.
②In practice, the manuscript employs different datasets for different analyses (e.g., long-term reconstruction versus case studies). A schematic research framework illustrating the relationships among data sources, research questions, and analytical methods would greatly improve the clarity of the paper.
- Methodology
The classification of strong winds into five categories based on historical documentary evidence is one of the most innovative aspects of the manuscript. However, the connection between this historical classification and modern meteorological terminology requires further clarification. Line 316 state that "many of them in historical time were undetectable." The manuscript should clarify how historical terminologies are systematically connected to contemporary meteorological standards. For instance, are weather terms such as "gales," "storms," and "squalls" (as shown in Figures 15 and 16) classified using the same criteria in both historical contexts and modern observations?
- Discussion and Conclusions
The Discussion section covers a wide range of points but lacks sufficient depth and focus. Key aspects—such as the broader climatic context, the underlying causes of regional disparities, and validation from neighboring countries—require stronger supporting evidence and more rigorous comparative analysis.
Technical comments
①Given the strong conceptual and methodological overlap with Przybylak et al. (2025), both the Introduction and Discussion sections must explicitly highlight the unique scientific value and necessity of focusing specifically on the 17th century.
②It is unclear whether Diary are included in the handwritten and unpublished sources, or whether they constitute an independent source category.
③It is unclear how the numbers of strong-wind events reported in Table 3 were calculated.
④The relationship between the database and the Diary is not sufficiently clear. Does the database include diary records, or are these two independent datasets? The manuscript should clarify the composition of the database.
⑤The Abstract should be revised to better highlight the novelty of the study and summarize its major findings.
⑥The manuscript contains two methodological sections ("Area, Data and Methods" and "Method"). Although these sections serve different purposes, organizing the methodology into two separate sections is uncommon in journal articles.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3524-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 7 | 9 | 40 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 24
- PDF: 7
- XML: 9
- Total: 40
- Supplement: 6
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a carefully written and detailed analysis of wind frequency and strength in 17th century Poland, and area and time for which few studies and limited data exist. The authors are experts in the field, having worked through several centuries of data recovery and analysis and, having presented work in this area before. The reasons as to why only wind data has been analysed are sound. I have no particular comments on the analysis and methods itself.
My two main points are broader.
One final pedantic point, page 1, lines 41-2 note that strong winds are among the most significant natural disasters. This seems a particularly European perspective. Are tropical cyclones/typhoons included in this? If not, where is the point of differentiation?