Your ability to keep a promise is evidently poor. But your ability to misread, quote of context, and put up straw men remains as good as ever.
There was this thread last year that covers some of this discussion:
I did this test over the span of 10 years.
3 bottles of Turley Hayne Vineyard zinfandel went into commercial storage, 3 bottles went into my passive cellar that ranges from 58-71F throughout the year (with very gradual temperature swings, nothing dramatic). There was a noticeable difference at the 10 year mark. Consistent across the 2 bottles/each I opened, the passively cooled wines were showing prunes/raisins/browning while the cooler storage were still youthful and vibrant:
-
2004 Turley Zinfandel Hayne Vineyard - USA, California, Napa Valley, St. Helena (9/7/2014)
Stored at ideal cellar temp since release, this wine is still showing strong. Tons of spice, black fruit. Viscous, sweet, full bodied.
While its not a large sample size, it was definitive enough for me.
I also learned about palate shift. 
The problem with accelerated aging is the bad chemical reactions outweigh the good reactions as the temperature rises.
If aging wine correctly were as easy as storing it at higher temperatures, there would be no such thing as wine cellars or wine refrigerators. Chateaus wouldn’t use caves, they’d have greenhouses.
I did a 2 year experiment a few years back with bottles at cellar temp, variable basement temp and upstairs un-air conditioned temps and there was minimal difference.
Details on the storage and the subsequent tasting are here: WineLovers Discussion Group • View topic - WTN: WLDG Aging Experiment (Muscadet, Riesling, Burg)
I did this with a couple of cases of 1983 Prieure Lichine. One stored passively with seasonal gradual fluctuations from 65-75 degrees and the other at a steady 55 degrees. Started opening them 10 years out. Differences were apparent, with the passive bottles showing more mature. This was to their advantage early on, but they started to lose fruit and pleasure sooner than the actively stored bottles. Did some of the tastings blind, others not. Consistent results either way.
10 years is enough to make a real difference.
Be careful, you’re making assumptions that aren’t known fact - which is what the article in the thread I linked back to a few posts above does. But yeah, I think that’s pretty much it ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
VERY interesting. Kinda makes me want to take some big Cabs and split them up - half the case at room temp, the other half at cellar temp. The room temp ones will be ready to drink in less time, then switch over to the cellar temp half.
+1.
I agree. My passive cellar ranges from 50-65F over a year. When I first started cellaring wine, I held bottles for 10 years. These wines were borderline over-the-hill (for my palate). I also observed major bricking and tasted muted fruit. Under my cellar conditions, I now hold wine for only 7-8 years max for syrah; only 6 years for cab and pinot; 5 years for zin and chard - it works for me.
Boiling a ham will save a year or more of low temp dry aging; prosciutto in only 15 minutes! Iberian ham in 20!
I can nuke cottage cheese for 6 minutes and get aged Parmesan!
I actually looked at this as part of my Masters Thesis, but only for about a 6 month period. I took the same wine after pressing - actually over a dozen different wines - and placed them in temperature controlled rooms in the pomolgy department. The temps were 5 degrees C, 10 degrees C, 20 degrees C and 30 degrees celcius. I looked at many different chemical markers - anthocyanins, different types of tannins, etc.
The take home message to me was that the cooler the temperature, the less these factors change over time. Therefore, if you have a wine that you want to age as slowly as possible, put it in the coldest place possible (not sure I would freeze it, but 40 degrees F would work). Likewise, if you wanted to accelerate aging, place it in the warmest place possible . . . without it getting cooked.
I agree with those that have said that you definitely should plan on opening multiple bottles from each location each time you want to get a data point due to bottle variation. I would suggest perhaps using a cheaper wine 
Have fun and keep us posted . . .
Cheers!
What kind of wine? For ten years, I had a cellar in San Francisco that ranged from 55 to mid-60s most of the year and a few weeks at 75 in the fall (that’s the ambient temperature; the actual wine temperature would be tempered by thermal mass). Twenty-three years after moving east, the remaining wines from that period (mostly Bordeaux and Red Rhone) are fine, with no signs of advanced aged.
Your experience sounds to me like it may have been a function of the wines more than the storage.
Just thinking off the cuff, I would suppose that since many chemical reactions are taking place at various rates, the rate differentials between reactions are smaller at lower temps. As temp increases, some reaction rates will not change much, while others’ rates will increase dramatically. The result will be a different balance of the final results of the various reactions.
I’m sure it’s not by accident that wine makers and drinkers have determined over the years that moderately cool temps offer a balance between 1) allowing various reactions to occur and 2) keeping the differentials of reaction rates minimized; i.e., allowing the wine to age in a balanced fashion with a good end result withing a reasonable time!
But, a little experimentation is great - go for it!
You make a very good point. The wines were mainly California Cabs and probably not the best candidates for long-term cellaring. OTOH, I would expect that your Bdx and Rhones probably demanded some extended aging. I admit I like my wine a bit on the young side, but since those early years, I have been able to purchase and cellar better (more cellar worthy) wines and under my cellar conditions and for my taste, my cellar time frames stated above still work for me.
I think I recall Greg Tatar arguing that the magical 55F had more to do with the natural temperature of British cellars than with science.
Some friends in a wine group of mine inadvertently conducted a similar experiment some years back. (I’ve posted on this before.) They split a case of 1990 JJ Prum Wehlener Sonnenuhr – I can’t remember if it was a Spatlese or Auslese. One stored it in his un-air-conditioned NYC apartment closet, the other with temperature control.
This is a brown-bag group, where everyone brings a bottle and serves it blind to the group. Eight or ten years after they purchased the wine, by coincidence, they both brought this wine the same night. The one that had been properly stored was noticeably fresher and fruitier, though the closet-stored one wasn’t dead or cooked.
But a word of caution: Several years ago, the closet man and I both brought the same current-release Willi Shaeffer Graacher Kabinett on the same night. Both bottles were purchased at the same store a day or two before the tasting. The bottles were not recognizable as the same wine, even though they were likely from the same case with, presumably, identical storage conditions. So… there are lots of imponderables when it comes to wine.
I agree with your hypothesis.
Do you know of any evidence in support of that hypothesis as long as it is “reasonable” temperatures (say 10-20 C) we are talking about? Of course the difference in reaction rates will be greater in absolute terms as the temperature increases. But it may well be the same in ratio terms (reaction X taking place at twice the rate of reaction Y for example), which is what matters for the final composition of the wine.
The ratios would be the same only to the degree that the reactions have the same activation energies. See the Arrhenius equation you cited earlier.
-Al