Weather is one of my favorite gardening sub-subjects. I'm fortunate to live and garden in a serious micro-climate, 400 yards off the Great South Bay, 3.32 miles off the Atlantic Ocean, and with a saltwater canal in my backyard. The influences these bodies of water have on my climate and garden are intense.

The closest NWS weather station is 10 miles inland, and it might as well be in another world, for all the good it does me. I've learned to gather weather information closer to home, and thanks to Weather Underground's Personal Weather Stations and some marine resources, I am able to more closely monitor my hyper-local weather more accurately. Here is my micro-climate's location, compliments of Google Earth:

The Seaford Pin gives me the bay's water temperature, and the Weather Station at Lindenhurst is almost exactly as far off the bay as I am. These are both within 2 miles of me, and until I bother to set up my own system, will do just fine.

Our Springs are cool and usually wet. Summers start cool, thanks to slow-warming bay and ocean water temperatures, and even in the hottest days of summer, when the inland earth warms above the water temperatures, the winds shift to bring in cooling air. Fall is long and mild, as the warmed water holds off the onset of cold weather. I can grow most vegetables right into November, and always pick ripe tomatoes for Thanksgiving. Winter is also moderated by the close proximity of water. Even though the zone maps show me as Zone 7A, I have not had a temperature lower than 12°F in the last 5 years.

The canal offers a special feature. All summer long, and into the fall, it brings fresh Eelgrass directly to my back yard, where I harvest it for compost, mulch and such.

{{gwi:27088}}

That's 30 minute's work. I spread it out on the boardwalk, where the birds pick off the marine life. I hose it down to remove most of the salt, and then let it dry in the sun and wind. Dried, it makes a dense mulch which lasts for 2-3 years. Shredded, it makes incredibly rich compost and compost tea.

I know , its pretty krazy. Chicago area is in the low 50's at night. 60s to mid 70s during the day right now and this week. We did have a heat blast last week with temps in the HIGH 90s ..... what the hell. So with these lower temps still going on , would you say its still fine to plant potted trees ? I would say yes,but would love some other opinions. I just BARE rooted/power washed out all the clay completly on an Acer japonicum 'Ed Wood', put him in another pot. He's been looken good,no drooping or anything.

maples are fine in my opinion, I personally would hold off on the conifers though. too risky w all the heat still on its way

It's better to plant in fall, avoid the heat unless the kind of plant being set out would die in the cold coming soon after.

Deciduous subjects being defoliated by bare-rooting at planting will probably re-leaf later in most instances, if kept watered after planting. Circling or kinked etc. roots and effects of soil texture differences, on the other hand, can be fatal. Woody plants with roots deformed by containers may girdle themselves or blow over years after planting, wasting all the years of development up to that point. A nice big top is just the thing to pull a root-bound specimen over.

Soil texture differences within planting holes can and often do result in death due to chronic dryness (inside the original, intact field- or potting soil-filled root mass) or acute wetness (inside amended planting holes dug out of heavy soils containing excess moisture during rainy periods or when irrigation occurs).

At one time the looooong term forecast was for colder, darker springs and hotter summers. Some northern climate conifers might like the crap springs, but the hotter summers could definitely be a problem for them. The total combination of effects is what determines the final result, already we are seeing climate change having conspicuous effects on native tree stands, for example beetle epidemics appearing to have been fostered by recent weather.

It's normal for a little change here or there to produce sometimes dramatic ripples.

@bboy: The effects of climate change are indeed all around us... warmer air holds more water, which means drought in some areas (where the water is drawn up into the air) and flood in others (where it comes down)... It's hard to point to any specific weather event and claim with definity that it is related to climate change, but I've seen some weird things this spring that I've never seen before... For example, after the record shattering rains and tornados of the spring, we get record breaking heat, so now the earth throughout my neighborhood is literally cracking and starting to look like hardpan desert...

we can only react to the weather and plan for the climate. sadly, we do too much of the former and not nearly enough of the later in the US.

one thing that amazes people who did not grow up with our continental weather can't easily get their minds around is our extremes. After all, who in their right mind settles in and area to bear the shift from single digits and record snowfall to record tornadoes to floods to drought to oppressive heat in our particular region in the last six months.

I just remind them to look at the oldest trees around then go look up the record cold, drought and heat in the past. Those old natives watched it all happen :-) I wonder though, how they'll like being firmly in zone 8 in 20 years, considering some of them were seedlings and growing up on the border of zone 6 :-)

Here is a link that might be useful: animated zone map from ADF

Where I live, north Florida, has to be one of the worst climates for gardening...

We have freezes mixed with temps in the 80s all winter. This results in amazing damage to "hardy" plants.
We have terrible droughts and heat during the spring (weeks in the high 90s and NO RAIN). This makes it difficult to get things estabished.
Extreme high humidity and heat all summer - lots of weeds, insect pests and fungal diseases result.

Overall, i think I could make the case that this climate is one of the worst for gardening. I would move if I had a good job somewhere else, but I don't - so I make do. At least I have an irrigation system!

@hogmanay: I clicked on the link you posted and went rooting around on the arborday Website and found this pic, which for some reason was even more eye opening than the animation. Like you, I wonder about 20 years from now. It also makes me wondering about the wisdom of growing native, when the "native" climate is changing.

Here is a link that might be useful: ARBORDAY ZONE MAP -- ZONE CHANGES

Very interesting post, Will.....thanks for putting all that data together :-)

My sister, who lives in coastal SoCal, brags about her weather being similarly good pretty much year round. Not much change from December to June :-) I tell her I prefer to have distinct seasons, thank you very much. But compared to other parts of the country who move logically through a cold, snowy winter into a balmy, mild spring, a sunny, hot summer and a crisp, clear fall, I'm not so sure I DO live in an area with distinct seasons. Or at least not four of 'em!! I think we only have two - a wet, cool season and a less wet and less cool season :-)

Somehow, I don't remember it being quite that blended when I was a kid. I know recollections can be faulty, but it sure seems like we had more defined seasonal changes way back when. If nothing else, it supports my theories on climate change!

I live in NY state, and that chart makes it impossible to decipher, if my area is zone 5 or 6. Anyway, the last winter in my area was a bad one like we had often in the 1970s, it certainly was never zone 6. So we should better be conservative with our assumption of lowest winter temperature!
Bernd

USDA Hardiness Zones are based on the averaging of yearly lows for specific 15(?) year periods. A given winter can have low temperatures below the average range indicated for that zone without it meaning the location in question needs to be given a different zone. It depends on if the averaging is affected.

@bboy: Yes, what you've said is key. Apparently the averages themselves are increasing across the red bands shown in the map I posted. It also occurs to me that these maps say nothing about what is happening during the other 3 seasons, which can also have a tremendous impact upon plant health.

Just curious if anyone knows what is occurring in (say) the (coldest peaks of) Alaska or in (the warmest regions) of The Amazon Rainforest? Anything of significance to report?

What I can tell you guys about having lived here in Illinois all my life practically is this: I remember winters were deep with snow cover (all winter) as a kid and it's almost rare (noting the last 10 years) to have this kind of snow lingering around. And this is kind of interesting: precipitation-wise, here we get as much precip as the Pacific Northwest does but it comes to us in the form of snow, i.e. and what is not snow is quite evenly-distributed throughout all (four seasons). A fact probably many of you who think 'you' have a lot of /rainfall/ in the PNW, probably weren't aware of.

Dax

Actually, including snowfall, Illinois (Chicago) gets about twice as much precipitation as does the PNW (Seattle/Portland).....most climate records separate the two measurements. And those of us that are native to the NW or have lived here for a number of years realize is it not nearly as "wet" here as many think. We just tend to get rainfall in very low volume over an extended period of time so it seems like it is always wet :-) It is actually concentrated from late October into early/mid June......the summer months are typically very dry and without any measurable rainfall. Believe it or not, much of the PNW - including the Puget Sound basin - is considered to be a recurring summer drought area and many native plants are generally considered drought tolerant.

But after one of the wettest springs on record, it's hard to imagine any drought issues!

I live in an area of extreme temp contrasts (southwest Wisconsin, mile from the Mississippi River). The "Driftless Area" was not hit by ice sheets the last go around, so water is what has shaped this area, not ice sheets. I couldn't imagine what the weather here was like 10,000 years ago, as huge ice sheets advanced all around me. The wind must have been incredible.

Last week we hit 100F, and had several days in the 90Fs and then just days later the temp only hit the mid 50Fs. Most winters we see at least a -20F or colder (we dropped below 0F 19 times last winter...probably about normal).

One interesting thing here in Wisconsin is the difference between areas near Lake Michigan and areas away. Any sort of lake wind and the temps can plummet in Milwaukee, while areas in this part of the state can be hot (spring/early summer). During late summer and fall/winter, these lake breezes can keep those areas warm (Milwaukee overnight lows are warmer then mine starting in late July) and in winter, areas near the lake can stay above 0F while I sit at -20F :(

In my local area I see a wide range of conifers and most seem to be thriving.

@gardner365
"Just curious if anyone knows what is occurring in (say) the (coldest peaks of) Alaska or in (the warmest regions) of The Amazon Rainforest? Anything of significance to report? "

Yes, as far as the Amazon, here's a link to the first of a three part study. If you prefer, you can read the scholarly text (via the links in the article) rather than the summary here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drought_in_the_Amazon_A_death_spiral_part_1_seasons.html

If part one is interesting part 2 is here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Amazon_drought_A_death_spiral_part2_models_and_die-back.html

Part 3 is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Amazon_drought_a_death_spiral_Part3.html

These quote heavily from Zeng (2006), Solomon's work for the journal "Nature" and well... all the articles are well cited back to their peer-reviewed sources.

As far as Alaska, I've only seen and read editorial type work, and most of it is related to a few villages on the shoreline that are being overwhelmed by the sea or how the indigenous people have to go further for their quarry. Aside from the spectacular methane releases in the interior from melting permafrost often seen on TV, I'm only aware of one study that's readily available and specific to just Alaska. http://permafrosttunnel.crrel.usace.army.mil/ is all about that, but it's not about the mountain region so much.

Several peer-reviewed papers do include Alaskan and Siberian climate research as part of the puzzle pieces.

As a tree guy, the Siberian forest are a subject of amazement to me. The threat to that region from AGW is being studied, I just don't have any links on hand to non-editorial stuff.

@gardengal48: Climate records DON'T separate snowfall and rainfall. There are climate records of precipitation, which INCLUDES melted snowfall, and climate records of snowfall. The average total precipitation (rainfall and melted snowfall) during the last 30 years at Chicago, Seattle and Portland:

Chicago - 36.88"
Seattle - 37.41"
Portland - 36.01"

@firefightergardner: Spring is definitely slow in the Western US than it is in the Eastern US. However, its not just a matter of the flow off the Pacific. The actual weather pattern is significantly different. During the spring, the most common weather pattern features a trough of cold low pressure over much of the Western US. It is this same trough which helps create the severe weather which is common across the Plains during the Spring. This trough tends to slow the warming across the Western US, such that even in interior areas such as the Great Basin, spring is considerably slower and more miserable than it is in the Eastern US.

famartin:

Can you provide a link to the total precipitation (rainfall and melted snowfall) data online?

@donn: I calculated the 1981-2010 average for the three cities, which will be the basis of the new normals due to come out in the next month or two. You can get the previous normals (1971-2000) for each city via these links:

Chicago:
http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=lot
Seattle:
http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew
Portland:
http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=pqr

This site has the averages for the 1949-2006 period:
http://gonw.about.com/library/climate/blprecipbycity.htm

@famartin...so you took the monthly rainfall, and added monthly snowfall divided by 10?

@donn: Again, no. "Precipitation" is defined as all water that falls from the sky. "Snowfall" is only that portion of precipitation which falls as snow. Thus "precipitation" is the catch-all. When snow falls, that portion is melted down and the liquid that you get is added to the "precipitation" column.

See the link for a summary of January 2011 at Chicago-O'Hare Airport:

On January 7th, 0.6" of snow fell, which when melted down amounted to 0.02" of precipitation.

On January 11th, 5.9" of snow fell, which when melted down amounted to 0.31" of precipitation.

Etc...

Here is a link that might be useful: Chicago weather in January 2011 (link won't work correctly after June 2011 is over)

Gotcha.

I'd still have my problem of the location of the closest measuring airport. They have such different measurements from mine, they can't be used.

I compile the reports of a Weather Underground Personal Weather Station, collected a mile away, in a position similar to mine with respect the bay. They report precipitation measured by a rain gauge. Snow has no effect whatever...doesn't even register. I take an average depth measurement around my property, and divide by anywhere from 5 to 10, depending upon the nature of the snow, and manually add it to my spreadsheet. It's tedious, but much more accurate than using the reports from an airport 10 miles inland.

I call in micro-climate measurement.

One of these days, I'll pop for my own weather station, but as far as I know, there is still no generally available snow to water device to add to the system.

@donn: There are some weather stations which can have heaters installed to the rain gage... but these generally tend to result in lower measurements than reality (the heater tends to cause some of the snow to sublimate instead of melt).

To get a true representation of snow:water equivalent, the best method is the old fashioned way: Set a manual raingage out and then melt the snow that collects. Here's where I got mine: http://www.weatheryourway.com/cocorahs/store.html

Here is a link that might be useful: Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow network

gardener365, this is an old thread, but I found it on an unrelated google search about climate.

although climate IS warming, and snowfall tends to average somewhat lower, your comment about snow "laying around for weeks" is common, and, often proven untrue.

My mom, who was born in 1948, says she remembers growing up in Akron, Ohio, that snow would fall on Thanksgiving and cover pretty much till March.

Thanks to the free data at the National Climatic Data center, I was able to prove that, except for maybe a year or two in the 1960s, this has NEVER been true.

This isn't a slap at my mom, rather, I think we remember things from our childhood in a somewhat idealized, and static, sort of fashion that is not quite reality.

Adding to the overall trend here, I'm still mystified by the zones. Will and I have the same zone but if you compare our temps we are nothing alike. We had our first real chill this last weekend but a few dasys ago it was still 70...in mid-December!!

For us there is really no choice...you really have to plant all evergreen woody stock in the fall if you want the best shot at survival and good health. Plants here have got to have a chance to set root structure before our early summer heat trends. Typically we have very short springs.

mark

Zones are funny. Compare the PNW to Georgia - same zone, FAR different climate.

Yep Mark, our climates are quite literally the opposites of eachother. Our 'Springs' start often in late January or February but then they drag on often until July before we see ANY temps in the 70s. It's a pretty unusual stretch where the days get brighter but the weather just doesn't clear for long stretches and the temps just don't soar. Rain is not abundant, but clouds and temps in the low 60s are.

I guess it helps to remember the zones are 'USDA', which is the US department of agriculture and really has nothing to do with ornamental plants. I suppose it was created originally to help farmers and citrus growers determine when(and where) they could plant specific crops and fruit trees. It's really badly dated for landscaping/gardening. The Sunset Western gardens book has a tremendous breakdown of zones that include average lows AND highs, and this is a far more precise tool for us gardeners. I don't know if there is an Eastern/Midwestern equivalent but I would guess there is.

-Will

I think they do have "Sunset" zones for East/Midwest per the map, but few plants seem to have ratings for them.

Sunset came out with a National Gardening Book, with Sunset zones for the whole country some years ago.

The person who criticized my posts for being too complicated, better just stop now.

I guess it helps to remember the zones are 'USDA', which is the US department of agriculture and really has nothing to do with ornamental plants.

Nein. Ornamental plants ARE part of the USDA's mission. That's why the National Arboretum is under their aegis. Remember wholesale nurseries definitely are a form of agriculture.

The USDA zone system gives the barest measure of whether a plant can survive in a given area. Obviously, something hardy only in zone 10 cannot survive in zone 6. Beyond that, there are many other factors.

The latest revised USDA zone map seems very accurate to me. I know of gardens along the Delaware river in NJ that really do seem like zn 7b. But it took a ridiculously long time to come out...considering the overall crunching of data probably took a few hours on a high perf. workstation or server. (in case you don't know, it's based on a climate model developed at U Oregon called "Prism") This was not some advanced climate simulation going on like trying to predict hurricanes. And given that computer technology has advanced so much including the algorithm development one would have to say the current USDA map reflects a certain lack of vision, though, again, at least they finally got it correct.

By this I mean something like the Sunset system could have been developed, although there were problems with that approach if you try to extend it over the country. Rather than discrete numbers that could get ridiculously long for certain plants (i.e., this grows in 21, 33,34,35,36,37,38,40,52,61,62,63,64,75,78 etc) it could have used a series of vectors that graph a space representing the plant's preferences. Zones 1 to 10 would still be the first dimension of this system so you don't "break compatibility" with what we already have.
The two main additional factors I would propose would be aridity, and summer temperature. There are several reasons for this; namely, there are already 2 factors certain nurseries use when selling plants. The AHS "heat zone" map exists, and is used by a few nurseries to show warning on certain species, and aridity scales have been adopted by Desert Northwest and High Country Gardens. Mind you these scales would not necessarily be linear and could code a sub-dimension, or even be matrixed to code an additional factor. For example it might make more sense for moisture to go: part of year arid - sporadic/none of year - all year - part of year but high atmospheric moisture. Because there are non-linearities in the way plants behave with respect to that, and with summer temperature. Some cool summer seasonal plants are actually known to grow in all year rainfall climates like England, but only with cool summers. The point is the arrange things in the way that leads to the most chances of solid groupings. Such mathematical shenanigans might make it hard for people to understand how to derive their own zone, but the point is it doesn't matter. They will get their zone off a map. Also different from the Sunset zones, there no need for a comprehensive, singular map because everyone will use some kind of smart device in the future that can easily click one location between 3 or more different maps.
So a zone like mine would go from 7a (I think the a/b is of more limited usefulness than most people realize, though I have and will continue to reference the subzones) to something like 7J6. 7 being 0 to 10f min annual temp, J being a climate with rain all year but some expectation of brief droughts, and 6 being heat zone 6.
Let's call it the Comprehensive Plant Zone. A _PLANT_ ranges, versus a gardening location, would go from "USDA zone 7-10" for a maritime climate plant like Eucryphia, to "CPZ (comprehensive plant zoning) zone "7H2-10M4" meaning that range of minimum winter temps, and a generally moist climate though accepting somewhat dry summers, as long as 3) the summers are cool. I would instantly recognize that I can't grow the plant because I'm off on one of the codes.

Of course, this will never happen and there will be howls of "it's too complicated" but you can be sure in the early 1960s some hayseeds saw the first Harvard zone map and said "oh them fancy professors and their durn maps, I know what grows here and uh don't need some map." Also let's face that other than the big midwestern cities the net migration in the country is towards the SE, S & W where the USDA zone system is least useful. USDA system is most useful for telling people in Iowa there are many, many plants that they are far too cold to grow (sorry Iowans, someone had to be an example) than answering the question for someone in Phoenix, Arizona of whether a certain species of Protea could grow there. (and I reckon a couple of the most heat tolerant ones could) That a sunset zone map was made for the whole country is something I applaud, my idea just tries to make their system easier to use when dealing with a lot of customers and plants. Instead of saying "that only grows in 31, not 42" it's more helpful to say "your moisture factor of J is too much for an A-E plant, it will rot".

About four days ago my area set a new record for days without snowfall: 285.

Dax