Napa 'unsuitable' for premium wine in 30 years: study

After at least 3 cold years/summers in a row and this winter looks even worse than last, it appears to be just more typical "the sky is falling" propaganda - served-up continually by our state SofPH academia types. Who funded the study and why usually tells a lot and should be included along with every report like this. And oh lets not forget the modeling which can and is regularly manipulated to produce the researchers "funders" needs! If I were to say with my model that nothing is likely to change in 30-years - that story would never get printed. You have to wonder why that is. One thing is for sure, that type of research is not likely to be ever peer-reviewed - which typically legitimizes studies!
Cheers Brrrr...

If you've ever spent any time in Paso Robles during the summer you know that you don't need weather data to know that it is much hotter there than in Napa.

Also, while it is local data shows no change the average used for the generation of the average is over too broad of a time period to show the relatively short term change we are experiencing.

I think this study is way off because it assumes the weather is an isolated event controlled only by the upper atmosphere. What is really happening from my observations is that climate change is causing colder summers in northern California. As the stationary high over the center of the U.S. (the one that is causing the record breaking heat this summer in most of the U.S.) gets stronger and more stationary, as it has done over the past three summers, it is drawing a stationary low pressure system down from the gulf of Alaska thus influencing Pacific Coast weather. The marine layer is thicker and comes inland further than before. It clears later in the day or not at all along the Russian River Coast. This makes for lower daytime highs and colder nights. We are in our third year of cold summers here and last year we dropped tons of fruit that either didn't get ripe or got moldy from the fog, cold and early rains, also caused I think by climate change. We'll be growing Pinot in Napa if this keeps up. We are carrying 30 to 40% less clusters on our vineyards this summer to make up for the fewer degree hours per year. I think this pattern is here to stay.

Actually, according to university studies Napa is not a premium wine growing area now. It has gotten hotter there on average in the last decades along with a lack of vital temperature swings. The only Premium Grape Growing area in California according to university scientists is the western most region of the Central Coast in the Paso Robles region.

Does the Stanford study consider local weather station data that has been collected? An inconvient truth: the actual local data shows no change in daytime temperatures in the Napa Valley over the last 80 years.

Good news for Washington state, British Columbia, Niagara, New York state, etc. I'm sure someone will be ready to take care of us wine drinkers which ever way it goes.

Taken together, these studies suggest that the Napa Valley community would be wise to be thinking and talking about the possibility of an endangered and possibly changing economic base in the relatively near term future. It's practical to think and plan ahead for the possibility of this kind of change. Then, if it does occur, Napa is ready for it as a community. As someone who grew up on a farm, I appreciate how adaptable the farming community can be in response to changes in prices, technology, and weather.

Complete rubbish

The term 'global warming' generally refers to the man-made impact on natural systems. It is true that there are natural changes in Earth's climate - but there is NO evidence of any radical short-term changes such as we have witnessed in recent decades. In addition, the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are undeniable - and there is no natural source of that CO2 (if you know of one, please tell the world's scientific community that studies this stuff day in and day out). In addition, the role of CO2 in the atmosphere (greenhouse effect) is likewise well known and described - you can deny it all you want - but you can also deny that the sky is blue on a clear day if you would like.

Very important research. Good job.

Note to self, do not buy any 2041 Futures from Napa.

Unfortunately, Mr. Downes, the science is not on your side.

Growers have a third option, which being commonsense folks, most will choose: Wait and see. In 2008, California’s North Coast experienced the worst spring frost in 40 years. Then came the coolest growing season on record in both Oregon and California in 2010. At present, we’re in the midst of an instant replay of 2010 in both Oregon and California. These realities, coupled with “Climategate’s” revelation that we should -- at a minimum -- remain skeptical of forecasts like Mr. Diffenbaugh’s, have me firmly in the wait-and-see camp.

Yeah, and we could all be dead tomorrow from a car accident. Congratulations to the authors of the study: they have obatined their 15 minutes of fame based on "What if?" projections. What if their calculations are wrong?
Kudos to you, you "sucked me into" connecting to this link.

Hey John, I think you are referring to 'man made' global warming, and not just global warming in general. Because, anyone that actually graduated High School knows that global warming is a real, NATURAL phenomenon, just like ice ages. The only debate is the extent to which humans are affecting it. And none of that is mentioned in this article, so great job in making something out of nothing!

They are will intended but not total in their picture. In actual fact the accepted norm is that Sacramento's climate will increase in temperature to represent what Bakersfield now is. That in turn would cause more convective activity which sucks the cool moist fog off of the Alaskan coooled waters of California thus Napa will cool down and become more Bordeaux like.

Climate is exceedingly complex and the result of many dozens of variables, many of which are not well understood. Models are based on a fraction of these variables and assumptions regarding their interaction and feedbacks are made. These are compared to actual data. Assumptions that don’t mirror past results are rejected and modified until they do. This will give you a model that largely predicts the future based on the past. In the Napa Valley where all the NOAA weather stations have been strongly affected by urban growth in and around the stations (urban heat effect) a model that conforms with the Napa Valley's past cannot possibly predict its future.

These simplistic studies of wine regions really irritate me. Just ask yourself what the temperature is on either side of your house and explain how they can extrapolate the data to this level. The effects of climate change are way more complicated than this real estate sales job. i wish this nonsense would stop because it makes a great headline but there's no fact in pure speculation, scientifically structured or not.

It appears the study also believes that growers will do nothing to viticultural practices that can manage the impacts of increased heat. One has to beg the question "What and now is suitable defined" when claiming 50% of the land will be unsuitable.

Growers understand micro climates of their properties, how to manage canaopy for sun protection and for fungal protection and much more.

Without dealing with the debate if warming is to occur, the real truth is about how growers and producers ADAPT to any change. I have only heard about adaptation from those who are actually growing high end grapes and that it will simply all become unsuitable from the scientists. Truth is not at either extreme

This is a tragic case of reusing inadequate data and trading on the renown of Napa Valley to sensationalize a study that engages one data point from the Napa Valley for its research to draw conclusions. Here, 95% of the producers in the appellation are small, family farmers whose livelihoods are at stake by such irresponsible forecasting. Much of this information is from a ten-year old study by the Oregon Wine Commission that failed to look at specific data for the Napa Valley appellation which has experience very minimal warming over the past fifty years—in fact only one degree Fahrenheit in overnight temperatures in winter to spring.
The Napa Valley Climate Study (presented at Vinexpo in late June) was completed earlier this year by Dr. Dan Cayan of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and Dr. Kim Nicholas of Stanford University who studied under Chris Field who shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore. After four years of examining 12,000 data points throughout the region, the conclusion is that what is needed is continued data collection to forecast what the future of Napa Valley might look like with global climate change since to date it is not happening. Longer growing seasons are a style choice by winemakers not a result of climate change.
In fact, the warmest years on record over the past decade have been the coolest years for the Napa Valley—a mix of the region’s very complex micro-climates, position in relation to the Pacific Ocean and the buffering mountains from California’s Central Valley make the forecasting wildly complex.
Here in Napa Valley we believe climate change is very real, but how regions around the world are affected by the changes will be very different—it’s not a blanket effect, so local data and research is required. This newly reported study also fails to examine what in-field practices can be adapted if warming occurs—low tech solutions like canopy management and extending cover crops will go a long way to mitigating additional warmth. It is simple and uninformed to say that one would pick up and move to Yamhill to make outstanding Napa-esque wines. That region does not enjoy the dry, Mediterranean climate, the diurnal temperature of cool nights and warm days because of overnight coastal fog and the myriad other factors that make Napa Valley the region of note that it is today.
Terry Hall, Napa Valley Vintners

There are more "could"s than "will"s in this article. I will believe it when the big names move out of Napa!

"For the present study the team assumed a 23% increase in greenhouse gases by 2040, which would amount to a 1C increase in global temperature."

And people believe this BS? It cannot be repeated often enough... Global Warming is just a scam. A hoax, which is making some people very rich and impoverishing the many.