Thread: Climate change--getting to practical application

One problem with climate science is the focus is too broad. If you are a farmer, or a city planner designing a water project, or building a nuke next to a large river, it does little good to know the average global change to rain, sunshine, temperature or anything else. What you need is a good estimate of what will happen at your location and in your region. The story below is one such example. It looks at specific effects on the California wine industry over the next few decades.

Climate change sours outlook for California grapes: study

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Cli...#ixzz1QyukaHn5

The Hockey Schtick disagrees with this latest AGW scare.

Despite a marked increase in California grape production, alarmist study predicts collapse of wine industry.

A study released today from Stanford University, aka Global Warming Central, claims the California wine industry will collapse due to global warming, despite the marked increase in California grape production of approximately 400% along the North Coast, 2500% along the Central Coast, 1500% in the Central Valley, and 800% in the Southern Valley of California over the past 30 years of global warming.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...alifornia.html

Dave - Can you please explain how grape production in the region over the past 30 years has any impact whatsoever on the article posted in the OP regarding what will happen to grape production in the next few decades if the warmer temperatures anticipated come to pass?

I'm pretty sure you can't, because they're not related. You've posted an article which is little more than non-sequiturs and well-poisoning which was offered to feed idiots who barely understand this material and would rather bury their heads in the sand to ignore reality (like you), but I'd like to offer you the chance to try. Thanks.

Excellent example of hyperbole.

The actual study doesn't predict a collapse, but of course your biased source makes that claim anyway.

The so called temperature graph is not surface temperature, excludes the poles where most of the global heating is strongest, and is by definition not climate change because it's too short a period. It also is not California which was the whole point of the thread.

Lastly the increase in grapes until now is largely due to more acres planted, better use of pesticides and irrigation.

Originally Posted by inow

Dave - Can you please explain how grape production in the region over the past 30 years has any impact whatsoever on the article posted in the OP regarding what will happen to grape production in the next few decades if the warmer temperatures anticipated come to pass.

The grape production over the last thirty years is hard fact. The OP regarding future grape production is purely hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Excellent example of hyperbole.

The actual study doesn't predict a collapse, but of course your biased source makes that claim anyway.

The so called temperature graph is not surface temperature, excludes the poles where most of the global heating is strongest, and is by definition not climate change because it's too short a period. It also is not California which was the whole point of the thread.

Lastly the increase in grapes until now is largely due to more acres planted, better use of pesticides and irrigation.

Perhaps the Hockey Schtick blog is not the best presented counter argument to the OP. I will have a look around when I have more time. I do not see anything wrong in challenging you guys.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Perhaps the Hockey Schtick blog is not the best presented counter argument to the OP. I will have a look around when I have more time. I do not see anything wrong in challenging you guys.

There is nothing wrong with questioning but you're right you'll need far better sources and a basic understanding of the science and better sense of BS websites/blogs when you see them.

Find it ironic you have a Reagan photo on your sig. I too was a Reagan fan, and haven't forgotten, like too many current republicans, that he championed getting rid of CFCs and did a lot towards reducing acid rain emission including laying the ground work for a sulfur cap and trade system. I'm pretty sure if president today he'd accept man-made climate change as a fact and put forward bold leadership towards solving the problem. Of course there's no way to be sure.

Prince is ALMOST certain dotcomrade iNow claimed on another thread that results of given course of action are unknowable.

Naturally, all such predictions regarding alleged anthropogenic global warming are exceptions, but why?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Perhaps the Hockey Schtick blog is not the best presented counter argument to the OP. I will have a look around when I have more time. I do not see anything wrong in challenging you guys.

There is nothing wrong with questioning but you're right you'll need far better sources and a basic understanding of the science and better sense of BS websites/blogs when you seen them.

Find it ironic you have a Reagan photo on your sig. I too was a Reagan fan, and haven't forgotten like too many current republicans what he championed getting rid of CFCs and did a lot towards reducing acid rain emission including laying the ground work for a sulfur cap and trade system. I'm pretty if president today he'd accept man-made climate change as a fact and put forward bold leadership towards solving the problem. Of course there's no way to be sure.

IF Reagan were alive today Nancy would still be telling him what to do based on horoscope, IF temperature affects California vineyards, and IF a frog had wings, these would not all be hypothetical propositions.

You are right, no way to be sure.

PS, Prince is still waiting for "trickle down" effect in vogue during Reagan years to materialize, will he see this before flying frogs?

Prince is no wine drinker and could care less about Napa Valley winebags, plenty people hurting worse right now, AGW or as seems more likely, no AGW.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

I'm ALMOST certain iNow claimed on another thread that results of a course of action are unknowable.

Naturally, all such predictions regarding alleged anthropogenic global warming are exceptions, but why?

The other thread did not discuss models for the prediction. If they had they would have found a pretty thin basis for the estimates with little understanding of Japan's willingness to continue the war and virtually no idea about Japan's internal defenses. The Department of War predicted between 25-40K American deaths to invade Japan. The Navy, just coming off the bloodiest battle of the war to take one tiny Island, objected and claimed up to half a million would be needed--it's doubtful the President ever saw the official estimates.

In this case there's a hundred years of solid climate science both behind regional prediction temperature combined with the science of wine growing. It is hypothetical but based on a forecast that's already happening with reasonably high certainty.

Also, it's a bit of a strawman, anyway. At no point did anyone claim to "know" with certainty anything. The data suggests this will be an issue in the future. The likelihood is high. That is not equivalent to my challenge to The_Finger_Prince (aka Elmo) in the other thread where he claimed to know how many people would have died in WWII had the bomb not been dropped.

This thread is not about the bomb. It's about a study that the anticipated climate is going to have an anticipated effect on the vineyards, and that Dave_Wilson's response was asinine and had nothing to do with the OP.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by inow

Dave - Can you please explain how grape production in the region over the past 30 years has any impact whatsoever on the article posted in the OP regarding what will happen to grape production in the next few decades if the warmer temperatures anticipated come to pass.

The grape production over the last thirty years is hard fact. The OP regarding future grape production is purely hypothetical.

Thanks, but you've failed rather horribly to answer my actual question.

Originally Posted by inow

Dave_Wilson's response was asinine and had nothing to do with the OP.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by inow

Dave - Can you please explain how grape production in the region over the past 30 years has any impact whatsoever on the article posted in the OP regarding what will happen to grape production in the next few decades if the warmer temperatures anticipated come to pass.

The grape production over the last thirty years is hard fact. The OP regarding future grape production is purely hypothetical.

Thanks, but you've failed rather horribly to answer my actual question.

inow, you have got to be the rudest person on this forum. I suspect that you would not be so foolish as to be so rude to people outside of this forum. I will look for some more fitting data that you can pooh pooh at your leisure

Shall I apologize that you're offended by the truth?

Nice information given about different environmental issues
======================
webdesign

Originally Posted by inow

That is not equivalent to my challenge to The_Finger_Prince (aka Elmo) in the other thread where he claimed to know how many people would have died in WWII had the bomb not been dropped.

Oh? Refresh Prince's memory as to actual figure he allegedly claimed, inow smellfungus.

Actually, all winebags have to fear is computer models and usual vissicitudes of weather and markets. Nothing new.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Originally Posted by inow

That is not equivalent to my challenge to The_Finger_Prince (aka Elmo) in the other thread where he claimed to know how many people would have died in WWII had the bomb not been dropped.

Oh? Refresh Prince's memory as to actual figure he allegedly claimed, inow smellfungus.

You may not realize this, but it's implicit in your argument. Instead of stating your points as opinion and preference, you stated them as facts, and they were not.


http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=298009#298009

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Firebombing is equally reprehensible, and your inference is groundless. The Japanese position was untenable, the Allies knew it and so did the Japanese. Blockade would have been more humane than bombing. And were bombing necessary, something like the Berlin airlift would have been an option to convince them of our benign intentions and make them more amenable to surrender.

Originally Posted by inow

It could be argued that the bombings prevented future deaths from battles with countries like Russia. You simply cannot state (and maintain any degree of credibility or validity) that more people died as a result of the bombing than would have without it.

You don't know, nobody knows, and nobody can know... Period. The downstream implications are complex at best, and incomprehensible at worst. Those bombings may have prevented dictatorial leaders elsewhere from mounting attacks for fear of similar response from the US. The lack of those bombings may have caused the Japanese people to focus more on war than on medicine and technology, and millions could have died from that.

I don't know. You don't know. You can disagree that it was the proper choice, but you cannot continue making such unequivocal statements and pretending that your opinion is fact while hoping to maintain any credibility in this discussion.

Let's, however, keep that discussion in the correct thread and not derail yet another here (like you seem to enjoy so much).

This thread is on Environmental Issues, specifically some recently published information on the likely impact of climate change (based on research) in the context of California vineyards, not Politics or war history.

I have had a quick look at the web page of the Californian Wine Institute. They utter not one word, of the environmental disaster, that is about to overtake them. I wonder why this is.

http://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/pressroom

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

I have had a quick look at the web page of the Californian Wine Institute. They utter not one word, of the environmental disaster, that is about to overtake them. I wonder why this is.

http://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/pressroom

You didnt' look very hard. They have a bunch of mention of climate, climate change reports and wine growers groups to adjust to things.
See here:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/search/node/climate+change

And honestly the report didn't predict a disaster, only a downturn in capacity to grow the higher priced wine producing grapes.