Wine Grape Harvest Records Indicate Climate Warming

its worthless bunk

Cute, but 2016 isn't over yet, so no meaningful stats are available.

A trend is a trend. Regardless of the source of the data.

A trend is a trend.
Such a harmless little statement! Most people see trends where there are none. This is due to our inherent capability to recognize patterns. If this were not true, then every investor in the stock market would be fabulously wealthy. The fact is that 19 out of 20 people lose money in the stock market. There you go....a trend!
Growing grapes is the culmination of the right amounts of cool and warm weather along with the right amount of rain. Sometimes it works out very nicely. Other times, not so much. If there were no tolerance for these random changes then they would just die. The point is simply this: Trends are a lot more rare than people think. Blaming a trend on one thing means that it is repeatable. Well, we have no data for that, so it is just luck. A trend based on two things implies that two independent things have changed but there is no simple way to determine if the two days worth of changes are related to an outcome or not, when it comes to grapes.

Redefining a word to suite your own argument does not change the real definition of that word.

Trend | Definition of Trend by Merriam-Webster

Definition of trend

1. 1a : to extend in a general direction : follow a general course <mountain ranges trending north and south>b : to veer in a new direction : bend <a coastline that trends westward>
2. 2a : to show a tendency : incline <prices trending upward>b : to become deflected : shift <opinions trending toward conservatism>

One problem with that when you compare it to the stock market and that is short term.

as far as 19 out of 20 people lose money in the stock market... That is not a trend.

Now the trend in weather can be recorded and if you were to use Edward Deming SPC technique that a trend normally does not go more than 7 times in a row before reversing then its a sign of instability and something is wrong. There are variants of it (7) times on one side of the norms.... but,...

I don't care for statistics, (It usually is abused, especially on this site to support ones platform by only giving partial or incomplete results) ... but I recognize its value, when done correctly.....

I do have some examples that I copy/pasted here some trends or more precisely Patterns of Instability ... It is interesting.... I never applied it to the weather..... statistic bore me some times..... BUT is see it value..... for predicting....

reference

More Patterns of Instability

There are many statistically valid patterns of instability. Every pattern of instability is based on the properties of the normal curve and the 68-95-99.7 Rule.

• Most are based on the Western Electric Handbook first published in 1954.
• Different organizations use slightly different variations of these patterns to interpret control charts.
• Your industry or company may decide to modify these guidelines to suit your unique manufacturing situation.

There are 4 tests of instability that many people know of as the Western Electric Rules. In addition to these tests, the Western Electric Handbook also identifies "14 Other Unnatural Patterns of Variation."

• All are based on the probabilities and properties of the normal curve.

The 4 common Western Electric tests of instability are:

• Point outside the control limits.
• 2 of 3 points between 2s & 3s from the mean.
• 4 of 5 points between 1s & 3s from the mean.
• 8 points in a row on one side of the centerline.

The 14 Other (Western Electric) Unnatural Patterns of Variation are:

1. Cycles
2. Freaks
3. Gradual Change in Level
4. Grouping or Bunching
5. Instability
6. Interaction
7. Mixtures
8. Stable Forms of Mixture
9. Unstable Forms of Mixture.
10. Stratification
11. Sudden Shift in Level
12. Systematic Variables
13. Tendency of One Chart to Follow Another
14. Trends

I agree with you on statistics, 63.97% of statistics are just made up!

There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

Science has proven yet again:

1) If you average the average of the average of the average of the square root of the average of the average of the average of the data, a trend will emerge, oh, and don't forget to re-square the average of the average of the average of the average.

2) If Hillary's mouth is moving, she is lying to Congress, or to the American People.

3) It is possible to eat only one Lay's Potato Chip -- if it is the last one.

4) The Frito Bandito retired and built a secluded retreat in the mountains of Northern Argentina.

5) The reason my friend's grape vineyards come within 1 Angstrom of freeze death every spring (on the High Plains of Texas) is global warming. Not globular warning. I find that statement to be somewhat troubling, how does warming cause freezing?

5) That's a grapes to watermelons comparison. You're comparing weather to climate.
We're back to the point where all these discussions arguments end up.
My data is better than your data.

It was a joke, and the whole thing is more or less of a joke to me anyway. It is an over-inflated ego that believes all this can be sorted out, or that anything we do in the United States "to quell this crisis" will produce anything other than a transfer of more funds from working class folks to the wealthy corporations, politicians, and union thugs.

It is Sol Alynski tactics 101 - "Never let a good crisis go to waste." - a more or less direct quote of Rahm Emanuel.

I don't think grape harvest times are any less anecdotal that the OP initially put forth as an indicator of climate change, than my anecdotal evidence that fruit that used to easily bloom at the right time, is now in danger of freeze damage each and every year. It may be that spring "weather" is more unstable than it used to be? Now it seems to switch to cold to warm to cold, to bitter cold to hot so suddenly.

You seem to have made some fundamental jumps in logic.

Before trying to use Mr Demming's rules for "out of control", you need to establish that the data source was indeed already "in control", or "stable".

The other is nominating the relationship of the properties of the normal curve. It is in fact based on the central limit theorem for sampling of populations (and this then justifies using the normal curve.) that depends on the sampling methodology.

I suspect that a different statistical methodology would need to be used, since I've never been able to find a "stable" temperature data set over time to use as a basis.

That's true.... SPC isn't something that can be explained with one post and is quite generalized on my post. On just one item.

I left out a lot.... Normal curve (bell curve), Standard Deviation and Variance, the list is long....

And not to confuse Probability with Statistics

This is actually a link with a good example;

Along with that with the post that showed the distained towards statistics while can have some truth behind it can not be all group together.

The value of Statistics.... is in process control. Not how its used here. (Interesting that the people that show distain against Statistics, at times also use statistics to support their arguments.

But knowing and understanding statistics, you can actually make it work for you.

One example, what was mentioned earlier has to do with gambling such as playing 21, its called progress gambling. With just a brief explanation would be if you lost 2-3 times in a row. start betting heavy. if you lost again... bet even heavier. Now there are other variables you have to take in account.... your ability, as well as others ability.... this can change.

Roger Pink had a good example with this. Using probabilities The Three Doors Problem to gain the most likely best possibility outcome,

He also had one with a Coin Toss

I will be the first to admit...I am not the one explain Statistics. It can be interesting if used properly.... but, as I mentioned before, It can realily be abused. And that's why I also have distain for Statistics.

Your problem

I suspect that a different statistical methodology would need to be used, since I've never been able to find a "stable" temperature data set over time to use as a basis.

I posted this separate as not to pollute it.

Your problem is your have your confidence level set too high.

This is one of the problems people have with statistics is that 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure' with statistics.

Statistics is only a tool, and its people who use it incorrectly that's the problem.

The conclusion is, then, what the Romans already knew: "warmer temperatures enable grapes to grow better". The worrying thing is that someone, somewhere, is being paid to work this out and to publish it.

The impetus for their work was to identify possible verifiable signals of global warming. Wine grape growers are diligent about recording climate data, so the researchers use that data. No one needed to prove that warmer temps make better wine. In fact this work probably wasn't as pricey as a lot of science. The data existed in libraries in Avignon. Extracting the data into machine-readable form would've been the main expense. Well, that, and paying the wine tab for whoever did it.

<...paying the wine tab for whoever did it...> Quite.

The trouble is that many have already made up their minds. No quantity or quality of data can persuade them. Not even Athena, herself, can persuade those who refuse to listen.

Ha ha always leave them wanting more...

Same here. Thank you.

Wine grapes grow at different temperatures, resulting in different type wines...

http://winefolly.com/tutorial/warm-climate-vs-cool-climate-wine/

Temperature fluctuations from year to year are more significant than a warming trend.

And the terroirs are in many instances quite small, with varied microclimates.

That would be a confusing factor, perhaps enough to render the study meaningless.

I think one of the reasons for climate-change skepticism is the presence of dubious studies. This one seems to be trying to "sex up" climate worries by tying them to something cute like wine.

Terroir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In what century was the thermometer invented?

Was the amount of vineyard acreage compensated for?

Did they record the solar insolation? the wavelength profile? I only bring this up as it occurs to me that if we could faithfully reproduce all the criteria for growing the best crop of wine grapes, then it could be artificially reproduced and we could have a river of perfect wine flowing from any location....I wonder if any grapes are grown hydroponically under artificial lights without soil....?

...and then there's root temperature control....

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jshita1991/12/1/12_1_53/_article

Well obviously you are not familiar with the well cited study on Hawkmoths that jam bat echolocation with sonic blasts from their genitalia....

http://thirdmonk.net/universe/science/science-incredible-photo-facts.html

Well you got yer ice cores and other ways of inferring temperatures....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

Thermometers didn't come into existence until 1612.

I don't know why all you guys have gotten your panties in a bunch because the climate may be changing.

It does this all the time. We aren't arguing about the cause here.

DEAL WITH IT.

Nothing that is said here will change anything on the Earth.

My parents recorded the weather EVERY day for 40 or 50 years. I'm sure that there were many thermometers used during those years.

It's a trend, that's all.

There are a number of things that have been overlooked in this study (based on the summary).

The Great French Wine Blight in the mid 19th century certainly depressed production and resulted in new root stalk. Using data prior to the establishment of the new vines approaches apples to oranges.

The development of technology that increases and hastens harvest would be difficult to compensate. A good example is gibberellic acid. It is now widely used in grape production for increased yields in less time but wasn't even identified until 1935.

It does seem like the conclusion of this paper was one of the first things they got done.

"wine makers keep detailed, accurate records of anything that might affect wine quality,"

Uh-huh.

Deniers never accept contradictions to preconceived notions...

Of course that applies to both sides of any argument.

Like, DUH.

Lyn, you missed the point.

Merely having an detailed record of things that could have an effect is not enough to allow those effect to be backed out.

Consider the Great French Wine Blight. There is certainly a record, but even with incredible detail, the problem remain of comparing production from different root stock. No controls and far too many large impact variables don't allow causality to be easily tied to any one variable with any comfortable degree of certainty.

Sounds simular to the Irish Potato Famine in the mid 1800's,

What about the years when a poorly *timed* rainy season ruined the harvest? As is with so much Alarmist Anecdotal Information, this is simply not extrapolatable to the issue.

-- The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Your conservative, unrealistic bias is clearly evident here.

It is obvious that you do not understand the definition of data.

I suggest that you, too, are re-defining words to suit your current position and not reality.

Aside from your, so far, unsupported opinion, on what do you base your empty assertion that this is any more "Alarmist Anecdotal Information" than it is "Deniers Misinformation"?

Let me see if I understand your proposal. It only takes one single harvest report due to poor climate conditions, from over 700 years of harvest data, to taint the entire data set to determine the trend of climate conditions. I think that Gibbs says it best.

No, I'm saying that this data can be taken for what it is worth and that it is data.

tick-tock has suggested that these numbers are not data, but rather Alarmist.

Studies draw conclusions. That's why they are undertaken.

Call it what you want. It's still data. It's still a trend.

Nothing we disagree about here will change what the climate does.

We won't be alive to say, "I told you so", either way.

Sorry but I intended to agree with your (Lyn) reply with my snarky reply to whom you were replying (tick-tock). It is so easy to misplace a reply.

Let me give my interpretation of the "Global Warming Debate," Using the following two sock puppets, Stan Warmer, and Dan Denier.

• Warmer: "We're seeing some serious trends that the planet is warming, and that we may be the main contributor to this change."
• Denier: "Don't believe it, you must be 'cooking the data' to make a hockey stick graph."
• Warmer: "We've analysed data from wine growers, who keep meticulous weather records, and the data going back for 700 years confirms this trend."
• Denier: "I don't consider dumb farmers to be a credible source. God created the Earth, and we, mere men, can do NOTHING to help or hurt it."
• Warmer: "Pope Francis has issued an encyclical confirming the Church's belief that global warming is caused by man, and that man has a Moral Imperative to try and fight it."
• Denier: "Quit mixing religion and science, I'll get my science from a scientist, not a religious leader."
• Warmer: "You were the one bringing religion into it, I was trying to return it to a scientific debate. By the way, Pope Francis earned a PhD in Chemistry before he entered the priesthood, so he *IS* a scientist, as well as the Pope. And since we're having to bring up credentials, do *YOU* have a PhD in any fields?"
• Denier: "I've got a PhD in Shut The F* Up! There's no Global Warming, and that's it!"
• Warmer: "But all the data points to-"
• Denier: "LALALALALA! I can't hear you! LALALA! No warming! LALALALALA! My fingers are in my years, so you lose! LALALALA! You can't change my mind, so just go away! LALALALALALA!"

How's that for summing things up? I tried to be as even-handed as possible in the debate, but I may have propped up Dan Denier's side a bit much.

Like everything else offered by an anonymous poster, not worth reading!

♪You're so vain, you prob'ly this strawman looks like you. You're so vain (you're so vain) you prob'ly think this strawman looks like you, don't you, don't you, don't you?♪

Been there, tried that, I still fail due to the "true believer's logic defense system".

Since when is science done by "consensus"? If one really knows what is taking place on a daily basis in basic research (otherwise known as high level physics and chemistry research on the fundamental property of light and matter), there seems to be every kind of discussion taking places, EXCEPT consensus.

If there is no mathematical proof, then has to rely on simulations run on the largest computers, and it remains clear that a lot of false assumptions are fed into such models based on the whims, political leanings, etc. of the model maker. If there is an ulterior motive that can be had within the mind of man, one will find it within the halls of a university department where such things take place. It is very clear that if the wrong boundary conditions are fed into a complex partial differential equation, or set of equations, the approximate solution will always be basically wrong in its conclusions. If the right boundary conditions are used as inputs to the model, the conclusion can still be wrong if there is only one flaw in the model.

In spite of all this, some are even willing to go out and "synthesize" data - essentially these are false prophets and the truth is not in them.

"Since when is science done by "consensus"?"

It's called Repeatibility of Experiments. If other scientists are able to set up experiments according to the original scientists notes, and get 'the same results'⁽¹⁾, then the original experiment is accepted as 'generally correct' and the results are given more credence. It is when someone tries the experiment, gets a completely unexpected result according to the theory, confirms that they did not make a mistake in setup or measurement, publishes their results for others to test, and the others get the the same unexpected result, that an old theory is called into question, and a new theory is devised and tested to explain the unexpected result, while also explaining how the 'expected results' of the old theory were possible. This is part of the Scientific Method. A theory can never be 'proven true for all conditions,' so all 'facts' and 'laws' are simply the most refined theories to explain their phenomenon, which scientists agree to "treat as true until a condition is found that makes it 'not true,' wherein we will experiment and refine the theory to make the new one 'true for all conditions we know about.'"

Notes:

1. Within a margin of error, you may be off by a few percent when measuring the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow⁽²⁾, but you CAN confirm that it is able to fly at 'around the stated speed,' when it is not carrying a coconut.
2. The notes did not specify African or European, experiments will need to be run on both, so the data on each species can be compared against each other, as well as to the original notes. This is also a way to refine a theory, by 'refining the question.'
   

Yes, especially when the "consensus" is between two highly funded research universities who have vacuumed up all the research money allocated, and agree that additional research is needed before concluding that there is air up there, and that it is warmer than it used to be, or X, Y, and Z. No one else gets to look at it, and therefore is not allowed to refute the "consensus".

Thank you for finding the words to say what I either could not muster, or could not cobble together in the correct order succinctly to make sense.

<Beam me up Scottie>

So,......let me make sure I have this right.

1. The more data we have, the thicker the stack of data gets.

2. Based on this data, the earth is warming.

Proof that deforestation is causing climate change. Just ask the Saharan Africans, and the Saudis.