Can Winemakers Survive Statistically Insignificant Warming?

The latest hang-wringing from the Cult Of Climastrology

Can winemakers survive climate change?

Doom! Or not.

Good news for wine drinkers: a leading international body says grape vines are hardy and can survive climate change, at least over the medium term.

Earlier harvesting, changes in grape varieties and new wine-making processes have already helped counter the impact of the harsher weather hitting vineyards across the globe, the head of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) says.

So, the answer is “nope, wine will be fine”. It was more than fine during the last warm period, which was warmer than the current one.

It was too early to give an outlook for 2050, he said.

Gee, ya think?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Can Winemakers Survive Statistically Insignificant Warming?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Can Winemakers Survive Statistically Insignificant Warming?

    Of course winemakers will survive statistically insignificant warming, but the statistically significant warming the Earth is experiencing is a different kettle of fish.

  2. Blick says:

    Making wine creates CO2. It is the byproduct of fermentation by little yeasties. Wine, beer, alcohol, carbonated drinks will not survive the politically correct global warming EPA regulations and anti-CO2 mobs. Temperature is the least of vineyards.

  3. JGlanton says:

    The last three years have been Outstanding to Extraordinary for California wine vintages. And these are supposed to be the hottest years on record according to the guys who fudge the temperature record by continuously lowering the previous hottest years. It doesn’t look like global warming has any deleterious effect on California wine.

    http://www.erobertparker.com/newsearch/vintagechart1.aspx/VintageChart.aspx

  4. Jeffery says:

    Blick,

    Deniers appear to be confused (or are just playing dumb) regarding CO2. As grape juice ferments, simple sugars are converted to alcohol by yeast. The simple sugars are synthesized from atmospheric CO2 by the grape plant. Therefore this process is relatively carbon neutral. CO2 taken from atmosphere, converted to sugar, converted to alcohol, alcohol metabolized back to CO2 by man.

    The truck that transports the wine from Napa to Chicago takes complex organic molecules locked away in petroleum for millions of years and converts that gas to CO2. Carbon locked away suddenly injected into atmosphere… see the difference. The burning of fossil fuels, not fermentation by yeast, is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    In an attempt to derail meaningful discussion, Deniers often present a “Gish Gallop” of objections peripheral to the actual issue. They do this either out of ignorance or are intentionally trying to avoid meaningful discussion.

    The Earth is warming because humans are burning fossil fuels which release CO2, causing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to increase. Atmospheric CO2 retains the Sun’s energy as heat.

    Processes that do not utilize large quantities of fossil fuels at some point in their supply chain are typically not significant culprits. For example, a steer in a field eating grass is relatively carbon neutral. If cows ate coal or drank oil they would not be carbon neutral. Plowing the field, mowing and bailing hay, manufacturing, transporting and spreading fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides, shipping and butchering the steer, refrigerating the meat, lighting the store, driving to market etc are not carbon neutral. Why? Fossil fuels. The production of gigatons of CO2 every year from burning fossil fuels is the problem.

  5. Jl says:

    “The statistically significant warming the earth is experiencing…” Well, if it’s “significant”, then of course one would have to have the “statistics” to be able to say it’s “significant” in the first place. So all we have here is the addition of an unneeded word for drama’s sake. But the truth is there’s no data to say it’s significant warming, first because it’s not warming, and second because- significant to what? There’s no comparable data to compare it “to”. The climate circus continues.

  6. Jeffery says:

    j,

    If you don’t understand statistics, just say so.

    You saying “it’s not warming” is just silly Denier-talk. It is warming. It’s hard to have a serious discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge simple facts. You are a 1st Order Denier meaning you Deny the most obvious of simple facts.

    The statistical significance you consider meaningless and nonexistent both exists and is meaningful.

    Note that it was William who typed ‘statistically insignificant’ into his headline. Why would you not ask him what he means by that?

  7. Blick says:

    Ok Jeffery, you are OK with sequestered CO2 in Grapes being released into the atmosphere by fermentation. But you are not OK with sequestered CO2 in fossil fuels being released back into the atmosphere from whence it came originally. You are arguing amounts of CO2 and not process. So now you are in the business of justifying which source and amount is OK and which is not. When the woman protested she would not sleep with the man for $10.000. The man said Ok, we are making progress. It is not about will you, but price we are talking about.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Blick,

    Where does the CO2 released from the grape come from? Less than 1/2 year earlier the grape vine extracted that CO2 from the atmosphere. The grape doesn’t produce more CO2 than it extracted from the atmosphere. Over thousands of years of viticulture, grape vines have been extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and re-emitting the CO2 later, and atmospheric CO2 stayed constant. Imagine that.

    Over the past two centuries humans have been removing oil and coal from deep underground and converting complex organic compounds that had been sequestered for 100s of millions of years into atmospheric CO2. We have burned so much of this that the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm and is continuing to increase.

    Think about that. All the plants growing, dying, rotting, fermenting for 10,000 years, all the animals and humans on Earth eating complex molecules and expiring CO2 for 10,000 years didn’t change atmospheric CO2! But a couple centuries of coal burning and we’ll be doubling CO2.

    But you know all this. This is so basic that all skeptics understand, agreed?

Bad Behavior has blocked 5753 access attempts in the last 7 days.