Global Warming’s Impact On Premium Wines

Global Warming’s Impact On Premium Wines
By 2040, the amount of land suitable for cultivating premium wine grapes in high-value areas of northern California could shrink by 50 percent because of global warming, according to a study by Stanford climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh.

Stanford University:

Stanford News:

Stanford University Channel on YouTube:

This entry was posted in Wine.

15 comments

  1. WikiPeoples says:

    you fucking people stil believe in global warming caused by humans? really? grow a brain you sheep.

  2. WikiPeoples says:

    @jawayetti Yeah you’re right, and guess what science has proven? The earth has gone through wild fluctuations in temperature throughout its lifetime, and far before human beings ever walked the earth. SCIENCE, has proved that.

    So explain to me, why you believe the bull shit spewing from Al Gore’s mouth? It’s all a scam to make money, if you haven’t realized that yet, then you probably never will. pathetic.

  3. WikiPeoples says:

    @sdrawkcabgnipytmi I hope you are kidding. Do you really need me to point you to a scientific journal which documents the shifting in earths temperature – naturally – over the centuries? Get real you fucking moron, its COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the planet has gone through fluctuations. How about you pull your head out of your ass, and take a look at the political motives behind the “green” movement. Lots of money being made.

    You’re a fucking tool, and a sheep. People like you are pathetic.

  4. Pablo Zamora says:

    @WikiPeoples I find this a bit weird coming from someone commenting on a Stanford University video.. oh, dear son, where the hell is your head?! get it out of there!!

  5. WikiPeoples says:

    @sdrawkcabgnipytmi That’s what you are being TOLD. But unfortunately for you, the theory that human behavior is causing global warming is predicated on “correlation means causation”. Find me ONE research paper that has made a distinguished argument PROVING that the current upward trends in global temperatures are in fact SOLELY a response to human behavior, and not a natural, climactic procession.

    I repeat – you are a pathetic sheep, who cannot see past the wool in your eyes. Grow a brain.

  6. WikiPeoples says:

    @OtagoMark sdrawlcangmotmi falls in to the class of human being we call moron. He/She has developed an opinion regarding a subject, and is completely unwilling to entertain the possibility that he is in fact wrong. Or that his sources were wrong. Or that there is indeed, a very strong motive backing the “green movement”. He/She just listens to Al Gore, and believes. Meanwhile, Al Gore is flying in his Leer Jet.

  7. Mathview says:

    “Science is the believe in the ignorance of the experts.” -Richard P. Feynmann. Normally model predictions are tested by experiment. In the case of climate models we have IPCC 1999 which predicted accelerated non-linear global ave. temp increase throughout 2000-2040. However, the predicted warming 2001-2011 did not occur. That particular climate model’s prediction is diverging from the actual data. Not to be controversial, just an honest look at some basics.

  8. Mathview says:

    Ooops typo…”Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” – Richard P. Feynmann Ph.D. Physics, Princeton. Faculty member at Cornell and Cal Tech. Nobel prize in physics for theory of quantum electrodynamics. Prolific writer and all around cool guy. He also figured out why the Challenger solids failed.

  9. Mathview says:

    @BlankVellum Not at all. Quite the opposite. Path breaking scientists such as Richard Feynman have often been iconoclasts. We agree with William Shakespeare, Ben Franklin, and Abe Lincoln who’ve said: “Honesty is the best policy.”

  10. Mathview says:

    @BlankVellum No need for too much back and forth. The point is basic. Of course, numerical models can be very good at fitting existing data sets, but fail to extrapolate. Climate models of the ’90s were used to extrapolate behavior of “global average temperature” from 2000-2040. Now we have 11 years of new data. We must ask: Does the new data diverge from those model predictions? Plot new data to 2011. Check for yourself. What do you find? Excellent, good, neutral, poor, bad agreement?

Comments are closed.