Higher temperatures, rising sea levels, greater droughts, acidification of the oceans, loss of animal biodiversity, greater flooding are all more cheery with a glass of cabernet sauvignon in your hand.
The flip-flop Nova who used to think climate change was no longer happening, now likes it because it means better conditions for grapes for wine, well some wines … er .. and in only some places, er .. and this is a according to one author of a book rather than published peer-reviewed science.
From Jo’s summary of his work it seems that John Gladstones’s focus is purely on temperature and the mean over a period of days.
Does he consider the change in population of insects? Does he consider that the earth will be drier? Does he consider that there will be more extremes in weather that manifest as more flooding, greater periods of drought? Does Gladstones consider what other plant life (weeds) might also benefit from higher temperatures? I’m not about to buy his book to find out, but I’m guessing he does not consider the full ecosystem’s impact before declaring rapid climate change as positive for wines.
According to Nova …
The famous Margaret River wine growing region (here in WA) was set up because Gladstones recommended it.
… and that appears to be the case, in 1965. The temperature change since then looks like this …
We know climate, plant and animal species are moving poleward as temperatures climb. I wonder how long it will be before Margaret River’s climate is no longer ideal for wine making. 100kms south of Margaret River and your in the Indian ocean.
Nova says that the newspaper article was one sided …
It’s a specialist field, and newspaper stories are all doom and gloom
… however if you read the article, they state…
Natural resources manager for national wine industry body Wine Makers Australia Jonathon Green said some grapes could actually improve with the change.
“It’s not necessarily bad and probably depends on the region and variety,” Mr Green said.
… so it appears like Nova is the unbalanced one in this case.
Of Gladstones “science”, Nova only reports the following …
“of about 0.6ºC recorded temperature rise, half can be ascribed to variations in solar irradiance and magnetic field, and the rest probably to anthropogenic [human] causes. But much of the latter can be shown to derive from mistakes and biases in the thermometer record … ”
… without any link to any science to justify such a claim – little wonder it attracts Nova. This is typical Nova style, make an repeated denialist claim, then fail to provide any evidence to support it.
The temperature record continues to be questioned, even after the denialist funded independent BEST study found …
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU.
The sad part of this is not whether or not wine will benefit, but the fact that Nova believes that any benefits of wine making, in some areas, of some varieties, somehow compensates for all the problem climate change is otherwise causing.
Are you drunk enough? Does she fool you?