Well, there is the Heat Zone system.

That would be great to have, I know my area in the mountain west gets fairly hot and dry during the day and relatively cold at night. To top it off the growing season is shorter than most other zone 6 areas and the UV is more intense. The funny thing is that fruit ripens almost at the same time here as they do in the rest of the zone 6 areas even though we are 3-4 weeks behind. The USDA says I am in zone 6b but I think it should really be 5b, as it gets down to -10 to -15 almost every year.
Last would you include the soil type for the zone such as alkaline clay?
All of this is good info to know even according to zone charts its possible to grow blueberries and honey berries but they don't work. Meanwhile gooseberries, Stone fruit and apples thrive.

Last would you include the soil type for the zone such as alkaline clay?

That's not going to work. Soil type has only a very, very tangential relationship with climate so nearly impossible to relate to a hardiness zone. And soils can change dramatically even within a very small geographical area.

The cultural information on the plants' requirements is available from various sources, especially with fruits - bloom time, chill hours, heat units, ripening/harvest dates, etc. It's just a matter of putting that together with your specific climate and growing conditions to get the proper combination. Otherwise, it's like trying to put round pegs into square holes :-)

As experienced gardeners, there's just a certain amount of information one has to have at hand to succeed, your own specific growing conditions being the biggest factor. Much of this is garnered from experience -- things like first and last frost dates (the typical measuring sticks of the growing season), how hot your summers tend to be, how cold the winters, average monthly rainfall, etc. -- but there are other sources to help you fill in this data. Your local extension service, Farmer's Almanac, local weather bureau are just a few. And the USDA heat zone map referenced above.

But all of this info is very site specific. This is where the term 'microclimate' comes into play -- conditions can change significantly within a small area based on topography, prevailing winds, proximity to bodies of water, even surrounding vegetation. There are just far too many variables to make any kind of detailed 'zone' information the slightest bit practical. About as close as one can get is the Sunset zone system, which does take into consideration some of these factors but again is only a 'guesstimate' of a plant's ability to thrive and produce in any given area.

What it comes down to is any zonal information, no matter how detailed, is only a guide not a rule book. Your own experience and knowledge, as well as that of neighboring gardeners sharing similar conditions, is always going to be your best reference material.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sunset climate zones

All of this is good info to know even according to zone charts its possible to grow blueberries and honey berries but they don't work

Soil types would be hard. In MI they vary quickly and often. It could not go by zip code. You would have to use address.
btw I have alkaline clay but grow blueberries fine. I have 7 plants, I use raised beds.
The USDA changed zones because of warming and it is turning out to be a huge mistake. We went from 5b to 6a, and we did get 5b temps last winter too.
I guess we know this anyway. I would think you could grow honeyberries, not sure I understand why not? Too much light?
Also nurseries seem to extend zones anyway, I have seen many plants labeled 5 and can't even grow in zone 6. So fixing the system would not correct that.

This post was edited by Drew51 on Thu, Nov 6, 14 at 11:52

Maybe it's controversial with some people, but to my mind climate change is going to make any "system" somewhat haphazard. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to make sense of things and do what we can. Just that there's quite a monkey wrench in the works now, I think.

There's also the Sunset Climate Zone system.

I'd like three specific numbers- one for winter lows and one for growing season average temps, and one (maybe 2) for average length of growing seasons between frosts and between hard frosts.

I used to use the Sunset system when I was in CA decades ago but I don't know what they consider in compiling it. A single number cannot work.

The planet is getting warmer, but that would just require updates every few years. Even Fox News is beginning to waffle, and in a few more years their people and all their favorite politicians will act as though they always believed the science.

That's politics for you, left or right (but more right in my opin. cause I'm a proud lefty albeit an unorthodox one) Of course, Florida may be under water by then- but they need Louisiana, Texas, etc, so they may not wait that long. Rising oceans are tough to ignore.

That's politics for you

Go that right! The science shows we are cooling, as a scientist myself, I concur. It's kinda scary how fast the ice caps are growing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Global cooling

This post was edited by Drew51 on Thu, Nov 6, 14 at 13:27

The science shows we are cooling, as a scientist myself, I concur. It's kinda scary how fast the ice caps are growing.

'Scuse me?? On what planet are you living??

Well it's semantics. In the last 100 years the earth has been warming. But since 1997 . the last 17 years we have been cooling. Nobody disputes this. Nobody disagrees.
Data is from Nasa and NOAA.
I ask you the same question? Where you been? Don't you follow the news?
So the debate continues if the long term trend is correct or not? This year NOAA confirmed the cooling trend by it's release of raw data, see link. The Russians and others confirm a cooling trend in Europe too. The Aussies think we are heading towards an ice age.
I myself hope we are warming long term. It would mean a better life for all. We will have an ice age, and if global warming can delay it, that would be great. Besides the fact humans live longer in warmer zones. Food production is better in warmer zones. Increased CO2 is fantastic for plant growth. It is an essential gas for life on earth.
I myself think it is incorrect. For a number of reasons. If you deny global warming and are in the climate industry, you will lose you job. As documented all over the net. The UN consensus that say 90% agree are actually 75 people. 6 thousand scientists signed a petition saying it's not true.
Historical records show CO2 increases when the earth heats up. Not the other way around The earth does not heat up when CO2 increases. The last 17 years we have had the highest CO2 levels ever recorded (.04% of atmosphere), yet clearly we are cooling in the last 17 years. How do you explain that? Well the great Frank Zappa said "When you don't understand something, look at the bottom line." The US government has billions of dollars available for research, it's a gold mine for scientists at Universities and such. But if you give info that denies global warming your grants are cut off. This also is well documented all over the net. So give them want they want and the gravy train continues. Thanks Frank!! I got it now!
Another factor coming into play is the low sun spot activity, this should cool the earth. The sun is not as hot as it was. In the last 20 years. The most sun spots ever were observed. Now they are going way down. Last time that happened was the great mini ice age. Expect colder and colder winters at least for the next 15 years. Once in awhile the winters will be warm, but most in the next 15 years will be very cold. The Farmer's Almanac predicts 40 below temps this winter, but a shorter winter. Last year they were the only ones who called for a record cold winter, they were right on.
I just can't ignore all this info, sorry, it looks like global warming is a farce, but only time will tell us for sure.

Here is a link that might be useful: NOAA report

This post was edited by Drew51 on Thu, Nov 6, 14 at 14:57

I think your facts are a little iffy. Okay - a LOT iffy.

NASA disagrees with your contention that we are in a cooling trend: long term global warming trend

Even NOAA expresses a different viewpoint: warming climate indicators

There's a bit of a significant difference between weather extremes - like an exceptionally cold winter or increase in the severity of winter storms - than an overall cooling trend. Actually, weather extremes are closley related to the effects of climate warming.......surely as a scientist you should know this. Arctic warming can lead to a weakened jet stream resulting in more persistent weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. And Arctic sea ice loss can lead to an increase of snow on high-latitude land, which in turn impacts the jet stream resulting in cold Eurasian and North American winters. So as contradictory as it may seem, colder winters are a direct result of climate warming.

And the fact that the polar icecaps are shrinking - not growing - is undisputable. From NASA: collapse of west Antarctica ice sheet and also Arctic ice cap melting

And NOAA: Arctic ice changes with graphics.

Give it up, Drew. You really don't know what you are talking about. No one with any kind of reasonable intelligence can argue that rising sea levels - a direct result of climate warming and polar ice melt - is a good thing.

This post was edited by gardengal48 on Thu, Nov 6, 14 at 15:09

Drew, I'm sorry, but we might as well just agree to disagree on this. I've been right here and my sources just don't jibe with yours nor does a single educated person I know with a college education seem to be in touch with your sources, but maybe that's just my crowd, OK?

I already said what my general political perspective is, so if you think that's why I believe as I do, that's fine. Certainty is an emotion- people find the data they want to- you, me, everyone.

I didn't mean to start this up again, it's just that I just listened to a recently elected congress woman from Alaska talking about how obvious it is for Alaskans to see the affects of warming from the meltdown that is occurring there- she just claims the science of why isn't settled. I've been hearing more of this form that camp lately so I assumed there was a shift occurring, but I could well be wrong.

NASA disagrees with your contention that we are in a cooling trend: long term global warming trend

I agree with that as I already have stated, long term we are warming. No arguments from me.

I also agree with the other links. Yes the Antarctic should be decreasing this time of year. In winter, we need to see what happens. And if the Arctic when it starts to melt this winter, how much it will melt? Yes I agree with all of that as very true. It doesn't change my opinion in the least. It is as expected. If the Antarctic were not melting this time of year, I would be in a panic and moving as close to the equator as possible!

Hey so you don't agree, we can agree to disagree. I have no interest in convincing anybody. I just laid out my logic for my beliefs. You asked, I answered. Take it or leave it. I don't care.
One thing I would like to add, then I'm done is politicians make great amounts of money by regulating industry. If CO2 can be regulated, it's big bucks for politicians. Al Gore made 100 or 200 grand a year as a politician. When he left he was worth 100 million. He is worth about 300 million now. Says it all.

Honey berries do grow here just very poorly and loose most of their leaves in the summer, that is in almost full shade to. I think it is an issue with too much heat and light.

Hman, hey you're a good guy, I ,love ya man, no worries!
Gardengal is OK too. I just don't buy it I'm with the 31 thousand American scientists! (yes Hman, many with degrees don't buy it). Nasa presents it's data in a way to show what they want. They excuse the cooling trend. many abstracts about it are on the NOAA site.I worked with data all day, part of my job, if you look they are not including recent events (for example many of the abstracts end in 2009, and don't include recent years, it would mess up their conclusions!). I find it hysterical!
I'm going to attempt to explain in laymen's terms. If you check out the cooling trend abstracts on the NOAA site, they are from 1997 to 2009. The reason they do this is because statistically in this time period, you can dismiss trend as statistically insignificant, and argue the warming trend continues. But if you extend the data to present day, 2014, the trend becomes statistically significant, and shows an end to the warming trend. This year they were forced to release current data, thus confirming a true cooling trend. Not one mention of it though on their site. Well again only to dismiss, but conveniently in presentation leave recent data out of the calculations.
You know they were caught three times changing historical data. Had to change it back. Overall the ice caps are now increasing, it's right there for all to see. Don't read the conclusions, look at the data only. Clear as the day is long.
BTW gardengal none of your imbedded links work, I had to look them up myself.
I tried to show how to embed, but I can't get it not to work!
My bad
Oregon Petition

Kinda ironic really, reminds of that recent song I'm the man, I'm the man, I'm the man yes I am, yes I am,yes I am

Here is a link that might be useful: GWPP

This post was edited by Drew51 on Thu, Nov 6, 14 at 16:45

Hmmmm..... the links work fine for me.

And while I am guessing that this has become an entirely pointless discussion at this stage of denial, here are the links, should you decide you might want to increase your knowledge base. Just cut and paste.

NASA #1 long term global warming trend
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/

NOAA #1 warming climate indicators http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA #2 collapse of west Antarctic ice sheet
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

NASA #3 Arctic ice cap melting
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

NOAA #2 Arctic ice change graphics
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

Well, I'd still like a better zone system. Daamm, I think I hijacked my own thread.

The only way you get a cooling trend is if you use exactly 17 years (because we had a warm winter that year). If you use 20, its drastic warming. Use 14? Drastic warming.

17 years is the definition of cherry picking. It's not even wrong, it's just silly.

Harvestman, I don't think it's too much to ask when there are online maps of most streets with detailed pictures just a click away.

For many years here in the west we've had the sunset climate zones that factor in a lot of variables. Coastal influences, elevation and other considerations are used to identify each zone in a unique way. It seems that some zones have been extended to other parts of the country.

Here is a link that might be useful: Find your U.S. Sunset climate zone

I'm not sure how satellite mapping (like Google Earth) translates to ease of developing desired zone information. One has nothing to do with the other.........

Here are some quotes I agree with

âÂÂThe greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels" - Deepak Lal, Cato Institute senior fellow and author of âÂÂPoverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty,âÂÂ

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, âÂÂfreeâÂÂ, and âÂÂrenewableâ alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffersâ¦. It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.- Prof. Larry Bell, author, âÂÂClimate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,âÂÂ

âÂÂOur ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we donâÂÂt even know what itâÂÂs going to do, so how can we make a policy that says âÂÂI want to make the climate do somethingâ when we donâÂÂt know what makes the climate do what it does?... None of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. TheyâÂÂve certainly failed in the past.* And so the policy is really a foolâÂÂs errand at this point.âÂÂ-Prof. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama/Huntsville

* So true in 2007 we are supposed have most of the artic ice cap melted according to the projection models whereas it has increased by 29% from 2012. The ice cap is growing.
None of the models have been correct, and we want to make policy based on these models? That's crazy!

Speaking of climate, next week in the Midwest we plunge into winter temps once again in the fall as we dip into the lower 20's for an extended time. Winter is coming early this year. The 17 year long cold weather trend continues on.
The global cooling deniers have egg on their face once again.

Burn a tire and save a tree!

This post was edited by Drew51 on Fri, Nov 7, 14 at 7:22

Drew has an intensely local view of these things. But he is right as far as Michigan is concerned. I will in fact get out of here for Xmas, go to Italy, where olive trees have migrated 200 miles to the North in 20 years, and where mangoes and avocados have jumped the Mediterranean. Being in the far South, I should be able to swim in the sea. It helps that in the summer the Mediterranean is now consistently 86-88F at the surface. The whole country was frost free last year, except in the mountains. I'd go to Spain instead, but it has become too desertified to be enjoyable.

HM, what you want, in the face of a rapidly changing climate, may not be very useful. Best to plant trees in the middle of their zone range, it is some protection.

I don't know if the climate will be warmer or colder in the next 10-20 years. Even if I did, I would probably not do anything different.
My views on this post- I am disgusted at how government and it's various agencies can lie to the public and not have any consequences.
I also find it interesting how some can state their view and be done with it, while others go to greater lengths by several posts to prove that they are right.

Benny

Sunset isn't particularly useful either - I'm in VA, and they've got parts of the state that are USDA 6a in the same zone (32) as parts of the state that are 8a.

They take some interesting things into account that the USDA zones don't, but there are an awful lot of huge temperature gaps that they ignore.

Actually Harvestman's proposal is a good one and would make a good Master's project in horticulture I suspect.

The national weather data is there and readily accessible.

Just need collation, calculating the averages and then deciding on day lengths for proposed zones. Then plotting them out over a map of the USA. Obviously some areas where there is no data would become guesses as the current zone maps are today.

I have never heard of such a map and am surprised nobody seems to have done it.

Within the same climate, all the data tracks. I expect that's why it hasn't been done. It is only an issue when somebody tries to compare a zone 5 maritime influenced, humid climate with a zone 5 continental humid climate, or a zone 5 arid climate.

A zone 5 continental climate location is going to have a colder, shorter growing season than a zone 7 continental climate location. By definition.

The zone charts are a general chart that works pretty good as a starting point. There are micro-climates that would be too complicated to map. (we try to grow citrus on the south side of the house to give them additional protection). Cities are warmer than country.

The USDA also has a web soil survey that is a general soil survey. It too has problems because there are "inclusions" that were not mapped out.

The main problem is the winters are just too variable. A weather station close to my house recorded between 450 and over 900 chill hours in a five year span. It is best to try and figure out what you average chill hours are and try to stay within 100 to 200 hrs +/-.

People talk a lot about climate change but the problem is, it was never fixed. It has always fluctuated. The climate has gradually been getting warmer for the last 400 years. However, I doubt we will be able to tell the difference in our life time.

No zone system is going to be perfect- no shat! But to limit it to extreme winter lows is woefully inadequate. A quick system to know where any area on the map stands compared to other areas in terms of length of growing season and relative heat of those days would help any gardener quickly make evaluations of what would likely perform best.

Of course weather is variable and apparently getting warmer, but this has nothing at all to do with the value of having a system that allows quick reference of the nature of the growing season itself in one place compared to other places.

You could say the current zone system is useless because it is based on a singular average low which also fluctuates wildly everywhere season to season (and also seems to be rising). The point of it is for comparison to evaluate the possibility of any given species (or variety) surviving winter at a given site. I just think evaluating the possibility of getting specific crops to maturity is equally important.

The coolest zone warm enough to adequately ripen Goldrush most years could represent a zone. Or figs (even if they need be sheltered for winter), or mangoes or corn and so forth. Not survival of the plant but the ripening of the crop.

Once you broke down the nature of growing seasons throughout the country if would be possible to organize what varieties grow best where on the map of the U.S.

I'm perfectly fine with the USDA zones and the Sunset zones as they are. These give me a good idea whether a certain plant will do well in my yard. First and last frost dates and chill hours also factor in. From there I can get daily/weekly weather forecasts on an ongoing basis. What exactly do you folks want/expect from a new plant zone system, and how/what would you do differently with it?

H-man, you are absolutely right!

I think the problem is not the lack of zone systems that could be used (we already have hardiness zones, heat units, chill hours, precipitation preferences, Growing Degree days (GDD)), but the lack of data for the particular plants themselves.

For example, does anyone know how many Growing Degree Days it takes to ripen a Red Baron peach? It surely does not include this information in any description of the variety I have seen. How many people actually know how many inches of rain their orchard receives annually?

But everyone seems to know what zone they are in! A list of several numerical ratings for each fruiting plant needs to be compiled, and then the maps need to be generated so that we can memorize these numbers the way we do those all-holy hardiness zones!

You are also right Fab, but it would also be nice to have that data transferred to a number system that made quick reference possible, along with the information about specific varieties and species that can thrive in them.

fabaceae_native,
The only place that I've seen so far,trying to do that is Myfolia,but their information is often incomplete,because they need more input from other growers. Brady

I think I hijacked my own thread. :)

I'd agree that a better system is needed.

Seems to me that the USDA zone system has an Eastern/humid climate bias. It makes sense in that if rainfall is adequate and the other factors are not too severe, then the minimum winter temps are often the limiting climate variable for many plants.

However if you happen to live at high altitude, or in the semi-arid West (or both as I do), then minimum winter temps are only a part of the equation, and often not the most important factor. I have found many plants which "should" do fine in my zone 5a location, but can't survive a single winter. The dry cold winds, strong winter sun, and short growing season are too much for them even if we only get down to -5 or -10F that year.

A zone system which includes adjustments for length of the growing season and other winter conditions (dry winds and strong sun) would be very useful. Perhaps some research is needed to quantify how much these other factors change the "effective" minimum temps. (Or come up with a new metric of which min temps is only one piece)

I wouldn't be surprised if such a new system had much of the East as the current zone system. but for places with additional climate challenges, a new zone system which took them into account would be a great improvement.

Well said Steve⦠Most of the West is far more complicated in terms of climate than the East, and the Sunset zone system does a phenomenal job for the West Coast, but not the interior West.

At least the 2012 USDA zones finally show some of the finer detail of cold air drainages and effects of elevation that were missing from earlier versions!

Well winds are very drying here in the east too on the flat land we have. All the plants I lose in the winter are from drying. Some protection from the wind helps. It's always windy here year round. 50 MPH winds are the norm anytime of year. Two 120 foot trees were blown down last spring in my yard. What a pain cutting them up! Lot's of firewood!
{{gwi:125631}}
Trees around here are not small either! My arms look like Popeyes after wielding the chain saws needed for these beasts! I have 3 different chain saws. Correction, I need three different chain saws. Big, bigger and biggest! :)
{{gwi:51685}}

The wind is an itch with a b in front! Just ask this house!
The roots lifted it, well ruined it, it was condemned and demolished.
{{gwi:51686}}

I guess the worst was fighting a 40 MPH wind that knocked the electricl lines off a house. It started the house on fire, on an island, no fire department. We fought the fire with our own pumps. 40 minutes later the fire boats arrived, but the third house was already half gone. The first two were completely gone. Ever see 50 foot long flames blowing sideways? I have.

{{gwi:125632}}
The 2nd house, two refrigerators.
{{gwi:125633}}

We certainly know winds in the east. At one point I just started swearing at mother nature. Totally helpless to stop this, or even slow it down. Luckily nobody was hurt. That night in Detroit 40 houses burned down. See that bike, the front tire melted, but that tree stood it's ground.
{{gwi:125634}}

OK I'LL BITE

Drew,

Give it up. Don't you know that the science is settled. ;)

And once it has been declared that "the science is settled", the fact that each and every prediction made by the models is wrong is irrelevant. The fact that we have not had a major hurricane on the east coast for more that 2 years despite the dire predictions is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is settled is that there is warming and there has been for 12,000 years and it is continuing. Oh, I forgot Drew, you did say that you agree that there is long term warming. Unfortunately, where you fall short is the fact that (a) you don't agree that it is happening at light speed or (b) that we are the major cause and (c) you also don't believe that we can do something about it NOW and (d) that disrupting our economy to do something that has not been proven to be needed or to work may not be a good idea. That is where and why you open yourself to personal attacks

What is also settled is that when one feels it necessary to be personally condescending in commenting on another's opinion, one reveals one's own tilt towards a closed minded fanaticism evidencing a total assuredness that one has it all figured out and how dare another look at things differently. Don't get me wrong, that may be a heartfelt belief so it is not evil, just hubristic.

That is why you were 1) asked what planet you lived on, 2) told that you really don't know what you are talking about 3) told that obviously you were not reasonably intelligent since "No one with any kind of reasonable intelligence can argue that rising sea levels - a direct result of climate warming and polar ice melt - is a good thing" .

What is not settled is that human activity has any appreciable effect on the overall degree of the warming.

Actually, I don't think that rising sea levels are necessarily a bad thing. I don't agree nor do I worry that Florida, Texas and Louisiana ( and NYC) being underwater is a bad thing. I don't worry that mangoes and avocados can be grown in Europe.

So, Drew... be careful, in what you think and more careful in what you actually say.

Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Wed, Nov 12, 14 at 15:09