Research paper on grape-growing with global warmin

[Bartman]

This is an interesting, though significantly flawed, summary of some research completed in 2005 regarding future grape-growing in light of the predictions of global warming around the world. The writer of this summary for "Environmental News Network" lacks some basic knowledge of wines, and I am not sure he has actually read the research paper he links to. Some of the glaring errors:

"The wine making culture is deeply ingrained, in that a certain type of
wine is expected to come from a specific area. For example, a genuine
French Sauvignon Blanc must come from Bordeaux. A genuine Pinot Noir
must come from Burgundy."
- he seems to be confusing 'varietals' with 'regions,' which is an odd mistake to make.

"Newer wine making regions will have an easier time coping because the
traditions are not nearly as codified. Plus, unlike Europe which is
almost fully developed, there is still room to expand in California,
Oregon, Chile, Argentina, and Australia."
- I can't understand why he thinks these 'newer' wine regions, some of which are hardly 'new', will find it easier to cope than Europeans - Europeans have been trying to innovate just as much as other regions' winemakers, and the idea that Europe's grape-growing is 'fully-developed' while the other regions' are still figuring out where to grow grapes or that they can just pick up and move the vineyards 10-50-100 miles away, indicates he has a fundamental lack of knowledge about grape-growing/winemaking.

The bottom line on the research seems to be that global warming will improve grape-growing in some cooler areas by providing more warmth and later frosts (and possibly make some too-cold areas potential grape-growing regions), but may hurt warmer climates as they get even hotter (such as Spain and southern California).

Criticism aside, I do appreciate that he has brought this research to my attention. I have yet to read it all, but one flaw I see is that they are basing the determination that the warming climate has improved the grape-growing environment and the grapes' quality over the last 50-100 years, on the subjective scores of human judging panels and the numerical scores given to wines from the same vineyards/wineries over the years. I have never been a fan of that type of scoring (mainly because of its subjective nature), but it bothers me that global warming research conclusions are based in part on such unscientific criteria.

ENN article/summary:
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/43742

Actual research paper (so you can draw your own conclusions):
http://www.recursosdeenologia.com/docs/2005/2005_climate_change_and_global_wine_quality.pdf

 

[grapeman]

. Some of the glaring errors:

"The wine making culture is deeply ingrained, in that a certain type of
wine is expected to come from a specific area. For example, a genuine
French Sauvignon Blanc must come from Bordeaux. A genuine Pinot Noir
must come from Burgundy."
- he seems to be confusing 'varietals' with 'regions,' which is an odd mistake to make.
I have to respectfully agree with the author here Bart. Certain regions are known as the origin of wines- even varietals- and all other areas and wines are judged by these.</font>
"Newer wine making regions will have an easier time coping because the
traditions are not nearly as codified. Plus, unlike Europe which is
almost fully developed, there is still room to expand in California,
Oregon, Chile, Argentina, and Australia."
- I can't understand why he thinks these 'newer' wine regions, some of which are hardly 'new', will find it easier to cope than Europeans - Europeans have been trying to innovate just as much as other regions' winemakers, and the idea that Europe's grape-growing is 'fully-developed' while the other regions' are still figuring out where to grow grapes or that they can just pick up and move the vineyards 10-50-100 miles away, indicates he has a fundamental lack of knowledge about grape-growing/winemaking.
Again I agree with the author. Europe is settled in it's ways and many areas of France for one example have quotas and dictate how the wine will be made. This is to ensure the wine will remain true to it's type when people purchase it, among other reasons. Europe has thousands of years making wine while most areas in the newer regions have been at it for a century or less- strictly juveniles.</font>
The bottom line on the research seems to be that global warming will improve grape-growing in some cooler areas by providing more warmth and later frosts (and possibly make some too-cold areas potential grape-growing regions), but may hurt warmer climates as they get even hotter (such as Spain and southern California).

Criticism aside, I do appreciate that he has brought this research to my attention. I have yet to read it all, but one flaw I see is that they are basing the determination that the warming climate has improved the grape-growing environment and the grapes' quality over the last 50-100 years, on the subjective scores of human judging panels and the numerical scores given to wines from the same vineyards/wineries over the years. I have never been a fan of that type of scoring (mainly because of its subjective nature), but it bothers me that global warming research conclusions are based in part on such unscientific criteria.

ENN article/summary:
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/43742

Actual research paper (so you can draw your own conclusions):
http://www.recursosdeenologia.com/docs/2005/2005_climate_change_and_global_wine_quality.pdf

See my comments in red above. This should make for a good discussion and debate.

 

[Bartman]

Wade, I agree (to a degree) with your criticisms above, and that *some* European regions are much more 'codified' than other regions (e.g., grapes used in 'Bordeaux'/'Burgundy' blends, Champagne, Chianti, and terminology and format of wine labels), but that's really beside the point. I had never associated Pinot Noir with a region except Oregon, and I found out later that it was predominantly used in Burgundy wines, but, for those under 40, the Burgundy region has not only fallen off the radar, it was never on the radar because of the dramatic quality (but not price) declines of the 80's.

Regardless, the ENN.com writer does not appear to be a wine expert (or claim to be), but he doesn't need to be. What frustrates me is that he apparently skipped the harder statistical section of the research (which has simply compiled public information and research previously conducted) and gone straight to the 1-page "Conclusions" on p. 22. What he missed was the part that says in *most* of the 27 regions studied (mostly US and other 'newer' grape-growing regions), there were no statistically significant correlations between (a) historical climate data (mostly, 1899-1999), (2) model simulations of projected future climate changes, and (3) vintage ratings. Without significant statistical findings for some regions, they simply dropped those regions out of their analysis and proceeded with the remainder, which are only about half the number they started with. So, after attempting to control for several non-climate variables (including human biases in the rating systems! if only that were possible!), the researchers found that a few regions may suffer some negative effects of the projected warming climate of the next 50 years, but a larger number would be unaffected or positively influenced by the warmer temps and longer growing season.

Ignoring those conclusions, the ENN.com writer states "The expected impacts are not bad at first, but in the end, they are not good", which is only true for a few regions mentioned. The writer then claims "Spain in particular is worried how this will affect its wine industry," but the research doesn't discuss Spain at all and includes Rioja wines in a few of the charts, but couldn't draw conclusions about climate changes effects, because the trend was so slight.

My reason to post about this is that I believe an average increase of 2-4 degrees F in the cooler parts of Europe and the Northwest US and Canada would be a great benefit to grape-growing there, and I had hoped the research might address these positive outcomes. But the reporting (and perhaps the research) is unfortunately slanted in such a way that the apparent goal is to emphasize any possible negatives and ignore or downplay any positive effects. Do you agree with that hypothesis, or do you think I am reading too much into this ENN.com's 'reporting'?