Kevin C #104: One can of course assume El Nino effects even the temperatures in the polar regions but connecting the dots is far from easy. I took AMSU lower tropospheric plot and tried to connect various heatvawes in various el Ninos at http://erimaassa.blogspot.com/2011/04/guidelines.html but as can be seen the subtropical ridge at some 35-40 deg N/S is quite an efficient barrier for rigid behaviour for extra energy to move, at least in the 2-dimensional(Low troposphere)/time plot.
As a chap who just got off the Clapham Omnibus and is happily swilling a tasty pint of traditional English warm beer, I take exception to this post.
 Chingford actually, but it could just as easily have been Clapham.
 Er, actually it’s called Rooster’s Angry Yank I.P.A. It’s a bitter brewed in Yorkshire from American hops, but they didn’t think “Bitter American” worked, hence “Angry Yank.” It’s served at a temperature that does not anesthetize the palate and it has a pleasantly aromatic attack with a lovely nutty decay. If this beer were human, I would probably shag it. At least after three pints I might.
Definitely an improvement on the IPCC “burning embers” effort. The Artist as Citizen project inspired a heap of new approaches in the contest that grew out of my “embers” coverage on Dot Earth: http://j.mp/dotCO2art
Some of these things will work, others will fall flat on their face. It’s still worth doing them. This made me laugh at least.
Comment by One Anonymous Bloke — 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:47 PM
Now you’ve got my attention on this crazy figure. Are the rising temperatures associated with each year (i.e., 1960 = 0 C) relative to average “room” (aka atmospheric) temperature? Cuz a beer at zero degrees Celsius (+32 F) is quite cold; certainly drinkable at +6 degrees C (+42 F)in 2100.
More to the point; if we’re going to use drawings to help raise awareness, I suggest they be peer reviewed by a panel of experts. We certainly don’t want to get off to a bad start…oh, wait a minute. As scientists we have already failed miserably at communicating observations of ongoing climate change, the cause of climate change, how our climate will change, and what we can do about it.
Maybe someone else should be in charge of these drawings!
Yes, websites that are 100% Flash. What a good idea! Aren’t designers clever!
The sad thing is that none of the entries I looked at even attempted to present information in an easy to understand way. The beer one is equally unhelpful, but at least appeals to a particular demographic.
Comment by David B. Benson — 13 Apr 2011 @ 7:09 PM
By 2100 you will connect the valve on your beer canister to the house CO2 collection system, vent the compressed gas through the Head Capture Filter into the sealed home vegetable greenhouse (warning, do not enter greenhouse without supplemental oxygen); once the volume of compressed CO2 expands into the capture system, that will have cooled the beer down to drinkable temperature.
Each beer canister will weigh, oh, six or eight pounds.
And your home-grown tomatoes and broccoli will taste vaguely like hops.
Randall W. Parkinson said, “As scientists we have already failed miserably at communicating observations of ongoing climate change, the cause of climate change, how our climate will change, and what we can do about it.”
I don’t think so. Scientists do a good job at communicating all of these things, or at the very least an acceptable job. Instead of thinking it’s the scientists who are failing, perhaps it would be more accurate to say it’s the rejectionists who are succeeding. Just because something is backed up by solid evidence and well-communicated, does not necessarily mean people will accept it.
I have a theory that, being swamped with imagery, we’ve entered an age where static images have lost power in the sense that they are no longer iconic. (Viral on YouTube is something else.)
That said, I thought the cartoon was amusing and pretty mild by today’s standards. The thing about humor is that it is, by it’s nature, somewhat evanescent and twisted. Take a joke it too literally or read too much into it, and you will kill even the best of them.
At first I thought it was clever. Now I think it does not work. It actually offers very little real information and not enough humor… rather it is merely clever display. And it calls attention to a serious lack of predictable scenarios discussed here on RC.
For instance, with a huge fraction of global agriculture resting within a few feet of sea level – I would think that with a foot of sea level rise we would see a fairly large impact to food and drink.
RC has mentioned scenarios back in 2004 – otherwise there is little to find.
“The models are not going to be able to tell you what will happen in 2080, but more what may happen at the time of doubling of CO2 , whenever that may be. It turns out the much of the climate is only weakly dependent on the rate of change of the greenhouse gases (though there are some important exceptions). So the result at the time of doubling doesn’t much matter whether it takes 70 or 100 years to get there.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/scenarios/
I realize that opening up discussion to future projection scenarios might be overwhelming – but there is so much in tipping points that is vitally important. After a quick search here in RC – I am left wishing for more.
This doesn’t work for outreach, but I did think it was a good Colbert-style humor piece. I was actually surprised at the degree of seriousness taken by some of the comments so far; I only read it like raypierre’s previous “sheep-albedo feedback’ article. It’s also similar to the bathing suit image showing ‘proof of global warming.’ Perhaps enough humor is a form of outreach? If it isn’t outreach though, it still brings a chuckle to someone…not bad either way.
I guess that’s what Thomas L. Friedman was getting at. “Hot, Flat, and…” okay, maybe “Crowded” doesn’t make all that much sense in beer terms, but then, “flat” never made much sense of globalization, either.
[Response: Bottling beer and then not being allowed to open them is against the Geneva Convention, and rightly so.--Jim]
Comment by David B. Benson — 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:14 PM
I like the concept…but not sure that the actual drawing works that well. Making good and descriptive graphic images is the best way to get through to many parts of the population because they go to sleep when most scientists or politicians start speaking.
But the people who did this forgot there’s also the champange/sparkling wine effect that is harder to measure since they get drinked on more private occasions. A new controversy in climate studies is clearly emerging. Anyway, good to see the effect of leaving the jug undrinked measured so well :-).
Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:46 AM
OMG !!! I never thought it was this bad. Now that the data presented by the IPPC in this way, now I see how serious the problem really is. What can I do! I like the idea to put our unwanted CO2 in beer…we just need to find the right brand that nobody wants to drink anyway. That’s is the problem, isn’t it? I suggest the feds put together a Blue-Ribbon panel to hopp on this issue and study which beer is best for CO2 storage. I also suggest congress pass a Bar Bill to create a hefty tax levied on anyone who chooses to buy and drink the swill.
re: #28, there is a temperature scale above the cans, from 0 to +6c
As one of the organizers of this contest over a year ago on Dot Earth, thanks to Gavin for posting, this one was one of my favorites, though it didn’t make the finals. As an allegory, I find it oddly and disturbingly precise, looking at it again. The entry for 2040, “Beer officially start to suck. People are shocked…” seems to capture a whole world of experience in very efficient language.
For those who would like to try their skills on an even better-funded climate communication contest, here’s a current one from Norway:
The top three entrants will receive approximately $18k to develop their pieces, and the winner will receive a production budget of about $96k to produce and distribute the winning piece. Deadline is May 1st.
It’s a nice illustration, but I think it is far from reality. This is maybe a decade of global warming, but the next one can become an ice age. We are dealing with speculations. [I call poe on this one. -moderator]
[Response: The next decade can become an ice age eh? And it can't be that far from reality given that numerous beers are already known to "officially suck", well ahead of schedule--Jim]
“Tagline: If we can pay as much attention to the Earth as we do to our beer, we probably wouldn’t need to worry about global warming.”
For most beer lovers it doesn’t matter how hot the earth get so long as there’s still beer in the world.
Now if you pay Joe six-pack in beer to use less energy and consume less natural resources then you’ve got a win-win. the earth will be saved because all he will do is sit around on the couch all day drinking beer which is all he wants to do anyway.
Beer = the end of global warming.
Of course then you have the problem of getting the labor to produce the beer.
Snapple, what is wrong with ignorant drunks? They have a right to their opinions too, which are equally valid with opinions of all those eye-glazing scientists. Peer reviewed science is just stuffy editorializing, isn’t it? Let both sides be heard, the debate is not over!
Comment by Scientific American — 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:27 AM
Jim: this is a deplorable anti- Swiss canard.
Unopenable beer bottles were devised by Geneva’s echt Calvinists as a warning to the preterite
This is awesome! I could this being made into t-shirts and distributing them around campus. Way better than our environmental studies student association club that always makes the same, “I love nature” earth day shirts. I love nature but this is hilarious and will totally get people’s attention and isn’t stereotypical tie dye stuff. Especially college kids who live off PBR but I’m from Kansas City and we drink Boulevard..mm delicious local beer. Y’all be jealous!!
Folks, please do not stoop to the level of some of the neanderthals who stand in the way of emissions control. The graphic is “cute,” but we don’t need cute….we need to re-visit policy, carefully examine our statements and data presentations, and make DAMN certain that we do not over-reach as in the past (“Snow will be a memory” etc.)
We are conducting a vast experiment upon the ecosystem, and anyone who thinks carbon dioxide is a benign gas may want to consider why we don’t walk around with dry-cleaners bags over our heads. If you want a poster child, de-emphasize the long-range warming impacts and focus upon the very visible damage that we are doing in coastal ecosystems (see National Geographic’s issue on this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text)
Folks won’t be amused when they go to the local Red Lobster restaurant & all that remains on the blackboard are jellyfish!! This will likely happen in 50 years at this rate.