Slate: "Drought Is Coming for Your Beer"

I was just being a smartass. I agree with the direction of his comments.

 

My beer says corn as ingredient-I dont see anything about barley.

 

I think in the future that it's possible that freshwater might also be a problem for brewers, not so much the availability but the price. I grew up in San Diego and ever since I was a child teachers and the news would talk about drought conditions and water conservation. Before moving to Brazil, my water bill in Carlsbad had skyrocketed, but the number of Breweries in the region continues to grow. I worked for a brewery and I can tell you that they use much more water than barley everyday.

 

Averages are one thing, but the bigger problem is wider temperature swings. In 2012 March temps in WI were in the 70's and even 80's, way above average. This March temps were in the 20's and 30's, way below average. These massive swings start to cause problems with plants that need a consistent growing season.

 

We had a much cooler- and very wet- Spring and Summer 2013 compared to 2012. This last Summer I saw vegetation thrive around here like never (in my life) before. Very unusual.

 

What is this new "drought" thing?

 

It's like the opposite of "draught".

 

Just curious, when was there a "normal" growing season and what defines it? Seems to me the weather is always unpredictable and fluctuates over time.

 

So, bottles?

 

Well, now you've done it. You just KNOW that DFH will have a gila monster sweat pilsner on the shelves by the end of the month (unless Rogue beats them to it, but they'd probably ruin it by adding peanut butter or some such shit).

 

Weather for sure, but not climate. I'm sure someone around here can provide actual metrics for a more precise reading, but as in another thread going on now (Beer and Work Out (?)), this is Bro science and the sky's the limit.

 

Wow, there are some really out-of-touch individuals on this site.

No, the warming we've seen in the last 100 years is at a rate unprecedented in the last 11,000 years. See Marcott et al, and the numerous confirmations of their research, for evidence.

Furthermore, it's almost certain that the climate change is manmade. I'm talking about scientific certainty, which is rigorous and lies at over 95% confidence. That is the same level of certainty physicists have in the theory of gravity, which as you might guess is used in practical applications every day with successful results. There is actually way more research and evidence in anthropogenic global warming than in gravity, if you can wrap your head around that for a minute.

Really, there is no reason to just guess about this stuff. The research is abundant and clear, and can be found with an easy search on Google or Google Scholar. I'd also recommend reading the most recent IPCC report, which summarizes contemporary global climate research quite well.

The fact that someone is talking about the last 6,000 years is a good clue that they don't know what they're talking about, as 6,000 years is not a time frame that I've ever seen used in a scientific study on climate. If you'd actually look at the various available proxy data, you'd know that the mean global temperature was cooling over the past ~11,000 years before suddenly spiking upward (we know this from observed temperature history) in the last 133 years (1880 is when we can say temperature data collection became robust enough to be considered in high confidence).

 

Or add actual s****. But seriously, the barley issue is less of a problem than the freshwater issue because I would like to think that there is a higher demand for freshwater than barely. Personally, I am not looking forward to the DFH/Rogue Salty Seawater Stout collaboration.

 

Or people with actual scientific critical thinking skills.

The climate is constantly changing via natural processes.

Man's activity more than likely has caused at the very least localized affect on climate. (How much of an affect is unclear, but signs point to little.)

Whether climate change is good or bad...well that is where things get very fuzzy very fast.

 

Put up (peer reviewed studies affirming that man's activity has "little...localized affect on climate") or shut up. What the talking heads say on Fox News and images shared from conservative think tanks on Facebook have nothing to do with, you know, actual science.

Climate change is not a myth and I really don't understand the rampart anti-intellectualism framed as critical thinking that surrounds the issue.

 

When it come to climate change, I really appreciate what George Carlin said that the Earth will be fine if the climate changes, it is just we humans who have to adapt.
Now, as far as beer goes, I know it is enjoyable but reality will prove too much for us if we try and continue making beer if it overrides our important needs. But no means do I lessen my love for it, but I define my love for beer and it does not define me.
I do hope we can find ways to create beer without taking away from our food sources. But that is a big subject!

 

You are projecting. The only time I ever see Fox News programming is while it is being mocked on The Daily Show. At no time did my post say "climate change is a myth." The pseudo-intellectualism framed as critical thinking on the left is just as bad as the anti-intellectualism framed as critical thinking on the right.

And I will stand by my statement that the effects of climate change (either good or bad) as well as the true impact of man on the overall course of the change has yet to be proven out one way or another. The "end of the world" models that people like you worship as unmitigated truth have consistently failed against actual observations. (And in some cases directly conflict with past records.)

 

well done sir!

 

As I said, your statements are nothing without actual, peer-reviewed science to back them up. That's the epitome of pseudo-intellectualism, believing something without any facts backing them up. The science of climate change is far more than supposed "end of the world" models.

 

I would like to see a scientific study showing this is the fastest warming period in the last 11,000 years (and I would say there is no concrete evidence as to what actual temps were, but through ice core samples and such we guess).

Then I would like to show you the UN's data (via CNN)
"Climate scientists are 95% confident -- that is to say, surer than ever -- that humans are responsible for at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s." Now data was officially gathered from some time in the 50's till today... Yet in the same report they say that the past 15 years (which don't follow their model) were just a blip or too short of time for any relevance. That's about 25% of the time that the study took place. That is horrible science.

Now am I foolish enough to say that there is no climate change or that man may be causeing some of it, no, but I also find it humorous that 25% of data can be thrown out to force your hypothesis. Unfortunately time will only tell (and by the way it was predicted using that same UN data that we wouldn't have any summer ice coverage in the Artic this year, it actually is 60% bigger than it was last year, but that's a only a year after the lowest point on record to be fair).

Edit- I would much rather debate/discuss this over a beer, instead of typing this out on a cellphone a few hundred miles away! Cheers