▲ 130 points
back
68 comments
The wine industry has kept meticulous records of harvest dates and temperatures for centuries. This study leveraged 600+ years of data to show a noticeable increase in temperature and shortening harvest window starting in 1988.
They used to have very nice vineyards just North of Paris in the 1300s going into the 1500s (I may be slightly wrong on this last date), that sort of info doesn't get repeated often enough in today's climate-obsessed language.
Quickly found an online source here [1]:
> The Paris region was mostly planted with white, particularly with a variety known then under the name of Fromenteau or Fromentot, which is known today as the Pinot Gris.
I had personally gotten that info from reading this very interesting book on the history of rural France during the last 2000 years [2]
[1] https://www.wineterroirs.com/2012/12/wine_in_the_middle_ages...
[2] https://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-France-rurale-origines-1340/d...
Paris was one of the 3 main wine producing region (with Bordeaux and Bourgogne) till the end of the 1800s. But let's be honest the wine wasn't really good and the main advantage was that it was closer to the consumers.
Apparently there's also records of the Romans growing grapes for wine in Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom
> The Romans introduced winemaking to the UK, in a period with a relatively warm climate. Their vineyards were as far north as Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, with others in Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire, and probably many other sites. The wines were most likely fruity and sweet, fermented with added honey, and drunk within six months.[15] Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans, with over 40 vineyards in England mentioned in the Domesday Book; much of it was communion wine for the Eucharist.
> ... When Henry VIII was crowned in 1509, 139 vineyards were recorded, 11 of which produced wine for the royal household ...
> The twilight of British winemaking tradition was brought to an end with the onset of the First World War, as the need for crops and food, and the rationing of sugar, took priority over wine production. For the first time in 2000 years, English wines were no longer being produced in Britain. ...
> Viticulture was revived in the 1970s onwards ...
This isn't as clear-cut as you might like if you're interpreting it as climate evidence. Warm-weather crops were grown in cold areas in the past by setting up artificial environments such as walls built close to the plants to absorb sunlight and radiate heat. We have many ways of modifying the climate to suit our needs, and even if that's not economical today (with cheap international shipping), that doesn't mean it wasn't economical in the past.
Yeah, I don't know why you guys don't talk about the macro climate of the era.
The Roman Warm Period (coming around Caesar era to 400s, explaining the Migration Age) The Medieval Warm Period And the inverse, the Modern Cooling Period (between 1600-1800, if I'm not mistaken).
All three explain macro population movements. Yes, the Germanic tribesmen were climate refugees. So were maybe the European colonists of the New World and other settler colonies.
1500s is probably too late of an end date. The little ice age would have put a stop to that sooner. See also: the Norse colonization of Iceland and temporarily Greenland.
Well, the Champagne region is North East of Paris and the reason wine production around Paris declined isn't a change of climate.
After quick glance on the study, I am a bit skeptical regarding proper statistical control of metropolitan temperature.
In blunt words: no wonder the temperature rises if it is measured at a place that is surrounded with concrete and stone today.
By metropolitan, do you mean Paris?
This new data set concerns Beaune. The paper says "Unlike Dijon, Beaune is still surrounded with vineyards situated at altitudes between 220 and 300 m (Fig. 2)."
Wikipedia says Beaune has a population of 20,551, which is about 2x that of 1800, and doesn't seem to be enough to have a significant regional heat island effect.
Yes, I meant Paris, thank you for checking. Indeed it seems unlikely that Beaune is affected.
Are vineyards typically surrounded by concrete and stone or otherwise within the confines of the typical metropolitan heat dome?
They are in Napa
How would that explain the harvest date being 13 days earlier?
It wouldn't, but the prevalent climate change denial strategy is to look for flaws in studies rather than for supporting evidence.
Have leap years been accounted for in the log? If so that would explain an 8.5 day discrepancy
Warmer temperatures -> faster growing vines -> earlier harvest dates.
And the warmer temperatures could possibly be explained by more concrete and stone nearby. I'm not saying that this explanation is true, I'm just trying to see both sides of the picture.
Another good example of this kind of thing is the first day of cherry blossom blooms in Kyoto. Records have been kept since 812 AD.
https://www.datagraver.com/case/kyoto-cherry-blossom-full-fl...
That's a beautiful chart. It's amazing how over 1,000 years of records can now be easily seen by us, thanks to the incredible discipline and stability of the Japanese society.
I also find it incredible that there were several outlier years before, that were quite close to the early blossoms we're seeing in recent years, so the earliest one in 2011 was actually not completely unprecedented... but of course, the pattern is very clear that something is way off since the 1980's and the end line is unequivocaly going down, fast.
The continued support for climate change consensus from new research is good to see, but is it having an effect on the final ~25% of Americans that haven't believed in it yet?
And as a curiosity, what happened in the late 2000s to cause belief in climate change to drop off a cliff, and then slowly creep back up?
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/am...
Fox News and other media outlets
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/climate-activists-embrace-d...
There’s also not much of attempt on the left to understand climate change better.
Every weather disaster is directly attributed to climate change, even if it scientifically can’t be directly linked.
This convinces deniers that there isn’t a problem and people are being “alarmists”.
Particular weather events can never be directly linked to climate change.
Most people understand this. In life casual chains are rarely clear cut. "Caused A" and "made A significantly more likely" are interchangeable outside of academic debates.
One has to be severely climate change denialist to focus on such a detail. It's a strategy of sowing uncertainty.
Much of the bogus predictions were based on flawed observations and bad ideas like the hockeystick data normalization problem, and a failure to account for the trend of deglaciation which predates industrialization. A general discounting of solar radiance, misunderstanding albedo, and pushing a low CO2 norm was also part and parcel to this hogwash.
We knew there were incorrectly sited weather sensors that fed data into the climate record, just like ASOS, receiving prop blast and jetwash. Some HCN sensors that had been correctly sited became incorrect over time due to urbanization and industrialization. The discongruence between space based observations and in-situ flawed sensors are the clearest indication of this.
This is also why we saw the rise of the HCN-Reference. We also saw a better understanding of the medieval warm period which, although potentially regionalized, is not without precedents.
The process of fixing of these flaws, we call that science. However, this has not stopped the religious cult from a rearguard action defending by whatever name they choose to call it these days.
This. Climate change is real, but the early climate activist movement has done itself and the rest of the world a disservice by overexaggerating the change and the effects.
My guess would be a tipping point of failed predictions, though why exactly then I couldn't say: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-e...
This is pretty ridiculous. The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada.
There's the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.t...
And Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no...
And a bunch of other nonsense. Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying to sell copy by exaggerating a story, or conservative media outlets clapping themselves on the back for pointing out that journalists who exaggerated were wrong.
None of these "predictions" are in any way science, and all of the climate modeling in the past 30 years has made predictions which are *more conservative than reality*.
> The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada.
> Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying to sell copy by exaggerating a story
> None of these "predictions" are in any way science
That doesn't matter at all because this conversation is about public perception, and guess what makes it to the public?
I clicked on a few "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" is about English snowfalls, and it is true that we don't have heavy snowfall, not sure why this is a failed prediction, it's more of a statement of fact.
Some of these other predictions aren't necessarily falsified.
Peak oil may have already occurred. The fact that we have to resort to offshore drilling shows the low hanging fruit have already been taken.
Another example of a debatable prediction is "Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020" - this is something that environmental groups claim is a correct prediction as they attribute certain current wars (e.g. Syrian Civil War) to have been caused by droughts caused by climate change.
Some of these predictions were not made by scientists or were clearly just meant as a slogan to galvanise action - e.g.
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
> what happened in the late 2000s to cause belief in climate change to drop off a cliff
CRU leak?
I suppose it was due to the so-called "global warming hiatus":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
IIRC it was the most repeated counter-argument back then.
Of course the 2010s showed that there was no counter-argument to begin with.
The 2010s didn't show there was no counter-argument to begin with re: the hiatus/pause. What actually happened is that climatologists rewrote the temperature data of that period to simply remove the pause from history. In other words, having spent >10 years publishing scientific papers and studies on the causes of the pause in warming, they one day just announced that it'd never happened at all, that all that research had been on bad data and they'd "found" warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
Of course trust falls when that happens. It's correct for trust to fall. They'd been making hyper-confident assertions about the future of climate and temperature for many people's entire lives and then one day, whoops, actually, it's "we've not been measuring temperature right for the entire history of our field and it fundamentally changes the entire shape of the data".
Al Gore made a movie about climate change so the other team was obligated to violently disbelieve in it.
Giving cataclysmic predictions that don't happen, and quietly ignoring them when the year comes to replace it with the next cataclysmic prediction, is much like how some religious people say we're always either in or about to be in the End of Days. And is treated the same.
Especially when malincentives like regulators lining their pockets are involved ("Carbon credits" can be like a type of religious indulgence).
More measured approaches on shorter timescales -- actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people -- is taken more seriously.
> actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people
Is this yet another allusion on Al Gore and his infamous private jet? Last year, 506,769 airplanes either took off or landed in LAX only. That's 1388 per day in one airport. All packed to the gill by "little people" like you and me.
Al Gore could fly his jet across the Pacific every day and it would be literally a drop in the bucket-full of little guys, in the grand scheme of things.
I'm tired of these talks of "big guys ruining the environment," which is conveniently only brought up when these big guys talk about the environment. This is plain simple "hate the message, shoot the messenger" strategy.
Oddly the political view tag suggests that it's an opposing team issue, but even left-leaning folks did have a blip. Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly)
The good news is that even the most staunchly anti-climate-change group, conservative republicans, are nearly at 50/50 when it comes to whether it's happening at all.
The reactionaries have a strategy that’s like the old “embrace, extend, extinguish”… “deny, rationalize, accept”.
Post-Al Gore, it was “don’t believe your lying eyes”. That gradually pivoted to “climate change is happening, but it’s a natural cycle”. Eventually it will pivot to “meh” or “it’s gods will”.
It’s a pattern applied to lots of issues by the reactionary elements. It works because it’s easy to deny and subsequently concede small points. We’ve trained a generation to be adept at this online.
> Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly)
Probably not because I just spotted something from that link that I find even more interesting: On the radios in the upper-right, switch to "policy support". There was a very sudden shift in 2013, from consistently down to consistently up.
...and now that I think about it, I think that might actually explain it: The sudden drop in the late 2000s might be due to the great recession. They may have accidentally measured "why do I care?" instead of "is it happening?", and maybe it took until 2013 for peoples' lives to stabilize enough to care again.
Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change.
When the hyperbolic claims about Global Warming with runaway climate forcing failed, it was swiftly rebranded Climate Change.
At which point, the critics became accurate, since climatic periods are measured in 30 year intervals, and weather != climate. Solar Radiance being the keymost driver of earth's temperature of course, varies due to the natural cycle and supercycles of the Sun [1]
The longterm trend of deglaciation and CO2 levels rising back to nearer Earth's historical norms continues unabated.
> Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change.
How would you define those two terms?
Politics caused the split.
The change in course where it slowly creeped up is two fold. First, the warming became completely obvious. People could see in their own living memory very dramatic changes between their childhood and modern day. That just took time. Second, as the left became more and more radicalized toward actions to fight the threat, the right wing could take a less radical position and still claim to be holding the line against radicals. The left shifted the Overton Window left enough that the right could have a politically viable platform that included climate change.
Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf...
Yeah, ever read the story? it ends with the wolf eating every sheep.
There is such a list, a wealth of benefits that follow a switch to renewable energies and other planet-greening. And they're fairly inarguable, clearly the future.
But climate is much harder to pin down, the perfect red-herring, keeping us arguing minutia distracts us from acting to realize that unifying list.
Unlimited universally-available energy, far less pollution, the end of energy colonialism, lowering costs, more wealth for all, better health. And less CO2 to boot. Hell we might even make it to Type 1.