Beer and global warming.

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
While we are on the topic of companies that feel the impact of climate change on their bottom line, and seeing as this is a forum about brewing, it might be worth looking at the effect on wine production and some of the things wine producers are doing in response to climate change.

Last year they was a nifty little paper which collected together information about grape harvest times, the climate over the growing season, and the quality of that years vintage, for the period from 1600 to 2007. The paper focuses on France, because the French kept records of these things. The data recapitulates many things that are already known - good vintages are produced when the growing season is warm and dry, which results in early harvest of sweet and flavourful grapes; the quality, weather and harvest time are all correlated with one another. Before the last part of the 20th century, these factors varied from year to year, but on average they were quite constant. One year the harvest might be 10 days earlier than average across the wine-growing regions and be a good vintage, the next it might be 6 days later than average and not so good, but the rolling average itself was constant. Of course there are exceptions, like after the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia and resultant "year without a summer" which causes a whopping 25 day delay in grapes being harvested, but the trend is there. Since 1980s, however, warming has meant that the average harvest day is 10 days earlier than before, even if you ignore the extreme heatwave in 2003 which resulted in grapes being harvested a whole month earlier than expected.

Overall, climate change has been good for French wine producers - the earlier harvests are having beneficial effects on the quality of French wine, with good vintages coming more frequently than before the mid 20th century, particularly for the colder wine producing areas. This is also good news for wine production in the UK, which in the past was too cold to produce good wines. In Spain, things are not quite so cheery, as wine production in the south in particular is past its peak. Indeed, Spanish vintners are buying up British land to compensate. Even in the north of Spain wine producers were seeing drops in production. By the time I was moved to Catalunya, much of the production had already shifted to highlands of Aragon and the foothills of the Pyrenees. Spanish wine producers know about global warming. They taste it in their glass, and see its effects in their profit margins. No wonder they are adjusting their business plans accordingly.

Anyway, I chose to use this topic for no reason other than this is a brewing forum, but it is only one of thousands of pieces of evidence which all point to the same conclusion and illustrates the reality of global warming. It also happens to serve as a good illustration of why some of the denialist accusation on this thread are just wrong. There is no cherry picking of data. Some anomalous data points were there, like the 1815 eruption and the 2003 heatwave, but in the scientific paper there was no selection of start and end points to try and force a pattern that doesn't hold when all the data is used. Indeed, all the data available is used, and through the noise of year-to-year variation, there is a undeniable underlying trend that captures warming, and is having profound consequences on harvest dates and wine quality. This is all public data, so can be independently checked and verified. The sommeliers who rateed vintages in bygone decades, the viticulturalists who recorded harvest dates, and the people keeping track of the weather, were not part of some global warming conspiracy theory. They were just doing what they do, and it just happens that their data reveals what it happening to our climate. The second denialist accusation that this dispels is that every consequence of climate change is negative. That certainly isn't the case for wine producers in Britain or the Loire Valley. In fact, if people actually went to the scientific literature instead of gullibly accepting whatever the media feeds them, they might find the truth to be a hell of a lot more nuanced than the both the shrill alarmism of the left or the downright lies of the right would have them believe.
 
Seriously? We have a government in place that is such a bunch of greedy, tightfisted b*****ds that they cheered when they managed to vote down a pay rise for firefighters (side note: funny how we can't afford to pay firefighters, nurses, or policemen, but we can afford £1.8 billion to keep them in power, isn't it?).?

Someone said exactly the same earlier on 5 live these people save lives and risk theirs every time they go to work and as some said they would be better off doing other work but its not a job its a vocation.

.
 
Someone said exactly the same earlier on 5 live these people save lives and risk theirs every time they go to work and as some said they would be better off doing other work but its not a job its a vocation.

.

I'm absolutely disgusted with the entire shower of... them. It's one thing to reluctantly vote that we can't, as a country, afford to pay firefighters more for risking their lives; it's quite another to cheer gleefully when you've denied firefighters a living wage for no better reason than your single-minded, ideological support of a discredited economic theory.
 
As I've pointed out before, CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, just like that pint of lager left on the bar. It warms first, then the CO2 is released and it goes flat. It is not the release of CO2 that warms the pub!
I know a pub doesn't represent the whole world, but the first part is true.
WARMING FIRST, THEN AN INCREASE IN CO2 LEVELS.
What's so difficult to understand?
co2_temp.gif
This graph also shows that sooner or later we will enter another ice age.
 
"Of the three places where carbon is stored—atmosphere, oceans, and land biosphere—approximately 93 percent of the CO 2 is found in the oceans. The atmosphere, at about 750 petagrams of carbon (a petagram [Pg] is 10 15 grams), has the smallest amount of carbon."
 
As I've pointed out before, CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, just like that pint of lager left on the bar. It warms first, then the CO2 is released and it goes flat. It is not the release of CO2 that warms the pub!
I know a pub doesn't represent the whole world, but the first part is true.
WARMING FIRST, THEN AN INCREASE IN CO2 LEVELS.
What's so difficult to understand?

It isn't difficult to understand. Nobody contests it. Warming causes CO2 release. Simple. The problem arises when you try and argue that warming causing CO2 release implies that CO2 release doesn't cause warming. The logic doesn't work. It is a false dichotomy. Warming causes CO2 release and CO2 release causes warming. Both are demonstrably true.
 
If manmade CO2 caused a miniscule rise in atmospheric temps, how does that transfer to the oceans to provoke their subsequent release of CO2? Laughable, like trying to warm up a bathful of cold water with a barely working hairdryer. It's the sun wot done it - whatever 'it' is. You can't get more energy out than what is put in. As daft as setting setting your oven to 200C then expecting the temp to increase by adding a few molecules of CO2. There will now no doubt follow an attempt to describe the workings of infrared radiation and the absorption and reflection of by CO2 molecules etc. Don't bother, already been there.
 
Last edited:
If manmade CO2 caused a miniscule rise in atmospheric temps, how does that transfer to the oceans to provoke their subsequent release of CO2?

Are you really asking how a rise in atmospheric temperatures can heat up the oceans?

Laughable, like trying to warm up a bathful of cold water with a barely working hairdryer. It's the sun wot done it - whatever 'it' is. You can't get more energy out than what is put in.

Of course it's the sun. No one ever said otherwise. The point is the CO2 traps the heat energy near the Earths surface, allowing it to build up to levels it wouldn't otherwise reach. It's precisely the same principle as throwing an old towel over your brewbucket, or a duvet over yourself.

As daft as setting setting your oven to 200C then expecting the temp to increase by adding a few molecules of CO2. There will now no doubt follow an attempt to describe the workings of infrared radiation and the absorption and reflection of by CO2 molecules etc. Don't bother, already been there.

Ovens already have walls to trap the heat. In this case, the greenhouse gasses essentially form the oven wall.
 
Are you really asking how a rise in atmospheric temperatures can heat up the oceans?



Of course it's the sun. No one ever said otherwise. The point is the CO2 traps the heat energy near the Earths surface, allowing it to build up to levels it wouldn't otherwise reach. It's precisely the same principle as throwing an old towel over your brewbucket, or a duvet over yourself.



Ovens already have walls to trap the heat. In this case, the greenhouse gasses essentially form the oven wall.

Lol!! Are you Michael Mann by any chance?
 
... the director? I don't get it.

I'm sure you're having me on but in case you're not and for the benefit of those who genuinely don't know, he's one of the leading protagonists of the great CO2 scam. Judging by his fuzzy beard he's feeling the cold like the rest of us. He looks a bit too young to me, but he might have been in that packed US conference room on the hottest day of the year and with a disabled aircon system when Hansen announced that the world has 10 minutes or whatever to save itself from conflagration if we don't get a grip on CO2. Probably about 25 years ago, now.
 
It isn't difficult to understand. Nobody contests it. Warming causes CO2 release. Simple. The problem arises when you try and argue that warming causing CO2 release implies that CO2 release doesn't cause warming. The logic doesn't work. It is a false dichotomy. Warming causes CO2 release and CO2 release causes warming. Both are demonstrably true.
The only thing that could demonstrate that this conjecture is true would be a continuous rise in CO2 and temperature. One would feed the other in a vicious circle of unending rise. This is just the kind of thinking which predicted the now discredited "hockey stick" temperature rise hypothesis. Lets face it. After the millennium temps have been relatively flat. At total odds with the hockey stick scenario.
 
After the millennium temps have been relatively flat. At total odds with the hockey stick scenario.

What's that, over 17 years worth of CO2 emissions and no rise in temps? This can't be right - it doesn't fit the models. Must be the climate that's wrong.
 
The only thing that could demonstrate that this conjecture is true would be a continuous rise in CO2 and temperature. One would feed the other in a vicious circle of unending rise.

This assumes that warming releases CO2 at precisely the same rate at which CO2 causes warming. Which seems very unlikely to me.
 
This assumes that warming releases CO2 at precisely the same rate at which CO2 causes warming. Which seems very unlikely to me.

What with the allegedly warming oceans giving up their CO2 at an elevated rate, and us chucking it into the atmosphere by the billions of tonnes one thing is clear: the CO2 ain't working. The hiatus in rising global temps is ongoing and with the sun entering what many are calling a 'grand solar minimum', warming is the least of our worries from a climatological (?!) point of view.
 
What with the allegedly warming oceans giving up their CO2 at an elevated rate, and us chucking it into the atmosphere by the billions of tonnes one thing is clear: the CO2 ain't working. The hiatus in rising global temps is ongoing and with the sun entering what many are calling a 'grand solar minimum', warming is the least of our worries from a climatological (?!) point of view.

It's called a Maunder minimum. Russian scientists believe their analysis to have a 97% certainty. Snow sports anyone?
 
What with the allegedly warming oceans giving up their CO2 at an elevated rate, and us chucking it into the atmosphere by the billions of tonnes one thing is clear: the CO2 ain't working. The hiatus in rising global temps is ongoing and with the sun entering what many are calling a 'grand solar minimum', warming is the least of our worries from a climatological (?!) point of view.

Which hiatus is this? Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136 years since records began have occurred since 2000.
 
Which hiatus is this? Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136 years since records began have occurred since 2000.

I have no idea where they get their information from, but they must believe that NASA, the Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency and NOAA are all in conspiracy together.
 
I have the Met Office app on my phone if i had known how rubbish you can be at forecasting and still earn a good living i would have told my careers officer (remember them) that was the way i wanted to go. :lol:

.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top