Climate change . . .

For things that don't fit into the other categories.

Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil

Luc Gauthier
Posts: 1271
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Montréal Canada

Climate change . . .

Post by Luc Gauthier »

In February there will be a conference on climate change and Its effects on wine in Barcelone .
Is there anyone from the Port Industry going to attend ?
Vintage avant jeunesse/or the other way around . . .
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Post by Roy Hersh »

Although I am a strong believer in global warming, there is not a lot of evidence of it in the Douro at this point.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Luc Gauthier
Posts: 1271
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Montréal Canada

Post by Luc Gauthier »

I guess the Douro , having a micro-climate , It would be difficult develope a working model that would say what would be the result of an increase in temp. of 2 degrees on the begining of the harvest . . .
Vintage avant jeunesse/or the other way around . . .
User avatar
Tom Archer
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by Tom Archer »

I suspect the greatest risk to the Douro from climate change is the possibility of stormier and more tropical weather at harvest.

Greater heat results in more evaporation from the oceans, and, therefore, rain. This could (in theory) pep up the atlantic hurricane season, the remnants of which present a danger to the european vintage.

Tom
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

I am a strong believer in Climate Change, but a disbeliever of "Global Warming".

Welcome to the end of an Ice Age :wink:

Derek
Frederick Blais
Posts: 2706
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
Location: Porto, Portugal

Post by Frederick Blais »

Come on Derek, Global Warming does exists. Have you watch the Al Gore movie, he brings some nice evidence there.

In the Douro, it has always been hot, but severe drought has hit the region in 2003/2004/2005/2006. At least the deep root system and thick skins of local grapes are not as prone as Bordeaux for exemple.

Global warming does have impact on many fators like precipitation which is another big issue. Slight chang in temperature makes evaporation faster and rain fall at another place than it should be.

Anyway, just my 2 cents :)
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

Fred,

I don't doubt that the worlds climate is changing and that some of the extreme weather patterns we have seen in recent years are as a result of those changes. My scepticism lies with the notion that we have caused it all. I simply do not see that it is possible for us to have had such an enormous impact on our planet.

Moreover, we live on a planet that has been in a constant state of change for 3 to 4 billion years. It is only since man learned to measure things and write them down that we have been able to record those changes in real time. This timescale represents a blink of an eye in relation to the time the planet has been in existence.

By way of example, the BBC News website currently has a story anbout a south Pacific island that is about to sink beneath the waves due to rises in sea level. The implication of the story is that we are responsible for that rise. However, the story goes on to explain that we have only actually been able to measure global sea levels accuratley since the 1990's. In other words, this could have been happening for hundreds of years or bobbing up and down every 20 years and we would not have known about it. I have no doubt that the island will sink, but I don't think it will be the first island that is made from porous dead coral and sand and sits in the middle of the largest ocean on the planet to have sufferred that fate.

The simple truth is that no one actually knows for sure whether or not what we have witnessed in the passed 20 years has happened before as a result of the natural cycles by which the earth has evolved.

I haven't seen Mr Gore's movie but I would struggle to be convinced of anything being the truth by a politician of any nation. What I have seen are lots of scientific documentaries that explain the processes by which our earth has evolved and others that claim that many of the major change processes such as magnetic field reversal, super-volcano erruption and comet strike are all long overdue. It astounds me that mankind are arrogant enough to believe that they have in some way mastered the art of impacting our planets behavior more efficiently than nature itself has for countless millenia.

That's my tuppence worth (in UK money :wink: )

Derek
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Post by Roy Hersh »

Whether one believes in Global Warming or not, the fact can not be denied, that many of the toxic chemicals and gasses that our cars and factories emit DO have a negative effect on the very air we breathe and that has been measured since for many decades now.

The clear cutting of the major rainforests in Brazil has an enormous impact on our O2/CO2 levels on earth, as that is our largest natural filter and it is being quickly destroyed.

Derek, you can believe whatever you'd like, but regardless of what you or I think about Al Gore the politician and former candidate and VP, the movie is based on very signficant scientific research. I think that even the most ardent opponents of the global warming "theory" must see this movie before making up their minds. To do so, is to ignore the massive amounts of research and facts that have been put together by a consortium of scientists in a collaboration between some of the greatest countries on earth.

Until folks watch that film, (faster than reading the book), I think we can't have a real debate, because some of the topics shown in the film are the core issues of climate change. I am not talking about meteors and volcano eruptions or comet strikes or things like that.

But when there is documented photography over decades of the same polar ice cap area, the rainforest then and now and many more items like the temperature grids of earth for years upon years (eons) then I think we can have a more balanced discussion. Just my two cents. I'd be happy to pay for your rental and popcorn too! :wink:

As this is far more of a geo-political thread and has very little to do with Port anymore, I am going to move this to OTHER DISCUSSIONS.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

OK, Roy - your well thought out arguments have persuaded me. I'll watch the film :wink: :lol:

I'm sure this would make a wonderfull topic of debate for you, Fred and I to have over a few bottles of port if we ever find ourselves in the same place 8--)

Derek

PS: Did I ever tell you the world is actually flat?
Scott Anaya
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:15 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America - USA

Post by Scott Anaya »

My scepticism lies with the notion that we have caused it all.
The thing with the delicate BALANCE of nature and the earth as a natural system is that we don't need to cause it all. We can be just a teeny tiny portion of greenhouse causing emmisions and be the straw that broke the camels back so-to-speak. The earth does go through naturally balancing ebbs and flows in its system, but mankind has added a significant portion of gasses attributed to warming. This is measureable. And this is and has not been NATURAL to date in the earth's history.

If we were to abide by the precautionary principal, first prove no harm before we act, we could avoid many of the potential problems environmental and other-wise. I mean, we know how to do business in this world without polluting so much, we know how to do it cheaply, and moreover, it would actually be GOOD for our economy and our health with less pollution in this world. Right now our accounting systems do not take into account intrinsic values, like healthy children without asthma, clean cities without the cost of smog pollution cleanup of buildings, etc,

And speaking of vineyards and our favorite wine of the Duoro or anywhere else for that matter, do i want us to proceed with caution so that we do not ruin the very very delicate balance of these grape growing regions? Selfishly, i would like the precautionary principal at work here so that I can enjoy vintage port of the 2035 harvest....remember, us Americans like the young stuff :lol:

P.S. Roy, this is an important enough discussion to maybe leave where it was. I mean, the consequences of a world without PORT is staggering :shock:
Scott Anaya
Frederick Blais
Posts: 2706
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
Location: Porto, Portugal

Post by Frederick Blais »

Derek we have been able, as a human being to record over the last 150 years, maybe more the weather at specific locations.

But in the last 50 years we have developed tools to read what was the weather in the past 200 millions years on this earth. We can dig into sedimentary layers of this earth and analyse what was the species that deposited there, what was the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere. We can do the same with antartica ice. We can dig a few kilometers and analyse perfectly preserved bubles of Co2 and any other gazes that was in the atmosphere in those time.

I too agree that our planet has been in constant evolution over the billion years it has exists. The fact is that only 2% of its population was able to survive a noticeable change within its balance each time it has occured. This was the base of the evolution theory. If you can addapt to you new environment because of many factors, you bring the better as you survive. Because of human activity, the earth is changing way faster than it should be. Not only because of global warming but pollution, deserts, abuse of its ressources, hunting to extinction...

It is indeed a topic we could drink many bottles over, but please don't over look it, it is because too many does that we can't stop what is probably too late to stop anyway. But lets give it a shot!
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

Fred,

Don't worry. I'm not quite as irresponsible as you might have thought :wink: :

I agree that polution is a bad thing that we should avoid wherever practical to do so.

I recycle because I think it is a good thing not to be wastefull.

I believe that the billions of tons of CO2 and other stuff we have produced has had a detrimental effect on the world we live in.

I think it is good that we are looking for ways to provide us with renewable energy sources that stem the flow of polution so that our children's children will not have asthma.

I believe that we should do everything we can to help third world countries use those renewable energy sources as soon as possible so that they can enjoy a better standard of living and not make the mistakes we did in pumping out crap without much thought for the impact it has on their environment.

I believe that the polar icecap is shrinking and, as a result, the oceans are rising.

Where our views differ is in the level of impact that we are having versus the natural processes that drive our planet. Analysing a 1mm layer of sediment from 10 million years ago (that 1mm representing thousands and thousands of years) will not give us the precision with which we are capable of measuring the environment today so the two cannot be reasonably compared and declared as irrefutable evidence.

I am absolutely convinced that many of the comparisons being made are simply supposition based on the evidence available and a number of known facts and assumptions. This doesn't consititute proof, just a best guess. Science is littered with examples of where best guesses (then thought to be fact) have been proven to be completely false once better technology or new insight has been available. I just think everyone should be mindfull of the fact that Global Warming is a new concept and much of it, although seemingly very logical and convincing, is unproven.

Derek
Luc Gauthier
Posts: 1271
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Montréal Canada

Post by Luc Gauthier »

As one who WAS a firm believer that a particular substance from the " 100 Acre woods" WAS the perfect compliment to Port , the key , as already mentioned by Fred , are the Carbon Dioxide emisions .
Last edited by Luc Gauthier on Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vintage avant jeunesse/or the other way around . . .
Moses Botbol
Posts: 5923
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Boston, USA

Post by Moses Botbol »

Roy Hersh wrote:Whether one believes in Global Warming or not, the fact can not be denied, that many of the toxic chemicals and gasses that our cars and factories emit DO have a negative effect on the very air we breathe and that has been measured since for many decades now.
My dad is a geologist. For sure we have impacted the Earth in terms of chemicals into the ground and air. For sure, the temps have risen over the century. What is still not for sure is how much of this is really related to us vs. natural cycles within our planet. Our times as humans on the Earth is just a blink in geological terms, so we could be talking a lot about nothing.

Personally, I think we should do as much as possible to mitigate our footprint onto the Earth, but I am not one of decision makers at that level. We speed up cycles if it's going to have a negative impact in the short run?
Welsh Corgis | F1 |British Cars
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

Moses Botbol wrote: For sure we have impacted the Earth in terms of chemicals into the ground and air. For sure, the temps have risen over the century. What is still not for sure is how much of this is really related to us vs. natural cycles within our planet. Our times as humans on the Earth is just a blink in geological terms, so we could be talking a lot about nothing.
Moses has managed to say in 4 short sentences what I was trying to say in all of my ramblings above. :roll:

Derek
User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:29 am
Location: St.Helens, United Kingdom - UK

Post by Alan C. »

I strongly believe that the Human race has grossly infested the planet and has subtly changed things to the point the planets climate is being adversely effected. i am willing to believe the portrayal that the actual effect is minimal, but will develop in a cumulative way, which will be irreversible. Thats the real danger, because the Bush's and Derek's of the world cant see it at the end of their noses, there's a real danger we do nothing and curse our children and theirs(etc).
I would have to say that you have to be awfully suspicious of the Al Gore film. Quite rightly they stopped showing it in schools in the UK. It is a biased and self publicising effort. After consultation with the scientific community, it was decided to allow its showing, as a thought provoking piece. It has to be shown with the teacher explaining that it is not pure scientific fact, and has been criticised and discredited by many.

Alan
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

Debate is always best when we each express our own views rather than make derogatory statements and assumptions about each others :roll:

...and I doubt very much that anyone will ever know what Bush really thinks about anything, even Bush himself :P

Derek
User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:29 am
Location: St.Helens, United Kingdom - UK

Post by Alan C. »

My sincere apologies. It's just that when something seems so blatantly obvious, (good grief, even the US has finally signed up hasn't it?) I just thought you were being mischievous.
When I see you at the 66 Tasting tomorrow, I may have some more bad news. Scientific studies are tending to suggest that the Earth is not flat...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Alan
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

Alan C. wrote: Scientific studies are tending to suggest that the Earth is not flat
Actually, someone managed to invent a way of bending space and time around 400 years ago but forgot to tell anyone, that's why you all think the earth's shaped like an egg when it's really like a piece of toast :lol:

...and I can't believe that you, a fellow Brit, of pure Scouse blood, are trying to persuade me that something is true because Americans believe it :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Derek
User avatar
Glenn E.
Posts: 8161
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Sammamish, Washington, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Post by Glenn E. »

I am a skeptic much like Derek. I'm not willing to believe - or disbelieve - in "global warming" just yet. But if you keep reading you may be surprised at my conclusion. :wink:

Climate change? Sure, it happens regularly from the planet's point of view. It's rather rare from our point of view, however, because humans have existed for such a microscopic amount of time relative to the planet.

Scientists currently believe that we're coming out of a relatively moderate ice age right now. Coincidentally, this means the planet is probably warming up. Of its own accord. And there's nothing we can do about it. More to the point, we probably shouldn't try to do anything about it because it's part of the Earth's natural cycle.

Now... does that mean we should be poor stewards of the planet? Of course not. Nor does it mean we should believe the hype-du-jour about global warming. Al Gore made an interesting movie. Michael Crichton wrote an interesting book (State of Fear - it's a work of fiction, but the thought process it espouses is legit). I'm not willing to buy either of them wholesale, but both give me things to think about.

I believe we should try to reduce our carbon emissions, etc, but NOT because "we clearly need to in order to save the planet." It's not at all clear that we need to in order to save the planet. It's not at all clear that we can even affect the planet, let alone save it.

However, reducing our carbon emissions has little to no potential down side. Continuing to spew carbon into the atmosphere might be perfectly harmless, but it also might be catastrophic. Very elementary risk analysis says that we should play it safe.

So I favor reducing carbon emissions, but in an intelligent way. Sadly, it seems that politicians are rarely intelligent so I don't believe that government regulation is the way to go.
Glenn Elliott
Post Reply