Based on personal experience with an inherited cellar that was passive and got up into that range in the summer vs. same wines stored in my temp-controlled cellar, the wines will age faster, but it will take more than 5 years for the difference to show.
FTFY 
Go buy 2 or 3 pairs of a wine you typically drink and are familiar with, put one of each in your cooler and the others in your passive storage. Then in a couple of years host a tasting with some friends and do a blind comparison. I do agree with what others have stated, though.
This is close to the temperature of a typical wine store, so you could also go into one of those where they have some older bottles. I have seen (for example) Leoville las Cases that had sat for 5 years in the store at that temperature and they were already tired, prematurely aged in some ways in that components of the wine had softened without developing extra character.
Most noticeable in the long haul. Despite the countless posts to the contrary, I have had many 1982 Bordeaux that struck me as slightly tired, which I attribute to storage at greater than 55F degrees or so. Examples include the 1982 Mouton (disappointing, purchased on the marked from somebody who I think stored at too high a temperature), two bottles of 1982 Ducru.
No one can give you a ‘definite’ answer because there is not one. How these wines will age will truly depend upon the wine itself - and whether or not you see temperature swings.
As others have said, elevated temps are no good for wines with any bacterial or yeast issues, including brett.
All in all, your wines will age a bit more ‘prematurely’ than if the wines were stored at 55 degrees . . .
Good luck!
Cheers
I did that exact experiment a few years back. I took 3 bottles each of three wines, a Muscadet, a German Riesling Kabinett and a Bourgogne Rouge, each from good to excellent producers. I stored one of each in my wine cellar (53-55 degrees), one of each in my basement (54 in winter up to 72 in summer) and one of each in an upstairs closet in an un-air conditioned room (60 in winter up to 80 in summer).
After 2 years I did a blind tasting with my group. I had my wife mix up the flights, so I would not know which version of each wine was which. None of the upstairs wines showed any damage, and none showed poorly. I’ll try to dig up the tasting notes sometime.
The wine will age “faster” to some degree, but not as well, since the “bad” chemical reactions speed up more than the “good” ones do. As temp continues to go up this difference becomes even greater.
Yeah, well that seems to be true at 55F as well. 
Do you have any evidence to support this?
I’m not very concerned about a bottle sitting in a wine store for 5 years at 70-72 degrees.
If it’s apparent the bottle has been exposed to sunlight over the same duration I’m extremely concerned.
I’m not sure my daily drinkers are excessibe enough for you ballers yet. ![[training.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/d0f39866e5714408d7091b0bd2d7bb764d7bb973.gif "[training.gif]"){kind=small}
I don’t know how anyone can say four, five, six years is going to make X difference.
From experience, keeping some wines at something in the 70s isn’t deadly to the wines. Keeping them at that temperature and then keeping them at a cooler temperature seems OK too. Keeping a cheap Argentine Bonarda at that temp isn’t a good idea. Keeping some cheap White or cheap Garnacha at that temp isn’t a good idea either. But keeping a good Riesling at that temp didn’t seem to hurt it. And as someone else said, that’s the avg temp profile of a typical store.
And brett reproduces rapidly over 60 degrees. So as Larry said, it really depends on the wine.
Ryan, thank you very much for that well written article. I know from studies that wine that gets more than 20 degrees Celsius is fubr, because encymes or proteines in it will change irreversible and this adds to wisdom.
It also makes clear that wines with lower pedegree is hurt in lesser time than Gran Crus
I do not buy nor keep wines with seepage because I think these wines have also seen it.
I read that a while ago but thought it offered only half an explanation . The science about chemical reactions and energy of activation is correct but I would have liked to know what the “bad” or “good” reactions are and how they affect the organoleptic perception of the wine as it ages. There’s no mention of that. I wonder if the reactions can all be characterized as “bad” or “good” or if there is also an issue of relative concentrations of some reaction products that are inherently neither “bad” nor “good.”
I think he just assumes that the “bad” reactions are sped up faster because of observations or perceptions or commonly held beliefs that wine ages less well at slightly higher temps. I happen to agree with that observation, long term anyway, but the article didn’t help me understand why.
Thank you for the link Nick. I think David does a nice job of summarizing my thoughts on that article, though he is far kinder than I. There’s no actual evidence that the author knows anything about the specific reactions he’s referring to. The data are unsupported and, as David said, likely based on the author’s own impressions. No hypothesis is tested and no actual experiment is performed.
I have a difficult time accepting any article, even one cloaked in science-speak, that concludes by recommending that wine be put in the microwave for 20 seconds.
Someday I wish the guy who owns/runs Rulo would chime in on this topic. As an anaesthesiologist and wine maker, he probably has the best grasp on the chemistry of this topic
Agree that most wines will be fine. But that temp will be bad for wines with some Brett and various low/no sulfur wines, at a minimum. Maybe wines that have enough RS to risk secondary fermentation.
…but there is no science saying that this practice is harmful to the wine! Theoretically, it shouldn’t affect much other than the temperature, assuming the wine doesn’t get hot. I’ve nuked reds from the fridge (more like 8 seconds in my microwave), with no discernible adverse effects.