RealClimate

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. 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.

    Comment by jyyh — 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:57 AM

  2. Sounds good. I don’t like beer anyway.

    Comment by Greg Simpson — 13 Apr 2011 @ 2:22 PM

  3. As a chap who just got off the Clapham Omnibus[1] and is happily swilling a tasty pint of traditional English[2] warm beer, I take exception to this post.

    [1] Chingford actually, but it could just as easily have been Clapham.

    [2] 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.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — 13 Apr 2011 @ 2:34 PM

  4. Nah, the hotter it gets, the better a cold beer will taste.

    Comment by B Buckner — 13 Apr 2011 @ 2:36 PM

  5. No.

    Comment by Dave Lambers — 13 Apr 2011 @ 2:55 PM

  6. A quick Google roundup:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.400-climate-change-depresses-beer-drinkers.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ns/us_news-environment/
    http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/beer-climate-change.html
    http://www.techeye.net/science/beer-threatened-by-climate-change

    Joe Sixpack, be afraid. Be very afraid.

    (I tried a Scholar search, too, but only got a lot of solar stuff from J. Beer.)

    Comment by CM — 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:02 PM

  7. 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

    Comment by Andy Revkin — 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:22 PM

  8. 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

  9. 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!

    Comment by Randall W. Parkinson — 13 Apr 2011 @ 4:50 PM

  10. This just seemed silly and condescending to me. Probably I’m not the democraphic it’s aimed at.

    Comment by Snapple — 13 Apr 2011 @ 5:12 PM

  11. Yes, websites that are 100% Flash. What a good idea! Aren’t designers clever!

    Oh, wait….

    Meh.

    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.

    Flash: Just Say No.

    Comment by Didactylos — 13 Apr 2011 @ 6:01 PM

  12. snapple – it’s not really aimed at a demographic. It’s aimed at getting people to think, re-think?, their attitudes generally.

    If it lightens the tone so that people who’ve previously been dismissive or antagonistic can more easily say, “Oh, you might have a point.” without losing face, it’s A Good Thing.

    Comment by adelady — 13 Apr 2011 @ 6:03 PM

  13. i sense a cover up, why does the chart not show price over time ?

    alarmists say by 2100 its £100 a can of beer, denialists say rubbish, lager is getting cheaper over time so its £3.

    new study says beer != lager -> furore.

    some beer reviewed citations :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lager
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_(beer)

    Comment by russwylie — 13 Apr 2011 @ 6:17 PM

  14. Cool.

    Err, not.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 13 Apr 2011 @ 7:09 PM

  15. 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.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 13 Apr 2011 @ 8:11 PM

  16. In a world where people drink Bud Light, not likely.

    Comment by Marshall — 13 Apr 2011 @ 8:46 PM

  17. 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.

    Comment by seamus — 13 Apr 2011 @ 8:57 PM

  18. 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.

    Comment by Radge Havers — 13 Apr 2011 @ 9:01 PM

  19. 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.

    Comment by richard pauli — 13 Apr 2011 @ 9:05 PM

  20. Some beers are better warm: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/63/34420

    Comment by Zeke Hausfather — 13 Apr 2011 @ 10:12 PM

  21. 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.

    Comment by Chris Colose — 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:05 AM

  22. Condescending

    COORS + BEER = CO2 + ER-ER + BS

    /Mango

    I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes

    Comment by MangoChuthey — 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:20 AM

  23. Heat does rather nasty things to wine. Liquid bliss shipped across the nation and caught in a sudden heat wave, bloody horrible.

    Comment by Tony O'Brien — 14 Apr 2011 @ 6:46 AM

  24. If we bottled the beer, but did not drink it because it got too warm, imagine how much CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere.

    Comment by Dan H. — 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:30 AM

  25. Yeah sure. All you ‘beerists’ are just making money hand over fist, promoting further studies in bars… getting sloshed on the taxpayer (that would be ME) dime!

    And anyway, all the beer-drinkers I see on the TeeVee say it’s a hoax: when you pop the top on one, the spritz cools off the next one in line.

    Why don’t you beerist jerks get a clue – and get me some whisky (over ice, if you’d be so kind) while you’re up?

    Comment by Jaime Frontero — 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:24 AM

  26. I don’t think the science here would survive beer review.

    Comment by Roger Andrews — 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:34 AM

  27. #24–According to Steve Goddard, all beer ought to be warm anyway, as it’s pressurized.

    #7–”Some of these things will work, others will fall flat. . .” Flat and warm, too? Horrors!

    Or should I say, “Barmageddon?”

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:17 PM

  28. Kevin,

    > Flat and warm, too?

    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.

    Comment by CM — 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:34 PM

  29. You should have put some temperatures on the graphic, either absolute or dT, otherwise Joe wont connect the dates with temperature.

    Comment by Terry — 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:54 PM

  30. This infographic has enough typos and design errors to make me far more alarmed about the designer’s skills than global warming.

    Comment by Nick — 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:55 PM

  31. Young Einstein and Beer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp368iEcB78&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apj4QSN8XQY&feature=related

    Comment by Holly Stick — 14 Apr 2011 @ 4:43 PM

  32. “If we bottled the beer, but did not drink it because it got too warm, imagine how much CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere.” Dan H. — 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:30 AM

    No need to imagine. World consumption is about 1.5e11 liters, and the CO2 content is 4-7 g/liter, so about 0.0025% of CO2 emissions. Assuming I didn’t drop a decimal point here or there.

    Comment by Brian Dodge — 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:24 PM

  33. Brian Dodge @30 — That’s it! Bottle alotta beer!

    [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

  34. 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.

    Comment by George Fripley — 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:24 PM

  35. 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 jyyh — 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:38 PM

  36. Vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year at
    http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/award.cfm

    This is the last day of voting.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:46 AM

  37. 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.

    Comment by Paolo — 15 Apr 2011 @ 8:15 AM

  38. 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:

    http://www.minor-foundation.no/competition/announcement/

    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.

    Comment by Richard Reiss — 15 Apr 2011 @ 10:17 AM

  39. 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]

    Comment by David — 15 Apr 2011 @ 3:55 PM

  40. For a lot of people, say around 2050 or so, your warm beer is going to taste a lot like salt water.

    Comment by Everett Rowdy — 16 Apr 2011 @ 1:08 AM

  41. #40–”Beer, beer everywhere, and not a drop to drink?” (Apologies to Coleridge.)

    Evidently, killing the planetary radiative equilibrium is much, much worse than killing an albatross. Well, that does make intuitive sense.

    Comment by kevin mckinney — 16 Apr 2011 @ 10:02 AM

  42. Reminds me of an old joke that goes back to the bad old days of Lucas Electronics:

    Q) Why do the Brits drink warm beer?

    A) They all have Lucas refrigerators!

    Comment by caerbannog — 16 Apr 2011 @ 12:35 PM

  43. 2010
    Growers in Burgundy start to worry about competition from New Zealand Pinot Noir

    2020
    Africanized Phyloxera beetles ravage Argentine Malbec fields

    2030
    Napa Valley replanted in shiraz as heat stress decimates 20th century cabernet plantings

    2040
    Krug’s first vintage of English champagne is served at coronation of King Harry IX

    2050
    Blaming barrage of fruit bomb years for Bordeaux price skid, Chateaux Ausonne declares bankruptcy after 2200 years

    2060
    Plankton-starved penguins swim north to Madeira and swarm inland to devour ripening grapes. Last Malmsey produced.

    2070
    Grape glut and influx of refugees from French vineyardS leads to
    replacement of haggis with sole Veronique as Scotland’s national dish.

    2080
    Extinction of barley in Ireland precipitates rebranding campaign for Guinness Port

    2090
    Siberia surpasses Quebec as world’s largest exporter of porter

    2100
    Groenlander Doktor trockenbeerenauslese served for dessert at Nobel awards banquet

    Comment by Russell — 17 Apr 2011 @ 9:33 PM

  44. “2100
    Groenlander Doktor trockenbeerenauslese served for dessert at Nobel awards banquet”

    . . . and climate change denialists finally admit it’s warmer than during the MWP.

    (Of course, they still insist that 1) the observed warming is entirely “natural,” and that 2) it’s just started cooling again.)

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 18 Apr 2011 @ 1:18 PM

  45. “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.

    Comment by Ian North — 18 Apr 2011 @ 6:18 PM

  46. I don’t think that denigrating people and calling them ignorant drunks will make them believe that you care about them and want to help their descendants survive global warming.

    Comment by Snapple — 18 Apr 2011 @ 7:57 PM

  47. I am deeply shocked by this website’s lack of advertisements for solar distilled rum, and carbon-negative biochar- filtered Jack Daniel’s Really Green Label

    Comment by Russell — 18 Apr 2011 @ 9:35 PM

  48. Russell @ 43

    The death of haggis AND a plague of penguins! In the same post no less!
    :-)

    Comment by Radge Havers — 19 Apr 2011 @ 11:32 AM

  49. 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

  50. 33
    Jim: this is a deplorable anti- Swiss canard.

    Unopenable beer bottles were devised by Geneva’s echt Calvinists as a warning to the preterite

    Comment by Russell — 20 Apr 2011 @ 6:54 PM

  51. #50–

    A practical demonstration of Predestination?

    Comment by kevin mckinney — 20 Apr 2011 @ 9:27 PM

  52. As another Calvinist once remarked,

    Malt does more than Milton can
    To justify God’s ways to man.

    Comment by Russell — 21 Apr 2011 @ 10:39 AM

  53. 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!!

    Comment by Emily — 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:37 PM

  54. Yeh all very interesting but it is not a HEN

    Comment by Anoneumouse — 29 Apr 2011 @ 5:12 AM

  55. 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.

    Comment by CRS, Dr.P.H. — 1 May 2011 @ 10:24 PM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.318 Powered by WordPress