Jump to content
ChristinaS1

Impact of Global Warming on the Future of Beer.

Recommended Posts

There is no such thing as a stable climate. By all accounts, crops are at record yields. If wikipedia is to be believed, barley is thriving. It dislikes cold, and is apparently drought tolerant.

Canada's Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs produced an article on how CO2 is beneficial to farming. Check out how they suggest you create the CO2 for your crops! Canada was the source of the article that started this thread.

Why not just RDWHAHB? Being so stressed will put you in an early grave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Investigator, why do you think you know better than relevant experts. I know it is fun to be a naysayer but the science on climate science is robust. 

As for the effects of increased CO2 on crops, this has been looked at least since I was a biochemistry undergraduate in the early 1980s. The effects are mixed and not universally beneficial. Some crops do no better because they are limited by water or nitrogen or phosphorus some other nutrient. Others, with more resources, produce more anti-feedant toxins. Yet others, produce rank growth with more mass but less nutritious per kg. 

The bottom line is that we mess with the climate in an entirely uncontrolled manner, it is incredibly naive to think it will be all good. 

Please consider why non-scientists would want you and others to disbelieve the science. Of course we would all like things to stay the same and we could all have no change to how things are, but that is putting our heads in the sand. Nature, physics, the chemistry of the ocean don't care what we choose to believe. Wishful thinking doesn't change what science has understood for the last few decades. 

Think of the commercial interests like the tobacco lobby. Would they want you listening to scientists?

I don't blame you because a lot of money for maintaining the status quo of the fossil fuel industry has put a lot of effort into misleading you. 

Edited by PeterC1525230181
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

Sounds like something that idiot Malcolm Roberts would say. Regardless of who is right there are no negatives to trying to be cleaner and reduce our impact on the environment, except maybe in the pockets of the fossil fuel corporations. 

Indeed. Emission reductions are generally no-regrets policies. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit such as energy efficiency measures that have ridiculously short payback periods. Renewable electricity generation tends to push prices down. Local as well as global pollution is reduced with health benefits. Electrification of transport has cheaper operating costs and health benefits from improved city air quality leading to reduced costs in the medical system and better quality of life.  Now I drive electric cars, I would never go back.  Running transport on locally produced electricity rather than fossil fuel from long vulnerable supply lines improves our energy security. We no longer need to get involved in messy politics or wars in oil producing countries. I could go on... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PeterC1525230181 said:

Indeed. Emission reductions are generally no-regrets policies. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit such as energy efficiency measures that have ridiculously short payback periods. Renewable electricity generation tends to push prices down. Local as well as global pollution is reduced with health benefits. Electrification of transport has cheaper operating costs and health benefits from improved city air quality leading to reduced costs in the medical system and better quality of life.  Now I drive electric cars, I would never go back.  Running transport on locally produced electricity rather than fossil fuel from long vulnerable supply lines improves our energy security. We no longer need to get involved in messy politics or wars in oil producing countries. I could go on... 

Electricity is hardly clean when most of it comes from fossil fuel production in this country - we have no viable renewable alternative, such as Solar, wind or nuclear. These are not yet viable industries offering real economic alternative.

Only now is this country taking small steps on a household level to use solar and reduce grid demand. Yes, that might push down prices, but will probably also reduce the main motivation to go solar in the first place.

To make a global difference will take a global response, and you only need to look at the international discussions, to see that the nations with the biggest to lose economically (and politically, given the massive US backing by the oil industry) are not going to budge.

As for the climate debate, the science may well be well grounded, but the propaganda that happens in the prosecution of its case  doesn't help its cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Instigator said:

Please stop homebrewing. The CO2 you are creating is contributing to the death of your children.

Indeed! 😉😉😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never known a climate realist to be swayed by junk science from a gullible fool.

And this forum isn't the place to attempt it. Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PeterC, you need to get off that "skeptical" science website. John Cook is the tobacco industry of the global warming faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lab Rat said:

Electricity is hardly clean when most of it comes from fossil fuel production ...

I am lucky that the electricity I use in the ACT is close to 100% renewable now and will be 100% before the end of this year.  In real time, the ACT's contracted generators are matching or exceeding our actual consumption about 80% of the time. https://reneweconomy.com.au/deep-dive-into-the-acts-100-renewable-energy-target-41592/

There have been many studies that have shown how we can practically achieve 100% or close to 100% renewable generation across the whole National Electricity Market. https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-nab-chair-say-shift-to-100-renewables-inevitable-and-likely-by-2050-2050/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Instigator said:

Please stop homebrewing. The CO2 you are creating is contributing to the death of your children.

...and here was I believing I was helping to feed plants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

Regardless of who is right there are no negatives to trying to be cleaner and reduce our impact on the environment, except maybe in the pockets of the fossil fuel corporations. 

👍

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Instigator said:

PeterC, you need to get off that "skeptical" science website. John Cook is the tobacco industry of the global warming faithful.

Mate you and Gym Jack might have a read of Peter Doherty's book I suggested earlier.  That would be good.  

It's the Fossil Fuel Industry and all its hangers-on that are doing the Big Tobacco thing with an ongoing smoke-screen (no pun intended). 

Have a read.  Doherty is a clever bloke with a Nobel Prize to his name and has been around for a while... no Spring Chook is he.

And he provides some good assistance to be able to sort the shittt from the clay.

As noted by the lads above - embodying the Precautionary Principle - there are no negatives to trying to be cleaner and reduce enviro impact except in the pockets of the fossil fuel majors.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, BB, but anything endorsed by Tim Flannery isn't likely to be given any of my time as that alone diminishes any credibility Doherty may have had.

No one wants pollution. No one.

Still, the continual "it's the fossil fuel industry", "it's big tobacco", "won't somebody think of the children", "precautionary principle", "the damns will never fill", "children won't know what snow is", "100m sea level rises (yet Timbo buys a waterfront property)", and so on are such tired memes that people are reacting with "ho hum, another crackpot". Remember that other meme that was pushed at us all - "the science is settled"? Remember how the CSIRO sacked 350 scientists because if the science was settled, we didn't need them any more? Overnight, the science was no longer settled in any scientific organisation anywhere in the world. Please don't tell me it is only big tobacco and fossil fuel companies distorting the conversation.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I offer the following quote:

Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

I am sorry if I have caused any offence as we are all here for fun and beer. I hope we can all remember: friends can disagree on some things and still be friends. 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Instigator said:

Sorry, BB, but anything endorsed by Tim Flannery isn't likely to be given any of my time as that alone diminishes any credibility Doherty may have had.

No one wants pollution. No one.

Still, the continual "it's the fossil fuel industry", "it's big tobacco", "won't somebody think of the children", "precautionary principle", "the damns will never fill", "children won't know what snow is", "100m sea level rises (yet Timbo buys a waterfront property)", and so on are such tired memes that people are reacting with "ho hum, another crackpot". Remember that other meme that was pushed at us all - "the science is settled"? Remember how the CSIRO sacked 350 scientists because if the science was settled, we didn't need them any more? Overnight, the science was no longer settled in any scientific organisation anywhere in the world. Please don't tell me it is only big tobacco and fossil fuel companies distorting the conversation.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I offer the following quote:

Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

I am sorry if I have caused any offence as we are all here for fun and beer. I hope we can all remember: friends can disagree on some things and still be friends. 👍

Definitely disagree with most of your flat-earth diatribe, the unfortunate blatant misuse of information to satisfy your argument, and am disappointed in your munificent short sightedness on more than one account e.g. just one example - CSIRO sacked scientist as all was settled - CSIRO sack people because their budgets get cut by short sighted politicians who control their Senior Management who will orate the story they are told to communicate.

However, I do certainly agree with the last part that fortunately we live under the protective banner of democratic pluralism and hence can disagree but still brew on together 😝

So in that spirit, time to move as you suggest: Brew Up and Brew On. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bearded Burbler said:

 e.g. just one example - CSIRO sacked scientist as all was settled

From the linked article

 

Quote

 

While the organisation had pioneered climate research "the same way we saved the cotton and wool industries for our nation", the CSIRO "cannot rest on our laurels as that is the path to mediocrity," Dr Marshall said.

The question of climate change "has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?", he said.

 

No one has uttered "the science is settled" since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Instigator said:

From the linked article

No one has uttered "the science is settled" since.

Definitely disagree with most of your flat-earth diatribe, the unfortunate blatant misuse of information to satisfy your argument, and am disappointed in your munificent short sightedness on more than one account e.g. just one example - CSIRO sacked scientist as all was settled - CSIRO sack people because their budgets get cut by short sighted politicians who control their Senior Management who will orate the story they are told to communicate.

However, I do certainly agree with the last part that fortunately we live under the protective banner of democratic pluralism and hence can disagree but still brew on together 😝

So in that spirit, time to move as you suggest: Brew Up and Brew On. 👍

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is never settled, that's the beauty of it. Things change, views change when new evidence comes to light that proves older ideas wrong. 

I think the biggest problem with this issue is the extremes on both sides. You've got the ignorant clowns who think the whole thing is a complete load of crap and that nothing ever changes regardless of pollution levels or whatever else. Then you've got the alarmists carrying on like the world will end in 10 years. I don't agree with either of those scenarios. 

I definitely agree with reducing pollution and moving towards cleaner energy sources, this can only have a positive outcome for the world and all its inhabitants. I agree with largely ending deforestation, as we need to get oxygen from somewhere. But I don't agree with alarmist claims about the speed at which the world is heating up. The consensus is that it is warming up but I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that it's suddenly gonna spike sky high. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

Science is never settled, that's the beauty of it. Things change, views change when new evidence comes to light that proves older ideas wrong. ... The consensus is that it is warming up but I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that it's suddenly gonna spike sky high. 

Re the nature of science. Speaking as a retired research scientist, it is actually overstated how often views change radically. Far more often, what happens is refinement. Usually, what was thought to explain nearly everything on some topic is found to not quite be the whole story. What the press might describe as a 'quantum leap' is more often a small but important refinement. Einstein didn't make Newton entirely wrong; he showed that Newtonian physics is a very close approximation for smaller masses and velocities. 

Re global heating. The really serious, frankly scary, risk is triggering positive feedbacks. Eg. remove enough ice from the poles and you replace reflective ice with dark ocean and rock. The dark surfaces absorb more heat, melting more ice, exposing more rock and ocean and so on. Think of what happens to a small sound if you step to close to a speaker with a microphone. 

We are 1 degree of increase already and there is a lag for heating. The historic emissions continue to cause heating so we are well on the way to 2 degrees, which is serious, if we don't get substantial reductions in the next decade or so and get to zero net by 2050.  Even if global heating were not a problem, ocean acidification is enough of a problem. 

The dilemma for the scientific community has been how to communicate the real urgency without being accused of going beyond what can be stated with a very high degree of confidence. As for quoting Larry Marshall, I was one of those CSIRO staff members who was gobsmacked by the ludicrous email he sent to all staff saying that we could stop bothering with climate research.  The same email talked up research on a way to use coal directly as a diesel substitute as one of half a dozen things the CSIRO should do more on! It did not go over well! At least he did acknowledge that the big picture on climate change was settled, which it is. No reasonable person disputes that. We do have to rapidly cut emissions. No getting around that. That does not mean that there is not an important role for continued research on the fine detail.

Still, thanks to CSIRO cuts, I got to pay off my mortgage and get into brewing among other things. I put up my hand when the part of CSIRO I was in (not climate related) was looking to trim some sections so as to be able to avoid all the cuts falling on climate research.  

I don't think I would be alone in suggesting that Larry was the sort of appointment who knew what he was expected to do to please the government of the day, a government receiving substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry. Think of an editor for Murdoch. He did not need to be told what to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PeterC1525230181 said:

Still, thanks to CSIRO cuts, I got to pay off my mortgage and get into brewing among other things.

And that is a beautiful thing! 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PeterC1525230181 said:

Re the nature of science. Speaking as a retired research scientist, it is actually overstated how often views change radically. Far more often, what happens is refinement. Usually, what was thought to explain nearly everything on some topic is found to not quite be the whole story. What the press might describe as a 'quantum leap' is more often a small but important refinement. Einstein didn't make Newton entirely wrong; he showed that Newtonian physics is a very close approximation for smaller masses and velocities. 

 

The media are a part of the problem, and this was evident to me well before I undertook media studies as a mature student. Few people are directly involved in the science or understand it, many people watching commercial media couldn't care less, unless it starts to affect them directly. That's the same as the international nations response, on a micro level.

The media, by dint of short time frames to package stories around advertising, goes for eye grabbing headlines - inflates small stories beyond perspective, and goes overboard with resources and non stop coverage on big ones.

People fatigue from it all and switch off, or become cynical. Important messages get lost. Everyone knows pollution needs addressing and climate is a issue, but no one really knows what the real picture is. This suits govts, as people who are uninformed or confused are easily swayed to economic fear-mongering and more compliant to the govt narrative on a given topic.

Edited by Lab Rat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another thread elsewhere on the forum Coopers explain a recent increase in price, "Sadly, the Aussie droughts have put pressure on our barley farmers and significantly increased farmgate barley prices."

This thread got me thinking about how I could reduce the carbon footprint of my brewing. I decided I should switch from Coopers kits to a Canadian brand, only to discover that the company that used to offer them stopped making them two years ago. The remaining choices carried by my LHBS are all made in either Australia or New Zealand....Now I am sad that I didn't give the Canadian company (whose main business is wine making) more of my business over the years. I probably only ever purchased four of their kits, way back when I was starting out, and they were good. The only reason I didn't buy more is because I joined this forum. As a beginner, I needed all the help I could get; the Canadian extract maker didn't have a users forum.

I could reduce my carbon footprint by going all grain, as Canada produces lots of barley, but all grain is not an option for me.

Cheers,

Christina.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...