More on wine and global warming

While I haven't completely made up my mind about global warming yet (like many things I am taking it on faith essentially), the Daily Kos blog had an interesting diary with several articles linked in it about wine and global warming. Here is the link for those interested. I'd love to hear what you think. All the best, Jim
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/16/23448/1211

For someone in the general public who knows little about wine producing or the wine industry, the article may be difficult to follow, but an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

I particularly think he could have expanded his comment concerning what impressed him most: what was not said about what the wine industry should or can do to change its footprint. Again, the general public gets no information from the article on that issue.

While I haven't completely made up my mind about global warming yet (like many things I am taking it on faith essentially)

Christ Jim. That's like saying that you take the holocaust, the moon landing, and the fact that Portuguese table wines suck on faith. Global warming is, as are the rest of these things, very true.

Hey, Bill, I've had some wonderful Portuguese table wines! Global warming from human intervention in the ecology of the planet seems like common sense to me, but there is so much I don't know about the earth's climate and general ecology that I cannot say for certain that global warming (human caused) is 'the truth'. I tend to act as if it is the truth in my daily life, and my local climate seems to be showing global warming effects, but certainty? Well, I'll leave that to others. Vintages do seem riper in Germany, though! All the best, Jim

I believe global warming will be one of the biggest issues the wine industry faces over the next several decades, perhaps longer too. The last decade on the North Coast of California has been hot. In the 1940s, Professors Amerine and Winkler at UCD came up with a heat summation index for classifying wine growing regions. A Region I grape growing area has less than 2500 hours of temperatures over 50F between April and October. For Region II, it's between 2500 and 3000 hours. Region III is 3000 to 3500 hours. Region IV is 3500 to 4000 while Region V is anything greater than 4000 hours.

Using temperature data from the same monitoring stations used in the '40s, over the last decade, Graton in the Russian River Valley, once a Region I, is now firmly a Region II. The town of Napa has moved from a Region II to a Region III. St. Helena? Now a Region IV from a Region III. When you couple this with devigorating rootstocks with early vegetative cycles, European clones that were identified and isolated for earlier ripening (since historically ripeness was an issue in Europe), and viticultural practices designed to address problems in the '60s and '70s (i.e., how to better achieve phenolic ripeness), it's no wonder alcohols have crept up in wine.

We need to address global warming in the vineyards now. My 2 cents.

Mike

Thank you for the data, Mike. It does help give us a clearer picture. I would guess that our wine schools are thinking about this. I'd love to hear from the academics and winemakers about their efforts in regard to global warming. Jim

Jim,
Saying that you're uncertain about the role of human intervention in global warming is a very different statement than expressing "doubts about global warming," a statement that I expect to hear only from the tragically misinformed or industry shills these days (current White House officials falling into either or both categories). There has been a lot of publicity recently about NOAA revising its global temperature data for 2000-2006 downward, but even so the fact remains that 6 of the 10 hottest years recorded have occurred in the last decade. Re human influence, all of the climate modelers that I know agree that human intervention plays an important role in the recent warming trend; the disagreement occurs on the estimation of the degree of involvement in the trend.

Mark Lipton

So what are we to believe? What humans have done and accomplished in the last 250 years or so has been more damaging to the environment, than say all the eruptions of active volcanoes in the world? It should be noted that in the years 1995 and 1996 recorded earthquake activity was at its highest in 50 years. A couple of eruptions like Mt St Helens could be a catastrophe. Surely with all this increased activity comes more NATURAL pollution.

Salute

Thank you for the data, Mike. It does help give us a clearer picture. I would guess that our wine schools are thinking about this. I'd love to hear from the academics and winemakers about their efforts in regard to global warming. Jim

I'd also be very interested in hearing what growers and winemakers believe should be done about this. Is there nothing to do but rip up the vines and move north at some point or are there alternatives involving different grape varieties and such? (And if so, will consumers be willing to pay $1000 for a bottle of Screaming Eagle Nero d'Avola??)

So what are we to believe? What humans have done and accomplished in the last 250 years or so has been more damaging to the environment, than say all the eruptions of active volcanoes in the world?

That's what the scientists seem to be saying, Victor.

Thank you for the data, Mike. It does help give us a clearer picture. I would guess that our wine schools are thinking about this. I'd love to hear from the academics and winemakers about their efforts in regard to global warming. Jim

I'd also be very interested in hearing what growers and winemakers believe should be done about this. Is there nothing to do but rip up the vines and move north at some point or are there alternatives involving different grape varieties and such? (And if so, will consumers be willing to pay $1000 for a bottle of Screaming Eagle Nero d'Avola??)

Just last week I was talking to the Plant Sciences Advisor from UCD for Mendo/Lake about this very topic. He's also a vineyard owner btw. Echoing what Mike Officer said earlier (and it was well said) Glenn is a strong advocate for considering more of the Mediterranean varieties for Sonoma/Mendocino rather than the more traditionally used northern European varieties. Not necessarily Nero, but more like Arneis (which Glenn grows), Vermentino, etc.

Mind you this is only one aspect, mixed in with lots and lots of other things---microclimates, soil structures, water availability/dry farming blah blah blah---but there's no doubt whatsoever that global warming is going to have a significant impact on what grapes are grown where, how they're grown, how the wine is made, and what wine will become in the near future.

Thank you for the data, Mike. It does help give us a clearer picture. I would guess that our wine schools are thinking about this. I'd love to hear from the academics and winemakers about their efforts in regard to global warming. Jim

I'd also be very interested in hearing what growers and winemakers believe should be done about this. Is there nothing to do but rip up the vines and move north at some point or are there alternatives involving different grape varieties and such? (And if so, will consumers be willing to pay $1000 for a bottle of Screaming Eagle Nero d'Avola??)

Just last week I was talking to the Plant Sciences Advisor from UCD for Mendo/Lake about this very topic. He's also a vineyard owner btw. Echoing what Mike Officer said earlier (and it was well said) Glenn is a strong advocate for considering more of the Mediterranean varieties for Sonoma/Mendocino rather than the more traditionally used northern European varieties. Not necessarily Nero, but more like Arneis (which Glenn grows), Vermentino, etc.

Mind you this is only one aspect, mixed in with lots and lots of other things---microclimates, soil structures, water availability/dry farming blah blah blah---but there's no doubt whatsoever that global warming is going to have a significant impact on what grapes are grown where, how they're grown, how the wine is made, and what wine will become in the near future.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the effect of population growth on the globe? The connection seems obvious.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the effect of population growth on the globe? The connection seems obvious.

Jeez, Thomas, I thought they were talking about that. I certainly hear people talking about that. Are you saying you're not hearing it? Must be because of the bucolic farm land creating a buffer zone around you, disturbed only by the methane of flatulent farm animals.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the effect of population growth on the globe? The connection seems obvious.

Jeez, Thomas, I thought they were talking about that. I certainly hear people talking about that. Are you saying you're not hearing it? Must be because of the bucolic farm land creating a buffer zone around you, disturbed only by the methane of flatulent farm animals.

Ah, but I generalize for effect. Still, not enough talk about population, in my always extremely humble, self-deprecatory opinion...(is that spelling correct?).

I read somewhere that if people stopped reproducing for I think about three generations, humanity would reduce enough pollutants AND open up enough land for agriculture to clean up the place and to start all over again. Something along those lines...

Mike Officer wrote:
I believe global warming will be one of the biggest issues the wine industry faces over the next several decades, perhaps longer too.

In line with what Hoke has stated. Surely at annual wine industry conferences and organized symposiums (by Agricultural Institutions) this is already a “hot” topic and issue.
Back in November of 2004, Cornell Cooperative Extension organized a symposium- Climate Change and Northeast Agriculture.

Salute

I read somewhere that if people stopped reproducing for I think about three generations, humanity would reduce enough pollutants AND open up enough land for agriculture to clean up the place and to start all over again. Something along those lines...

Using the standard assumption of 20 years for generation time, lack of reproduction for 3 generations (60 years) would certainly have a dramatic impact since the only human beings left would be past reproductive age (i.e., humanity would disappear within 50 years). For a sense of what that would mean for the environment, you can see "The World Without Us," the recently published book by Alan Weisman.

The problem with most discussions of population controls is that it's fine for the other guy but not for me. Still, most of the industrialized world is getting close to zero population growth, so perhaps the key to stabilizing/reducing population growth is to improve the material existence of the Third World -- don't hold your breath, though.

Mark Lipton

don't hold your breath, though.

Mark Lipton

holding it would work to control population, though...