Time to buy more Canadian wine? Climate Change is driving up prices in other regions


mentalfloss
#1
Climate change kills resources folks.

Don't know how many times you have to be reminded.


Time to buy more Canadian wine? Climate change driving up prices from other wine regions

The weather in the summer of 2015 was unlike anything Chile's Aurelio Montes Jr. had experienced in nearly 30 years of winemaking.

"We never get rain during summer, but last year we had some rains during summer...very extreme rains, tropical rains, that's not very common in Chile." said Montes, who has vineyards in Curico and Colchagua, Chile, producing Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Chardonnay, and Sauvignon Blanc.

Experts are predicting a drop in global production of wine because of climate change, which is forcing up prices, particularly of Old World wines. That has Canadian winemakers seeing an opportunity.

The rain in Chile was a result of El Nino, a cyclical climate event where surface waters in parts of the Pacific become warmer than average resulting in unusual weather systems in different parts of the world.

The El Nino of 2015-16 was among the worst in the last 30 years. In South America, it produced monsoon-like rains causing widespread flooding and extensive damage.

Meanwhile, in France, extreme spring storms and a late frost damaged plants in traditional winemaking regions in 2016 and a drought has cut production in recent years.

Time to buy more Canadian wine? Climate change driving up prices from other wine regions - Business - CBC News
 
Remington1
#2
I will be picking up a few bottles. I think it's a mindset, I automatically go to a few of my favourite countries wine, but rarely buy Canadian. The exception is when we go to the Niagara Region, then we stock-up and I have to say the wine is always quite nice.
 
petros
+1
#3
Quote:

The rain in Chile was a result of El Nino, a cyclical climate event where surface waters in parts of the Pacific become warmer than average resulting in unusual weather systems in different parts of the world.

The El Nino of 2015-16 was among the worst in the last 30 years. In South America, it produced monsoon-like rains causing widespread flooding and extensive damage.

Climate Change eh?
 
TenPenny
#4
There is no such thing as climate change, the climate here in North America has never changed since the earth was created.
 
petros
#5
When it floods in BC come spring will that be from climate change or la Nina?
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Climate Change eh?

Yes.

Were you trying to make a point here?

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

When it floods in BC come spring will that be from climate change or la Nina?

You do realize it's both right?
 
petros
+1
#7
la Nina and El Nino which are cyclical are now part of "Climate Change"?

Quite the stretch even for you.
 
mentalfloss
#8
Yes, La Nina and El Nino are recognised as natural climate change forcings lol

What's better is that they are influenced by anthropogenic climate change which is why they have been getting worse over time.
 
petros
+1
#9
But not related to the AGW scam so you trying to tie them in is pathetic.
 
mentalfloss
#10
Like I said, El Nino and La Nina get worse over time because of global warming.

And the most prominent warming influence is humans.

Why do you think Fart McMurray was even worse than it could have been, say, even 10 years ago?
 
gerryh
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, La Nina and El Nino are recognised as natural climate change forcings lol

What's better is that they are influenced by anthropogenic climate change which is why they have been getting worse over time.


anthropogenic climate change has not been proven, as a matter of fact, more and more scientists are disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change and leaning more to natural change brought on by things that we have no control over.
 
petros
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Like I said, El Nino and La Nina get worse over time because of global warming.

And the most prominent warming influence is humans.

La Nina's get colder because of Global warming?
 
mentalfloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

anthropogenic climate change has not been proven, as a matter of fact, more and more scientists are disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change and leaning more to natural change brought on by things that we have no control over.

Of the scientists who complete studies on causation there's a 97% consensus and I look forward to correcting you on your inevitable talking point response to this post.
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#14
~wine spodiodee drankin wine , wine spodiodee drankin wine, slip that bottle ta me yeah boy~ Jerry Lee
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

La Nina's get colder because of Global warming?

In the short term, that's definitely plausible.

Just as winters in some places may get colder over there next few decades because of the warming which causes the polar vortex.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#16  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Of the scientists who complete studies on causation there's a 97% consensus and I look forward to correcting you on your inevitable talking point response to this post.

You certainly are an expert on talking points.
 
gerryh
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Of the scientists who complete studies on causation there's a 97% consensus and I look forward to correcting you on your inevitable talking point response to this post.

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot


https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimat...Global_Warming

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don't Agree with 'Consensus' - Breitbart
 
Tecumsehsbones
#18
Your Eiswein sucks. Just sayin'.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Your Eiswein sucks. Just sayin'.

Ice wine is cloying. Everyone's ice wine is cloying and the Canadian version is no different from the European one.

Anyway, it is a niche product and hardly the mainstream output of our wine industry.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Ice wine is cloying. Everyone's ice wine is cloying and the Canadian version is no different from the European one.

Anyway, it is a niche product and hardly the mainstream output of our wine industry.

German Eiswein is brilliant. Canadian Eiswein sucks.
 
Murphy
Conservative
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Ice wine is cloying. Everyone's ice wine is cloying and the Canadian version is no different from the European one.

Anyway, it is a niche product and hardly the mainstream output of our wine industry.

I loves ice wine. I pour it on ice cream!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

German Eiswein is brilliant. Canadian Eiswein sucks.

Yawol, mein hare.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yawol, mein hare.

That's "Yah vole, mine hair."

Scheisskopf!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That's "Yah vole, mine hair."

Scheisskopf!

Nein! Nein! ... ist HASSEN!

http://youtu.be/xoFocTfQnwY
 
mentalfloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot


https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimat...Global_Warming

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don't Agree with 'Consensus' - Breitbart

The 97% Consensus Results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.

The 97% consensus on global warming
 
JamesBondo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

The 97% Consensus Results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.

The 97% consensus on global warming

[QUOTEIn May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."[/QUOTE]

Hehe. This is from your link.
 
petros
#27
Quote:

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject

66%...
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#28
Jost , Ive sampled all of thier stuff, forget our seafood, this is great wine.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, La Nina and El Nino are recognised as natural climate change forcings lol

What's better is that they are influenced by anthropogenic climate change which is why they have been getting worse over time.

ROFLMFAO. Again.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#30
Humans have influenced the seas he says, what a fukkin idiot. Do the math, it's a lot of water.

If you won't buy Canadian wine you should go without. Canadians should only be allowed Canadian food and beverage everything else should be heavily taxed. Annapolise Valley Ciders are a very good choice, if you know what's good for you.