Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
How is global warming supposed to affect wine production? Are the
effects already evident? Regards, Alexandre Couto de Andrade |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Alexandre wrote:
> How is global warming supposed to affect wine production? Are the > effects already evident? As the climate has warmed, wines made in affected regions have been getting riper and more alcoholic. A good example is German Riesling, where every year in the new millenium has produced wines in each Prädikat and several years ('03, '05, '06) have produced no true Kabinetts. Warming has also led to an expansion of wine production to higher latitudes, so England and Sweden have started producing wine again. Warmer regions such as the Mediterranean and California have been producing wines at >16% ABV and some even have residual sugar left after fermentation. Here is a good article on the subject by Jamie Goode: http://www.wineanorak.com/global%20warming.htm Mark Lipton -- alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
From http://www.stratsplace.com/martin/no...ia_afgani.html
The 'Little Optimum' - Mediaeval global warming - Leafing through the fascinating book, The Year 1000, I came across the following snippet, 'The Normans' Domesday survey of 1086 listed no less than 38 vineyards in England... the years 950 to 1300 were marked by noticeably warmer temperatures than we experience today... Meteorologists describe this mediaeval warm epoch as the 'Little Optimum'... [when] London enjoyed the climate of the Loire Valley...' By Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger, paperback, published by Abacus, London, 2000. Cheers! Martin |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
On Oct 8, 11:54*pm, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> Martin Field wrote: > > Fromhttp://www.stratsplace.com/martin/noshtalgia_afgani.html > > > The 'Little Optimum' - Mediaeval global warming - Leafing through the > > fascinating book, The Year 1000, I came across the following snippet, 'The > > Normans' Domesday survey of 1086 listed no less than 38 vineyards in > > England... the years 950 to 1300 were marked by noticeably warmer > > temperatures than we experience today... Meteorologists describe this > > mediaeval warm epoch as the 'Little Optimum'... [when] London enjoyed the > > climate of the Loire Valley...' By Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger, > > paperback, published by Abacus, London, 2000. > > I know it is considered uncool to write like this, but I cannot help > using my own eyes and reporting. Scorching summers did happen before > 2003, but we do tend to remember only the last one... :-) > > Since that year here in Provence I have noticed a singular change, not > so much in temperature but in precipitation. > > The Bandol area used to have an average rainfall of 500-600mm per year, > mostly concentrated in the winter months in a dozen violent storms, with > hardly a few drops from may to early september. Temperature-wise in the > last 5 years if anything it has been particularly cold. Sea temperature > on our coast has not risen past 22°C in the last 2 years, by mid August > it normally is up to 24-26°C. This year was strange, with clouds and > some rain in the months of may-june that have obviously delayed the > growth of grapes, and a very cool summer, as cool as 2007. Winter > temperatures have cooled, when I first moved here in 1988 it was common > to have lunch outside almost every day right up to Xmas, it is now much > cooler. Last week morning temperatures were around 11°C, unheard of in > october. I record the date when I "turn the heating on", it happens > earlier every year. This is coastal data, for places like > Aix-en-Provence subtract 4-6 degrees in winter, add 4-6 degrees in summer.... > > Of course, a decade's observation is meaningless in the context of earth > weather. But I do want to point out that the media will immediately cry > "global warming" at the slightest hot flash of our planet, but it is > decidedly politically incorrect to say anything about the cold snaps. > > Now I know that the changes that are happening happen over a very long > time, and involve minute shifts of fractions of a degree which are > probably not perceptible. * But meaningless local weather abnormalities > are quickly used by stupid journalists as "proof" of global warming. > This does a serious misservice to weather science. Volcanos have put huge amounts of dust in the upper atmosphere in a few years, which was responsible for the year without a summer - 1816. You may read details about this at http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/B...rnosummer.html .. I will quote just a bit from this. "The period 1812-1817 was one of exceptional volcanic activity, and the sheer volume of volcanic dust pumped into the atmosphere by these volcanic eruptions caused a general, temporary cooling in the earth’s climate around this time. This temporary climatic cooling peaked during the summer of 1816 was the peak of this cooling and the reason the peak fell in the summer of 1816 is almost certainly due to the eruption of the Tamboro volcano east of Java in April 1815 (believed to be one of the most explosive eruptions of the last 10,000 years). At the time sunspots were blamed for the unseasonable weather (Laskin 1996). Anyway, this eruption put more than 150 million tonnes of dust in the atmosphere which gradually spread around the globe acting as a veil reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space and cooling the earth (temporarily) which in turn caused a change in the world’s, and in particular the northern hemisphere’s, weather patterns." I do have a bottle of wine from 1816 from Spain. It is Gran Muscat Vintage Malaga 1816, Compania Mata.It came from auction, and the tax stamps on the bottle are of the type found on many bottles shipped to the US before WW II. I often have thought that the date may not be correct, but then if one is going to fake a vintage date, why in the world would they choose 1816? |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Mike Tommasi wrote:
> Now I know that the changes that are happening happen over a very long > time, and involve minute shifts of fractions of a degree which are > probably not perceptible. But meaningless local weather abnormalities > are quickly used by stupid journalists as "proof" of global warming. > This does a serious misservice to weather science. Bingo! This is why most of the climate professionals here at Purdue prefer the term "global climate change" since the effects are so much more complicated than simple warming. An overall warming trend puts more energy into the climate, and that results in increased storm activity, changing precipitation patterns and unpredictable changes on a local level. Some models I've seen predict that my area will grow wetter and colder with increased global temperatures. Sadly, I think that we'll get a chance to see how accurate those models are. Mark Lipton -- alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Mark Lipton wrote:
> Alexandre wrote: > Warming has also led to an expansion of wine production to higher latitudes > so England and Sweden have started producing wine again. An anomoly in EU regulations (trying to restrict the size of the European vineyard with a policy of one-vine-in; one vine out) allows "unrestricted" plantings in the UK, where land prices are a fraction (1/50th) of those in the Champagne region. Thus, in the last couple years, plantings of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay in the south of England have jumped and are predicted to total some 3,000ha by 2015. Several French producers are seriously looking towards England to expand their global operations. -- st.helier |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
On Oct 9, 6:03 pm, "st.helier" > wrote:
> Mark Lipton wrote: > > Alexandre wrote: > > Warming has also led to an expansion of wine production to higher latitudes > > so England and Sweden have started producing wine again. > > An anomoly in EU regulations (trying to restrict the size of the > European vineyard with a policy of one-vine-in; one vine out) allows > "unrestricted" plantings in the UK, where land prices are a fraction > (1/50th) of those in the Champagne region. > > Thus, in the last couple years, plantings of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay > in the south of England have jumped and are predicted to total some > 3,000ha by 2015. > > Several French producers are seriously looking towards England to > expand their global operations. > > -- > > st.helier To amplify this post, I have heard that major Champagne houses have been buying property in Cornwall in the last few years. Can someone confirm this? |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Mark Slater wrote:
[] > To amplify this post, I have heard that major Champagne houses have > been buying property in Cornwall in the last few years. Can someone > confirm this? I've read about the South Downs in Sussex, but not Cornwall. Seems like the problem there would be not so much temperature but sun exposure. I've been wanting to plant a vineyard here in Normandie, but don't vines like high PH? Quite near here in the town of Vingt-Hanaps there is now a communal vineyard where gamay is grown, I've heard with spectacularly foul results. -E |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Mike Tommasi" wrote in message -
> > Actually the new EU wine regulation that went into effect this summer > phases out the old planting rights system. > I stand corrected - so are the "new" regulations less restrictive? st.helier |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> "The period 1812-1817 was one of exceptional volcanic activity, and > the sheer volume of volcanic dust pumped into the atmosphere by these > volcanic eruptions caused a general, temporary cooling in the earth’s > climate around this time. Nature makes anything caused by man minuscule in comparison. Not sure what all the hoopla over global warming is. We need to pollute less whether it effects temps or not. I just wish I lived in an area where I didn't have to use artificial means to keep my wines from going bad quick. Can't leave any wines out on racks even for just a few weeks. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Miles" > skrev i melding ... > .... I just wish I lived in an area where I didn't have to use artificial > means to keep my wines from going bad quick. Can't leave any wines out on > racks even for just a few weeks. Uh..., do you mean vines or wines? Anders |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Anders Tørneskog wrote:
> "Miles" > skrev i melding > ... >> .... I just wish I lived in an area where I didn't have to use artificial >> means to keep my wines from going bad quick. Can't leave any wines out on >> racks even for just a few weeks. > > Uh..., do you mean vines or wines? Uh, wines! In many areas friends are able to leave soon to be opened wines out on non-cooled racks for weeks or even months at a time without a problem. Where I live wines tend to go bad very quickly if I try that. A/C in the house won't keep temps stable enough in the summer months. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Alexandre" > wrote in message ... > How is global warming supposed to affect wine production? Are the > effects already evident? > Regards, > > Alexandre Couto de Andrade In Piemont, harvest takes place three weeks earlier than in the 1950's. In the Moselle region, some decades ago, growers were often afraid that their grapes would not fully ripen. These days, this is never an issue. That's not too bad news for moderately warm regions. On the other hand, I read somewhere that the combined effect of global warming and draught might bring an end to viticulture in Australia at the end of this century... Yves |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Yves wrote:
> In Piemont, harvest takes place three weeks earlier than in the 1950's. In > the Moselle region, some decades ago, growers were often afraid that their > grapes would not fully ripen. These days, this is never an issue. That's not > too bad news for moderately warm regions. On the other hand, I read > somewhere that the combined effect of global warming and draught might bring > an end to viticulture in Australia at the end of this century... Nah, it's just cyclical. Bad times and good times. In many areas it was warmer than now in the 1930's. The dust bowl days in parts of the USA. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Yves" > writes:
> "Alexandre" > wrote in message > ... > > How is global warming supposed to affect wine production? Are the > > effects already evident? > > Regards, > > > > Alexandre Couto de Andrade > > In Piemont, harvest takes place three weeks earlier than in the 1950's. In > the Moselle region, some decades ago, growers were often afraid that their > grapes would not fully ripen. These days, this is never an issue. That's not > too bad news for moderately warm regions. On the other hand, I read > somewhere that the combined effect of global warming and draught might bring > an end to viticulture in Australia at the end of this century... I saw this prescient documentary made in the late 1970s about life in Australia after global warming. I forget what it was called - it had Mel Gibson in it. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Miles" > skrev i melding ... > Yves wrote: > > Nah, it's just cyclical. Bad times and good times. In many areas it was > warmer than now in the 1930's. The dust bowl days in parts of the USA. Sorry, no, it is the global effect that counts. The models predict warming in many areas, cooling in some. Weather patterns will change, precipitation increases will mean cooling in areas affected, for instance. Anders |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Anders Tørneskog wrote:
> Sorry, no, it is the global effect that counts. The models predict warming > in many areas, cooling in some. Weather patterns will change, precipitation > increases will mean cooling in areas affected, for instance. Yep and thats cyclical. It was warmer in the 1930's overall than now. It it believed to have been warmer about 900-1000 years ago than now. We no so little. The other issue is regarding why. To me man is miniscule in effecting much. A single large scale volcanic eruption puts far more in the air than man can even think about matching. But back to wine! Napa has seen hot dry years and cold wet years over the decades. It has survived, some years better than others. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Miles wrote:
> Yep and thats cyclical. It was warmer in the 1930's overall than now. > It it believed to have been warmer about 900-1000 years ago than now. We > no so little. The other issue is regarding why. To me man is miniscule > in effecting much. A single large scale volcanic eruption puts far more > in the air than man can even think about matching. Miles, As a scientist, I cannot let these statements go unchallenged. Sorry, but you are just wrong. Check out Wikipedia's summation of the data on global temperature, which is publicly accessible, unlike many of the scientific articles it cites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years There is some legitimate debate about the role of human activities in that rise, but none about the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the last decade. Moreover, none of the atmospheric scientists I know has any doubt that human activities play a major, if not exclusive, role in this rise. Mark Lipton -- alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Mark Lipton" wrote .....
> > As a scientist, I cannot let these statements go unchallenged. > Sorry, but you are just wrong. Check out Wikipedia's summation of the > data on global temperature, which is publicly accessible, unlike many of > the scientific articles it cites: > > There is some legitimate debate about the role of human activities in > that rise, but none about the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years in > recorded history have occurred in the last decade. Moreover, none of > the atmospheric scientists I know has any doubt that human activities > play a major, if not exclusive, role in this rise. Hi Mark, As a lay person, I cannot let your statement go unchallenged! Sorry, I am confused by never ending contradictions being foisted upon us. Consider this article I uncovered. "The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded. This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934." I have no doubt that human activities play a role in the production of emissions which may play a part in climate change; but I am *not* convinced that it is an exclusive or even a major contributor. My not-so-extensive readings can be summed up this - there is adequate scientific data which seems to show that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare. IMNSHO, all the bogus science behind this "Al-Gore-gibberish" just drives "those-who-rule-over-us" to inflict upon us, the great unwashed, more by way of regulations, restrictions and taxes, whist trying to scare us out of our wits. And, trying to get even a resemblance of wine-related topic into this diatribe, at least Central Otago, once considered "marginal" now can expect a reasonable vintage in 60% of the time, formerly 30%. -- st.helier |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"st.helier" > skrev i melding ... > > Hi Mark, > > As a lay person, I cannot let your statement go unchallenged! > > Sorry, I am confused by never ending contradictions being foisted upon us. > > Consider this article I uncovered. > > "The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is > becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of > its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that > world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years > (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded. This carefully ignores the > latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, > declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised > figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the > 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being > not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934." > Says who? A credible source? > > I have no doubt that human activities play a role in the production of > emissions which may play a part in climate change; but I am *not* > convinced that it is an exclusive or even a major contributor. > Livestock for the teeming billions produce a lot of methane by farting... "Human" activities or not? :-) > > My not-so-extensive readings can be summed up this - there is adequate > scientific data which seems to show that the cosmic scare over global > warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated > scare. > > IMNSHO, all the bogus science behind this "Al-Gore-gibberish" just drives > "those-who-rule-over-us" to inflict upon us, the great unwashed, more by > way of regulations, restrictions and taxes, whist trying to scare us out > of our wits. > Bogus science? Gibberish? Please specify. A point of science is to publish theories and background material for public examination and evaluation. > > And, trying to get even a resemblance of wine-related topic into this > diatribe, at least Central Otago, once considered "marginal" now can > expect a reasonable vintage in 60% of the time, formerly 30%. > Trying to contradict yourself? :-) The Mosel vintners no longer chaptalize... Oechsle degrees of 60-70 were common 30 years ago, now they start at 85.. The Scandinavian Mountain Fox is going extinct being outcompeted by the ordinary Red Fox living at higher altitudes than before. The snow cap of Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya is disappearing rapidly. The Arctic ice sheet is thinner than ever. And so on and on. Anders |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Mark Lipton wrote:
> Miles, > As a scientist Mark, not all scientists agree with the concept of man-made global warming. There are groups in Russia who predict a strong cooling trend over the next 50-100 years. None of the global warming theories explain why the 1930's was much warmer than todays warming trend. They also fail to explain the data that suggests long warming periods close to 1000 years ago when man could not have had much effect. Nature is far more powerful than man. Look into the tonnage that a large scale volcanic eruption creates then compare that to what man creates in the same time frame. Man is minuscule against nature. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Miles wrote:
> Mark, not all scientists agree with the concept of man-made global > warming. Fallacy#1: There are scientists who dissent with virtually every scientific theory. I can cite you scientists who dispute the theory of evolution and others who dispute the atomistic theory. Does this dissent make the theories any less valid? No. Does it mean that all the theories are "true"? No again. You need to learn more about the scientific method if you want to discuss science. > None of the global warming theories explain > why the 1930's was much warmer than todays warming trend. Fallacy#2: The 1930s were NOT warmer than today's temperatures. Did you look at the Wikipedia article? Did you look at the graph of temperatures from the last 150 years? The 1930s were 0.7°C COOLER than this decade has been, on average. In terms of climate, that's a huge difference. They also > fail to explain the data that suggests long warming periods close to > 1000 years ago when man could not have had much effect. But those warming periods were neither as intense nor as sudden as what we're currently seeing. Certainly there is natural variation in temperature, but what we are seeing right now is unprecedented within the available climactic record. This is clearly seen in the first graph presented on that Wikipedia page. Click on the image to see it in larger format. > > Nature is far more powerful than man. Look into the tonnage that a > large scale volcanic eruption creates then compare that to what man > creates in the same time frame. Man is minuscule against nature. Fallacy#3: Atmosheric CO2 levels in the preindustrial era: 280 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels currently: 384 ppm (a 37% increase). Volcanic activity has not appreciably increased since pre-industrial times. Your larger point that human activity is dwarfed by natural phenomena is true. We know that, in earlier geological eras, Earth was so hot that there were no polar ice caps, for instance, and the South Pole was tropical by today's standards. That doesn't change the reality, though, that virtually every climate model predicts a 9-90 cm rise in sea level this century. Even the most conservative prediction would be disastrous for huge regions of the Earth. Mark Lipton -- alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
Mark Lipton wrote:
> Fallacy#1: There are scientists who dissent with virtually every > scientific theory. Many of the worlds greatest scientists were dissenters. Thats where the true discoveries come from in my view. It's those that go against the grain that discover something new. >> None of the global warming theories explain >> why the 1930's was much warmer than todays warming trend. > > Fallacy#2: The 1930s were NOT warmer than today's temperatures. Thats a fallacy of its own. It all depends on the data you wish to believe and possibly ones bias. > Did you > look at the Wikipedia article? Did you look at the graph of > temperatures from the last 150 years? The 1930s were 0.7°C COOLER than > this decade has been, on average. In terms of climate, that's a huge > difference. Have you read up on NASA's report regarding the 1930's that was published in 2007? It clearly stated their theory on why the 1930's were in fact warmer. The only major part of the world cooler during this time was the south Pacific. It explains why the USA was so warm during those years. > But those warming periods were neither as intense nor as sudden as what > we're currently seeing. We really don't know. Global temperatures have only been recorded the past 100 years or so and that was sporadic and inaccurate at best. There is strong evidence of much higher temperatures from 900-1450AD. > Fallacy#3: Atmosheric CO2 levels in the preindustrial era: 280 parts per > million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels currently: 384 ppm (a 37% > increase). Volcanic activity has not appreciably increased since > pre-industrial times. The amount of CO2 caused by man is minuscule compared to that caused by nature, not just volcanic. Man is simply no match for the power of nature itself. > That doesn't change the reality, though, > that virtually every climate model predicts a 9-90 cm rise in sea level > this century. Computer models only react to what you put into them. We have very little data to go on. There is strong evidence of much warmer times in centuries past. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
global warming and wines
"Miles" > skrev i melding ... > > Have you read up on NASA's report regarding the 1930's that was published > in 2007? It clearly stated their theory on why the 1930's were in fact > warmer. The only major part of the world cooler during this time was the > south Pacific. It explains why the USA was so warm during those years. > > Please provide a source or a link. I looked up NASA and found the same data as in the Wikipedia Mark refers to... Anders |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming and what you can do to against it | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming | Vegan | |||
Global Warming! | Barbecue |