Grape Harvest Date Evidence:
No Significant Modern Warmth
Public domain photo. Source here
In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, mechanical engineer Bill Nye claimed that the settled science says humans have been warming the planet at a rate that is unnaturally and “catastrophically” fast since the year 1750 .
“It’s a settled question. The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of climate change happening on timescales of millions of years or 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years. … Humans are causing it [climate change] to happen catastrophically fast. [Without human activity], the climate would be like it was in 1750.”
When pressed to identify the signature change affirming this rapid human-caused acceleration, Nye immediately cited viticulture evidence, or grape-growing practices in England and France.
“Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today [if not for human activity]. French winemakers would not be buying land to the north, as they are now [if not for human activity].”
Apparently Bill Nye believes it is quite unusual to grow grapes in England. Or maybe he believes that this has never happened before given his perceptions of the unprecedentedly fast pace of climate change since 1750. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that grape vineyards have been growing in England for thousands of years, or that grape harvesting occurred 100s of kilometers further north than it does today as recently as during the latter stages of the Medieval Warm Period (~1100 to 1300 A.D).
Considering how very sensitive grapes are to climate conditions, and that grapes can only be harvested successfully after ripening in climates that average a specified number of warm days per year, the use of grape harvest dating as a proxy for temperature has long been thought to be both promising and reliable.
Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to grape harvesting. In fact, there were several periods of greater warmth than today (and thus better suitability for grape harvesting) during the multi-centennial (~1400-1900 A.D.) Little Ice Age — which had the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years.
In other words, there is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or remarkable — let alone “catastrophically fast” — about either the pace or degree of warmth in the modern climate.
Grape Harvesting 500 Kilometers North Of Present From 1100 – 1300 A.D.
Easterbrook, 2011
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0-1.4°C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1°C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000).”
Grape Harvest Dating From 1300s -1500s A.D. Suggest Temperatures Were 1-2°C Warmer Than 20th Century
Pfister, 1988
“In 1420 wine harvest in Western and Central Europe began at the end of August, even on altitudes of 500 to 700 m (Bern, Toggenburg). This is the earliest date ever recorded. … In 1420 the warm phase started in February. In March summer began already. The vine bloom was two weeks earlier than in 1893- the most advanced year within the instrumental period.”
“The comparison of the phenophases in 1420 and 1540 with the corresponding extremes documented with thermometrical evidence suggests that in 1420 all months from February to August (in 1540 from April to August) may have been 2 to 3 degrees above the 1901-60 average. … [I]n 1270 and 1304 the early burgundy grapes were ripe at about the same time as in 1540, whereas in 1331 the ripening of the first cherries in Western France and the beginning of the wine harvest in Paris coincided roughly with the corresponding phenophases in 1420.”
“In 1420 the first ‘new wine’ from these grapes was drunk at the beginning of August, in 1540 on August 15, about twenty days before the wine harvest was opened. If this delay was the same in ordinary years, the mean grape harvest date would be around September 1st in the High Middle Ages, which is a few days earlier than in the warmest summers documented with thermometric measurement. From a regression approach comparing the decennial means of wine harvest dates and temperatures from 1370 to 1850 it has been estimated that an opening of the harvest on September 1st corresponds to a mean temperature from April to September that is 1.7 (+ -0.2) degrees above the average for 1901-60.”
“In the four years 1774, 1777, 1779, 1781, the only ones documented by thermometrical measurement, temperatures in August and September were 2.0 degrees above the 1901-60 average. From 1269 to 1339 positive anomalies [like these] occurred more than once every decade on average; this suggests that they were part of the “normal” climatic pattern; after 1340 their frequency drops to a level of 5%, after 1400 they became very rare. Not a single occurrence is measured for the seventeenth century. Since 1781 they have not been recorded any more. Undoubtedly the early fourteenth century marks a climatic watershed. The frequent occurrence of high maximum densities before 1330 can be interpreted in the context of a warm climate to which an advance in the beginning of the grape harvest is connected. It may be hypothesized that summers which were outstanding according to the standards of later periods, such as those of 1420, 1473 or 1540 were within the normal range of fluctuations during the High Middle Ages.”
Grape Harvest Dating Only Mildly Different Now Than During The 1600s – 1800s
Chuine et al., 2004
“Figure 1 [below] shows two early warm decadal fluctuations: one in the 1380s (0.72 °C) and one in the 1420s (0.57 °C), both above the 95th percentile. The warm period of the 1420s was followed by a cold period that lasted from the mid-1430s to the end of the 1450s (0.45 °C, under the 10th percentile). Our series also reveals particularly warm events, above the 90th percentile, in the 1520s and between the 1630s and the 1680s. These decades were as warm as the end of the twentieth century. The high-temperature event of 1680 was followed by a cooling, which culminated in the 1750s (under the 5th percentile) — the start of a long cool period that lasted until the 1970s.”
Menzel, 2005
Guillet et al., 2017
20th/21st Century Grape Harvest Dates Have Not Undergone Significant Change
Moreno et al., 2016
“This paper reports a climatic reconstruction approach for the Minho region (NW of Portugal) using grape harvest dates (GHD) as proxy of surface air temperature. … The major external forcing of the climate system derives from the Sun. A solar signature has been found in global mean surface temperatures, with evidence directly related to two noticeably different features of the Sun’s dynamics: its short-term irradiance fluctuations and secular patterns of 22-year and 11-year cycles (Scafetta and West, 2008). … [I]t is recognized that solar forcing manifestations denote a strong spatial and seasonal variability (Usoskin et al., 2006), and this would be the reason why it might be illusive to seek a single global relationship between climate and solar activity (de Jager, 2005). Thus, Le Mouël et al. (2009) stated that a regional approach may allow one to identify specific forms of solar forcing, where and when the solar input is most important. … [S]olar footprints on terrestrial temperatures [are] due to the strong non-linear hydrodynamic interactions across the Earth’s surface, and the accepted longer-term solar activity influence creating temperature oscillations for tens or even hundreds of years (Scafetta and West, 2003, 2007, 2008). … These spectral analysis results appear to support a solar forcing with regards to Minho GHD [grape harvest dates].”
Etien et al., 2008
Good research, Kenneth. Again we see claims such as those made by Nye exposed as being mostly false.
Grapes are better temperature/warm weather proxies than are tree rings, and there is extensive data on grape harvests.
There are multiple lines of evidence, this being one of them, that suggest that as far as the Northern Hemisphere is concerned, that the temperatures today are no warmer than the temperatures seen in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
Due to lack of measurement (and very poor spatial coverage) we do not know the position with respect to the Southern Hemisphere, or for that matter globally.
MODS, my comment appears to have simply disappeared
Grapes are better temperature/warm weather proxies than are tree rings, and there is extensive data on grape harvests.
There are multiple lines of evidence, this being one of them, that suggest that as far as the Northern Hemisphere is concerned, that the temperatures today are no warmer than the temperatures seen in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
Due to lack of measurement (and very poor spatial coverage) we do not know the position with respect to the Southern Hemisphere, or for that matter globally.
Down here, wine growing has continued to increase. New areas are being trialled on a regular basis.
I think I heard that there is even a vineyard in Alice Springs.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think grape growing history will help much as a temperature proxy in Australia 🙂
Did you know that the UK now imports more wine from Australia than it does from France? 🙂
And just imagine how it will be when Britain is freed of its European chains and the Empire will Rise Again and Strike Back. Are you ready for more convicts and rabbits?
Keep the rabbits, we have plenty.
I don’t think many of the warmist scammers will be sentenced to deportation. Even if I am wrong I think they should be sent to the Arctic, to make sure the polar bears don’t starve.
Did you also know that Australia has some of the oldest grape vines in the world. Many of Europe’s established vineyards were destroyed by disease in the 1800s (LIA, what a cold bitter destructive period that was) with the only survivors being the vines brought to Australia.
Grapes are propagated by “cuttings” and many places outside of Europe had acquired Vitis vinifera, the European Wine Grape, prior to the introduction of phylloxera. Many places are still able to grow these vines on their own roots. Where phylloxera becomes established the desired plant is grown on roots resistant to this root louse.
The Wikipedia entry for phylloxera lists Chile, and Washington State, in addition to Australia as major areas. There are also many small areas.
Some people have claimed they can tell if a wine is from “own root” vines versus grafted plants. I cannot, but that proves nothing.
Except:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/global-warming-is-messing-with-wine (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2960.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_phenology)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2418/climate-change-is-shifting-wine-grape-harvests-in-france-and-switzerland/
https://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/seguid22e.htm
And once again: just because it was warm before doesn’t mean the cause of the change in temperature is the same one (or the change is happening at the same speed as before).
Sebastian, does this mean you have no counterpoint to the blog post?
If you would be so kind and click on the provided links … thank you.
You seem to be missing the point, seb. If today is no warmer than it was 1000 years ago, then where is the problem? Were there more hurricanes then? Tornadoes? Drought? Runaway global warming?
The point is that it was the same temperature some time ago and in bold letters the article implies that the current climate change is all natural, because of this similarity. Correct?
We don’t have a runaway global warming today, do we? But what amount of CO2 can be sunk by the oceans until life on Earth is being severely affected? What amount of heat energy can the oceans “store”? Up until which temperature increase will we have no serious problem with the sea levels? If you think this is all natural, then there is no problem, right? Because it will get back to “normal” some time in the future on its own, right?
And this skeptical world view which sees everything as normal and no action required, makes me wonder what the households of these people look like. Oh there is dirt on the floor, well it’s natural and will fix itself … I imagine 😉
What human action would make sea levels stop rising? And how do you know it would do that?
Anything that stops the increase of the heat content of the oceans would stop sea level rise. If there is a global average temperature that would cause land ice to start melting enough to be the dominant factor in sea level rise, then limiting the increase in temperature would be necessary.
“If there is a global average temperature that would cause land ice to start melting enough to be the dominant factor in sea level rise”
But there hasn’t been, has there.
We are actually at a rather cool period in the current interglacial, just a bump above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
There is in fact no sign of any acceleration in sea level rise. There is in fact no sign of anything untoward happening with climate what so ever. Its actually rather benign and steady at the moment.
what “should” the current temperature be?
what “should” the level of atmospheric CO2 be?
All this AGW crap is just from your brain-washed, brain-addled imagination.
Why do you live your life in fear of your own fantasies?
Good questions. But then you drift away in your hate/insult talk again …
Are you sure?
https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/nyc-floods-relative-sea-level.png
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
Most of that sea level rise can be attributed to thermal expansion from the increase in ocean heat content … but do you know at what temperature land ice will completely melt? At what temperature will evaporation be strong enough so oceans essentially “boil off”? Does it happen suddenly or is there a transition period?
I don’t live in fear, it rather looks like skeptics here live in fear … in fear of the “consensus” being right, in fear of blackouts caused by too much renewables. I wonder if the majority of commenters here is young enough to remember these times in 30-40 years. What happens if the trends continue until then? Will skeptics still explain the increase in everything with a step by step increase due to El Ninos or some other phenomenon? https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
So what caused the ocean heat content to rise? Name all the contributors throughout history.
lol, seb gets sucked in by the anti-science of using the massively adjusted satellite sea levels spliced onto the end of the tide record.
Is there any bit of climate FRAUD that you won’t fall for ???
And really.. citing SkS, scribbler and carbonbriefs…. really !!!
The very depths of AGW propaganda mis-information… and I suspect you know that, don’t you. 🙂
… now we KNOW you are a brain-washed anti-science AGW operative.
It is noted that you side-stepped the questions..
…. and went straight to the propaganda pap.
Nothing unusual about that is there, little troll!
“in your hate… blah,blah.”
The ONLY person bring hate and lies and insults here is you.
You bring them with you, because they are part of you.
It is your INTENT, your SOLE reason for being here…
… and to pretend otherwise highlights your slimy deceit.
– just read your comments … insults after insults mixed with hate speech.
– you didn’t answer a single question either
– if the server a graph/chart is hosted on is important then I can’t help you. Would it have helped you if I cited the original (often paywalled) papers? Or would you have ignored it anyway, because it doesn’t fit in your view of the world?
Your intent is to bring your evil, anti-human, hateful AGW religion here.
You cannot DENY that fact
As well as to promulgate all the LIES and anti-science MISINFORMATION you can get your greasy hands on
No doubt you are a slimy paid AGW hack, bringing your religious HATRED with you.
Seb, we all KNOW there has been some natural warming out of the LIA, the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.
What point are you trying to make???
Or are you being pointless , yet again. !!
“just because it was warm before doesn’t mean the cause of the change in temperature is the same one”
I’m sure your addled mind with discount natural causes and go manic on some human cause, totally unproven, of course.
You are a DENIER of natural climate change.
http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh
A repeating pattern with an added exponential component. The orange coloured line still looks like only natural periodic changes are happening, except that’s not the case …
roflmao.. mythical maths again, hey seb
You have ZERO idea what constitutes natural change.
… so stop being such a moron.
Come on seb.. list ALL natural forcings of climate change and their respective strengths..
WAITING, WAITING !!!
We already know that it is NOT CO2 causing the slight, but highly beneficial, warming since the LIA. !!
WARMISTS say they know the cause, skeptics say they don’t. the burden of proof is yours.
Skeptics say “it is all natural” … it’s like saying “people die of natural causes every day, the man with the bullet in his head over there most likely died of natural causes”.
I am skeptical of the climate skeptics way to think humans have zero or little influence on the climate and attributing changes to everything else.
Yet you have proven that you cannot produce one single paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere. If humans are having an effect, it is NOT CO2.
Yes, we have local climate effects, such as UHI, land use changes etc,… that feed through, with AGW scam adjustments, into the farcical global surface temperatures.
But you KNOW by now that the only warming in the whole satellite record has come from EL Nino effects…
… which are NOTHING to do with human influence.
Where does the energy come from that El Nino releases in the form of warming? Why do you think that satellite data (especially RSS) is so reliable, but question data from surface stations? You know how the RSS data gets compiled, right? How many different satellites were involved in the timeline beginning in the 70s?
Anyway … the thought that measurable radiation has no effect eludes me.
The surface station data is a load of very trashy sites , a hodge-podge of sparse, bad quality, never constant, fabricated junk.
Anything has to be more reliable than it.
You really haven’t bothered looking at just how bad it is have you.
Just accept and believe what NOAA tell you, like a good little AGW cultist..
You really are scrapping the bottom of the AGW scam now, that is for sure.
And STILL you cannot produce any paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Still trying every dodge and squirm your feeble mind can come up with.
@seb 2:54
Where does the energy come from that El Nino releases in the form of warming?
From sun light (short wave radiation) entering the Pacific Ocean when there are no or few clouds. This slowly accumulates in the Pacific Warm Pool while the Trade Winds exist, and is returned when the winds of the Pacific change.
Seriously, I have yet to see anything more POINTLESS or IRRELEVANT that your little pattern test.
“Where does the energy come from that El Nino releases in the form of warming?”
Oh dearie me, seb YET AGAIN proves his manifest IGNORANCE.!!
poor infant is unable to learn anything .
brain-washed beyond all hope of rational thought. !!
Look up on a sunny day, you brainless twit !!
AndyG55, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0 … from the guy who compiles the data that is often mentioned here as the satellite record (RSS).
John, so the sunlight warms the water and that energy is released periodically. Would that energy build up as much without greenhouse effects? Certainly not … so why is El Nino than used as a phenomenon that causes global warming without the greenhouse effect?
Do you agree with scientists, SebastianH, that between 75% and 98% of greenhouse effect heating is accounted for by variations in clouds and water vapor, and that CO2 contributes but a tiny fraction? Just wanted to be sure you were on the same page.
Song, Wang & Tang, 2016
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315
“[T]he influences of water vapor and clouds … contribute approximately 75% of the total [greenhouse] effect.”
—
Textbook: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2012)
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
“The vast majority of that [greenhouse] warming is contributed by water vapor. Together with cloud, it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect.” pg. 249
—
Ramanathan et al., 1989
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO(2). The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO(2) doubling.
—
Ramanathan et al., 1991
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_thermostat_Ramanathan1991.pdf
“Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. … It would take more than an order-of-magnitude increase in atmospheric CO2 to increase the maximum [sea surface temperature] by a few degrees”
—
I do agree. Will this end (again) in you trying to show that dominant effects cancel out every other effect? Could you wire me the interest on your bank balance then? Should I repost the pattern test image?
The current rise in CO2 concentration is human made and its effects are added to whatever natural effects are at work. There hasn’t happend anything like this in the past. And need I remind you how much energy additionally accumulates in the ocean if CO2 forcing would be just 1 W/m²? That’s 31536 kJ per year or enough energy to raise the temperature of the upper 10 cm below the surface of all oceans by 75 K.
Comment vanished? Another try …
I do agree. Will this end (again) in you trying to show that dominant effects cancel out every other effect? Could you wire me the interest on your bank balance then? Should I repost the pattern test image?
The current rise in CO2 concentration is human made and its effects are added to whatever natural effects are at work. There hasn’t happend anything like this in the past. And need I remind you how much energy additionally accumulates in the ocean if CO2 forcing would be just 1 W/m²? That’s 31536 kJ per year or enough energy to raise the temperature of the upper 10 cm below the surface of all oceans by 75 K.
“I do agree [that CO2 variations account for about 10-15% of the greenhouse effect, if that]. Will this end (again) in you trying to show that dominant effects cancel out every other effect? Could you wire me the interest on your bank balance then?”
Monetary bank balances have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect hypothesis.
“And need I remind you how much energy additionally accumulates in the ocean if CO2 forcing would be just 1 W/m²? That’s 31536 kJ per year or enough energy to raise the temperature of the upper 10 cm below the surface of all oceans by 75 K.”
Do you have a scientific experiment that confirms that raising CO2 concentrations by 0.000001 causes the heat content of oceans to change? Do you have any physical measurements from such an experiment? Of course you don’t. As you’ve acknowledged, this is only theoretical.
By the way, the “upper 10 cm below the surface” is almost 10 cm too deep. That’s because the heat trapped by greenhouse gases cannot penetrate past the 0.1 mm to 1 mm “thick” skin layer. So says SkepticalScience and RealClimate. And the latter blog even acknowledges that the heat gradient limit for the skin layer is 0.002 K.
“That’s 31536 kJ per year or enough energy to raise the temperature of the upper 10 cm below the surface of all oceans by 75 K.””
But it doesn’t happen, does it, seb…
….your brain-addled imagination at work again.
The sea surface temperatures barely move except by ocean currents.
REALITY makes a JOKE of seb’s idiocy, yet again.
So what year or span of years did natural factors stop exerting their influence on the climate, allowing humans to take over as the predominant climate modulators?
They never stopped … why would they stop?
That’s the whole point I was trying to make with the “pattern test”:
http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh
Wrong place
Seriously, I have yet to see anything more POINTLESS or IRRELEVANT that your little pattern test.
Andy, free tip 🙂 – whenever one of those guys tries to do math, go check it. And pro tip – the nice thing about quantitative experience in physics and engineering is the development of a nose for when a presented result is seriously out-of-whack.
The total surface area of the terrestrial oceans is 360 million square kilometers (3.60e+8 sq. km), which converted into square meters (for what follows) is 3.60e+14 sq. m.
The upper 10 cm of the ocean is 0.1m, so the total volume of the upper 10cm of the terrestrial ocean is 3.60e+13 cubic meters
The heat capacity of water is 4.184 J/K – 4.184 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1K. Note that this assumes a completely closed apparatus, like the one that Joule used to do his ground-breaking calorimetry experiments.
The density of water is pretty close (by design) to 1g/cc – so the total energy input required to raise the temperature of 1 cubic meter of water by 1K is 4.184e+6 J (4.184 MJ).
Therefore, the total energy input required to raise the temperature of a volume of water equal to the top 10 cm of the terrestrial oceans is 1.506e+20 J.
Based on that, an input of “31536 kJ” (3.1526e+7 J) into a volume of water equal to the top 10 cm of the terrestrial oceans would result in a temperature increase of…
** 2.094e-13 K !! **
Raising the temperature of a volume of water equal to the top 10 cm of the terrestrial ocean by 75K would require an input of 1.13e+22 J. What’s interesting about that number is that if you do a rough calculation of the total solar insolation impinging upon Planet Earth during 24 hours, you get something like 1.11e+22 J. Coincidence?
chuckle..
I just made the logical assumption that seb’s maths was total nonsense.
A safe bet.. always. 🙂
Nicely rendered, as usual, Kenneth. Many thanks.
What is quite striking, from this post and from many others that you have assembled for us, is the extraordinary consistency of the great mass of evidence from many different sources and several disciplines for a medieval warm period, and the benefits that flowed therefrom. I’ve not been able to find much contrary evidence on the warmist blogs, either. So you have done a brilliant job.
What you have done by this work is importantly-
(1) To undermine, fatally in my opinion, any faith in a ‘hockey stick’ of any kind.
(2) To demonstrate, unequivocally, the ‘attribution problem’ which faces any attempt to blame recent warming (sure, there has been a bit) upon human activity.
(3) To show that a decent bit of warming might be welcomed, not feared.
We might not worry about Bill Nye, who is badly informed, and doesn’t seem to know very much about anything, but I’m afraid he has the ear of millions. If only the mainstream media could be persuaded to give time to eloquent sceptics in the same way that that they allow this guy to spout his febrile nonsense.
“What is quite striking, from this post and from many others that you have assembled for us, is the extraordinary consistency of the great mass of evidence from many different sources and several disciplines for a medieval warm period, and the benefits that flowed therefrom2
there is no consistency!
Look at what this article claims:
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present.”
and look what i was told just a couple of days ago:
“sod, the generally accepted dates for the MWP are about 900 to 1200 AD (which is mentioned in the body of the article)”
https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
so yes, when you cherrypick your dates you can show what ever you want.
Looking at grapes, you would want to know: Is this the same types of grapes? How big is the region that it is grown at? Does the wine taste the same?
you can grow some grapes on the southern side of a house or wall in many regions, and get some sour stuff out of it. It does not show anything apart from desperation to get anything to drink…
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present.”
and look what i was told just a couple of days ago:
“sod, the generally accepted dates for the MWP are about 900 to 1200 AD (which is mentioned in the body of the article)””
These is nothing inconsistent with these statements.
Do you know what the word “about” means? Dopey sod.
Perhaps we should split the difference…
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/glacial.pdf
“The results suggest that it was a global event occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D.”
I wonder if sod believes the Anthropocene began in the year 1750. Or was it 1850? 1900? 1950? What year did the “catastrophically fast” global warming start, sod? Why does the IPCC choose 1750 as the begin date for an anthropogenic influence on climate, but then turn around and say most of the warming since 1951 was caused by human activity? What caused the glaciers to melt and seas to rise between 1750 and 1950, sod?
“‘cenes” are geological epoch in the Cenozoic era.
The Anthropocene, if it exists would be when man started having a major impact on the geology of the world. ie the start of major earthworks such as dams, mining etc
So around 1750 seems the logical starting point.. even if it is really just the cooler end of the Holocene
It should also be mentioned that 1000 / 2000 years ago the varieties of grapes, wheat, and other crops were more limited than those we can call upon today. Modern agriculture can more easily and rapidly push the northern boundaries of where crops might be grown.
In the case of vines it might be interesting to hear what is known about the varieties that the Romans brought to UK and Northern Germany, and how they relate to the (very limited) range of varietals which are selected to grow in those places today. Perhaps some learned denizens can enlighten us..
Going back to Roman times is virtually impossible and clouded with romantic claims of ancient origin e.g. sangiovese.
However in medieval Germany we can be fairly sure that Pinot (various), Gouais, Trollinger, Traminer and Gänsfüsser were there. Elbling and Räuschling also, Blaufränkisch (Limberger) possibly. Many varieties have disappeared and others are only grown much further south, southern France, Italy etc. An old neglected vineyard in Germany was reported to contain a Primitivo vine, now grown in Puglia in southern Italy but better known as Zinfandel in the USA (and elsewhere).
Trollinger is grown (as Schiava grosso) in NE Italy and as Black Hamburgh in other countries (Russia etc.), although the vine planted in 1769 at Hampton Court is in a greenhouse. The name may suggest its origin although another claim is that the ripe grapes were shipped north to Hamburgh from Germany for fermentation in Hamburgh.
If you want to hunt for others look for those varieties with multiple names of germanic origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grape_varieties
“virtually impossible and clouded with romantic claims of ancient origin ”
I agree, and all the rest too. A friend has about 17 acres of wine grapes and we are now pruning 9 AM to Noon, for about 5 weeks. He is from the USA but his father was Swiss, and his wine/grape training was in Switzerland. He favors the eastern France and adjacent Swiss vines and procedures. My wife’s favorite is the white wine he makes from Roussanne. The Wikipedia entry explains a bit of the appellation issues and one of the many “suitcase cuttings” problems — see California Roussanne/Viognier controversy. DNA research has started to clarify a few of these old vines found around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussanne
[…] The study is published in the journal Scientific Reports. The paper: Abstract: Like this: Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Ye…. Public domain photo. Source here In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, […]
[…] Mainstream Media Ignores New Study: Present Sea Surface Temperatures “Indistinguishable” From Those During Last Interglacial… …When Sea Levels Were Roughly 20 to 30 Feet Higher than Today Guest Post by Bob Tisdale Science recently published Hoffman, et al. (2017) Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation. Not too surprisingly, the study has been ignored by the mainstream media. Why? As Science writes in their summary (my boldface): Comparing early 20th Century warming to late 20th Century warming. Distinguishing Between ‘Safe’ or ‘Dangerous’ Warming Is Easy: ‘Dangerous’ Warming Is Red. The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic – Principia Scientific International. You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Ye…. […]
In 1086, William the conqueror ordered a cadaster of all of England and Wales, and of the properties within, and of the use and product of each holding and its value at the time of Edward the Confessor’s reign, to determine exactly how much tax each landholder was estimated to owe the Crown. The reports were provided to the Venerable Bede, who recorded them in a document for the King and his ministers.
This served as the definitive tax survey of England for several centuries, and was commonly referred to as the The Domesday Book (pronounced Doomsday).
It has been more than a few years since I read parts of the cadaster, but I think I remember vineyards recorded in or near Northumbria. Assuming that this old man’s memories aren’t being mischievous, that would appear to suggest a somewhat more beneficent climate in that era, since nothing of the sort grows up there today
In France we still have the Cadastres held at every town hall. Ours go back to Napoleon in our village
Oat and wheat is still being produced in the area around Trondheim. 35 and 14% of the farms resp. Mostly barley. It could be that it was more wheat in the past.
https://www.bondelaget.no/getfile.php/13694761/Bilder%20fylker/Nord%20-%20Tr%C3%B8ndelag/Dokumenter/Rapport%20kornproduksjon%20i%20Nord-Tr%C3%B8ndelag.pdf
Hard to say anythng definite about this without specific information about how this grain has been adapted to northern climates. In Norway, research on wheat in order to adapt it to a cool and wet climate has been going on for more than a century.
I agree, there had been development in agriculture since well since farming began. It is still true that oats and wheat is produced in this area today, but mostly in the better warmer areas.
Grapes are an amazingly resilient plant. They can grow almost anywhere but the further north you grow the longer you need to ripen or the wine needs to be a speciality. Hence champagne. Cold, sometimes very wet, stormy and dry at times. That’s the champagne region much like SE England.
The French keep remarkable records of harvest and season’s weather.
OT
In case people missed this bit of a laugh.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/06/monday-mirthiness-greenpeaceknew/
Josh nails the cartoon yet again. !!
GlennDC 6. March 2017 at 7:45 PM
I think the Venerable Bede was growing daisies well before William the Conq turned up
This reminds me of the Washington PostP (WaPo) story that ran a story a few days ago about the earlier than normal Washington DC cherry blossoms hitting their “peak day”. It was stated by the National Park Service that the blossoms are now blooming “on average about 5 days earlier than normal” since records have been kept by NPS.
So, I went back and checked the data. Turns out that the data have been kept for 96 years going back to 1921. The average day of hitting “peak” during the decade of the 1920’s was day 93 into the year – April 3 in a non-leap year, April 2 in a leap year. The average in this decade so far is………92 days.
So, how does the Park Service come up with “about 5 days”? If you average all 96 days, you do get close to 94 days largely because during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the peak date in those 2 decades was over 97 days. So, the recent data is only 2 days earlier than the average. BUT, since the 50’s and 60’s decades which many people remember, the average has in fact gone down about 5 days. Of course no mention that the average went up from 93 days in the 1920’s to 97 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Equally egregious with both the WaPo article and also the NPS claim is the complete ignoring of the fact that the standard deviation of all 96 data points is well over 7 days (1990 was the earliest peak at day 74 while 1958 was the latest at day 108) so the data varies wildly. So, even if a 5 day trend were valid, such a trend is well within the normally expected variation in the “peak” day and is thus no trend. No change. Nothing but lies and statistical manipulation by the WaPo and the NPS.
DR, nice analysis.
+1
[…] – Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Ye… […]
Grapes originally came from Persia/Iran.
I wonder if they still have some ancient varieties hidden away or growing wild in the mountains of that enormous and fascinating country – much misrepresented in the Western fake media.
[…] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]
The harvest date is interesting but what about quality? Pity that EPA is being defunded, comparing Margaux vintages would be a good project (1953 or 2000 or …?)