Not discounting global warming......but

These zone maps get used by these organizations in a slightly misleading way when it comes to this topic.

Does this map look familar? Please be sure to look at the date. I wonder why Arbor Day doesnt use this one for their comparison?

Larry took the words right outta my mouth.... be carefull how any chosen group decides to present the statistics!

The science of climate change at this point is pretty empirical-until something that comes along that disputes the rapid warming and melting in the arctic- the warmest year on record -2006- and all the anecdotes of flora and fauna change we have had-it seems at this point that anyone who disputes climate change is wrong.

Dragontek-

Please read my first sentence of my first post.

I am not discounting global warming.....I am merely displaying that some entities, in pursuit of theor goals, are not being 100% straightforward in how they present things.

spockvr6,

You seem to be suggesting that the National Arbor Day Foundation has some ulterior motive in presenting this map. What might that motive be? To plant more trees? Or is it the Dept. of Agriculture that's on the sly???

Seems you can't discuss this topic here without opening a can of worms. I know that the USDA revised their map again in 1965, but have been unable to locate that map. We had some pretty rough winters from the early 1970's to the mid 80's, which prompted USDA to change the map again in 1990. This map showed colder temp ranges than the 1960 one.

If you want to get really technical, you can follow this link to see a discussion about how solar flares/sunspot activity affects weather here on earth. The conclusion of this study is that the average temp for the month of July is now 1 degree COOLER than it was 50-60 years ago:

http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari5.htm#60

It could be argued that since the USDA collects their data from more stations, their map might be more accurate. But if you take a look at the proposed new USDA zone map, created in partnership with The American Horticultural Society, it's practically a mirror image of the Arbor Day map (click link below, pdf format).

The facts? I'm not sure there are any. There's no such thing as 'stable weather'. It's constantly changing. It seems to run in cycles. And if all of us here paid strict attention to the zone maps, more than a few of us would not be growing palms where we are now.

Here is a link that might be useful: new proposed zone map

Heres my theory on Global Warming.....

I say we need to take a look back at the WHOLE picture instead of merely the from 2006 back to 1960 or 1990 to 1960. When I say the whole picture I mean this. We all know that at one time the 90% of the world was warm and tropical and the remaining 10% was temperate. This is evident by fossils of tropical rain forests being found in Alaska and Greenland and by palm fossils being found in such places as Montana and Utah which have NEVER had coastal areas. Well Utahs Great Salt Lake was once a huge inland sea but it still wouldnt have had the same ecological impact today had that sea still been there as it did back then. So we know that at one time most of the world was warm. At the same time, much more recently, theres been an Ice Age which doesnt need any proof. Its my theory that we are still recovering from the last ice age and are swinging back around to a time of warmth that will again cover the vast majority of the earth. Its like an endless cycle that no one is going to be able to stop. Sure global warming has picked up speed in the past few years. I say its just getting us to where were going in the first place. All throughout the history of the earth animals have come and gone, the landscape has changed and so has the weather. Theses were all acts of father time and mother nature.....Who are we to stop it?

"spockvr6,
You seem to be suggesting that the National Arbor Day Foundation has some ulterior motive in presenting this map. What might that motive be? Or is it the Dept. of Agriculture that's on the sly???"

All of them have alterior motives. Thinking otherwise would be naive on our parts I think.

Again....I am not discounting global warming (but this will be how I will be percieved since I am not going along with the program so to speak). Its just disapointing that groups send out these maps to the media, after choosing the data sets wisely, to "frame" their desired results. The information should be able to stand on its own. Trying to even find the old data sets online is almost impossible. We all know that the 1990 map was the "coldest" one produced. So be it....thats just how the numbers went for the period used. Global warming seems to be a long term issue, and as such not using longer term data seems to not be 100% "scientific".

"Seems you can't discuss this topic here without opening a can of worms"

All I am asking is that we see all the information......long term and short term data. Whats the harm in looking back past a 1990 map?

"And if all of us here paid strict attention to the zone maps, more than a few of us would not be growing palms where we are now."

Wingo-

You hit the nail on the head there!

My yard would be 50-75% toast if we got hit with temps like shown on the 1990 map.

Having more stations is independent of the desired results. What they are measuring is minimum temps OVER TIME (and average). Having more stations simply makes the accuracy of recorded temps better, it is independent of the real issue--the TIME element.

This issue on the forums keeps getting hashed and rehashed. Taking a favorite period (whether it be 1 year or 22 years) as a basis for your map is BIASED and therefore, in a scientific paper, would be discussed in the Results section of the published document. The empirical basis for research methodology is that the more data used is what gives you a better result (less likely that mere chance gives you the results). Again, having 200 stations recording temps in 2001 does NOT make the overall average result (15+ years) better in any other year than 2001.

What should be happening is taking ALL DATE from the largest time frame that accurate records can be found (seemingly in the US back to as early as the mid to late 19th centure) and then extrapolating averages.

Heck, here in south Florida, I could argue that I am now in zone 12, since over the past 12 months, the average has been no less than 45 degrees where I live. But the reality is, if I go back ONE year, that does already shift to minimum of 40 degrees at my locale.

ANother confounding issue is the loose usage of the term "global warming". It can mean simple climate change, but typically is associated with the geo-political aspect--man made activities that CONTRIBUTE to the current warming cycle (and thus accentuating/hastening it). Then you get people saying "no proof" versus those that define it as the climate trend as saying "is proof".

Yes, there is climate change. THAT is what the USDA and Amer.Hort Society, Arbor Day Foundation maps should be SAYING and being LABELED. NOT that this is the norm for considereing what zone you are in and should plan and $$ for.

There is your ulterior movite. The Arbor Day foundation sends out crappy seedlings--it will be much easier for them to send out cheap crepe myrtle saplings to areas that once would automatically get more expensive and tougher to grow blue spruce seedlings.

ANd, also--the big box stores have NO CLUE about their garden centers. They look to an expert--here an idiot who sees this map and thus says, oh, based on this, I will order 10,000 more of these plants for that sector of the region (and increase sales) even though that plant will likely die in an average winter 2 or 6 years from now.

Ooops, sorry it died, but the label says it'll grow here, maybe you should try again, but also do (buy) this...

Longwood-

My thoughts exactly (but more succinctly).

If we have a run of 10 years with bad cold snaps (like the 1980's), and the maps then change again due to the data period used, will that mean "global warming" as currently assumed to be defined isnt real? Are we entering an ice age as was commonly thought a generation ago?

Who knows......but these maps with their limited data sets sure arent going to tell us.

I just think with all this warming taking place there will be consequences..
for example were already losing islands
What's next ? marine life.. clarity of the sea ....
and i'm sure theres other things.

I think we all should stop and think about things like this
I would rather my zone be warmer to ,but do we realy want to pay this price ?

May I give my input on "Global Warming"? I've been iced in for three days and more to come. How often does this happen in Southern Texas? Beware San Antonio and Houston!
I know some Northern states have been having unusually warm weather this year, but the reality has lingered in Texas all winter for us. I'm just below the Red River and it has been a zone 7 for sure here!The Ice Age has returned! I just want some sunshine! PLEASE! I have recorded 10 DEG. this year which puts me back in the 7 right? Below is a link for those that have power and are BORED!!!!

Here is a link that might be useful: Freezing my @SS off!

TOtally agree, Topher.

Trouble is, humans cannot STOP global warming, just like we couldn't stop global cooling (but we CAN screw it up). Only slow its rate of progression. And at this juncture, even if everyone stopped pumping greenhouse gases tomorrow, there's still the lag effect of the gases breaking down, etc.

What is disgusting is all the discussion on the policy level on this issue is based on GREED. The $$$. Live for today's profits and business advantage, screw tomorrow. That aspect of human nature is evident in developed and developing countries.

"All of them have alterior motives. Thinking otherwise would be naive on our parts I think."

So here's the $64,000 dollar question: Could it be said that we are also guilty of interpeting the data to suit our own individual views?

"I don't trust anything published by THAT group because of blah, blah, blah."

"Don't believe anything THIS agency says because blah, blah, blah."

I don't agree with longwoodgrad's statement that Arbor Day is just out to sell 'crappy seedlings', but he is right about the global warming issue being hashed and rehashed without any real course of action or answers being produced.

Nothing wrong with a healthy sense of skepticism, but do we really want to get to the point where we're so paranoid and suspicious that we no longer trust ANY DATA from ANY SOURCE? Makes me think of some thought-provoking lyrics by The Alan Parsons Project:

If we call for the proof, and we question the answers,
only the doubt will grow.

Are we blind to the truth, or a sign to believe in?
Only the wise will know.

(from Ammonia Avenue)

Global warming will not be stopped or slowed until oil runs out. What year? Mid to late 20th century perhaps. By then it will be too late to stop the catastrophic changes climate change will bring.

One of the precursors of climate change/global warming is extreme weather conditions, be it rain, snow, ice, heat etc.

Current weather conditions have nothing to do with global warming- as the current ice storms in the middle of the country. 2 years ago we had nearly double the amount of snow in southern New England that we are supposed- yet winters temps still averaged above normal.

At the Arbor site I am a zone 6, under the old map a zone 5b- the zone 6 is 5 miles to the west. Under the new map the zone 7 is 30 miles to the south.

The winters of 2005 and 2006 where zone 7 winters, the lowest temp in 2005 was 1 and in 2006 3 degrees.

This winter into mid January a zone 8/9! That should change by mid week when it will drop to the single digits.

Nonetheless the climate is considerably milder here then 30 years when I was in college. spring begins on average a week earlier, summers are hotter (with Central Air here now in every new home or condo) Autumns extending way into December.

The American Robin, the state bird of Connecticut, used to migrate south 3 decades ago, and return in early March- the bird stays here all year long now.

Southern trees (like Magnolia) and Giant Sequoia, and bamboo easily grow here- even Carmelia grow here now!

Seasonal weather can be changeable and freaky- its the longer tern subtleties I describe above that echo climate change.

The arbor site map reflects the current climate more then the old map.

Thus far my two trachycarpus in the garden (been covered since late November) have suffered no damage- and are still growing- that will change soon.

"So here's the $64,000 dollar question: Could it be said that we are also guilty of interpeting the data to suit our own individual views?"

Absolutely.

This is why, in my mind anyway, I have tried to cut through what is percieved by many to be the bias of the various maps by looking up actual raw numbers for various locations (in FL in particular) and see what the absolute minimums for every year have been (as far back as data was available). This, I think, gives one better info than a map with data chosen from a certain timeframe.

Well, just tonight I came across this on the local NBC affiliates website.

Gee, all this warm weather is indeed the basis for a "whole new world" of marketing...

Oh, and "climate" is weather over an extended period of time at a locale, "current climate" is misleading and practically an oxymoron.

Here is a link that might be useful: It's been released!

wingo I just read your post--yeah, my comment about Arbor Day and "crappy seedlings" was more illustrative than anything.

Being skeptical is one thing, but what happens is that people deduce things from data that don't reflect what the data reveals. It's as if they take data A and all of a sudden they have the data needed for result C (and B is never asked or refuted).

And, yes, climate change is happening. No doubt. The reality is you can have an amazing winter thus far, but you know, you can STILL have the average zonal minimum YET and that's all you need. YOu can have all but 2 days of above average whatever, then BOOM, you hit a typical cold snap to the minimum average low range, and then warm up again. that minimum temp is what defines your zone. You could even get in in early March.

Length of your growing season again is independent of (the expected) annual average minimum temps--again, expected; not probabilities of getting to that minimum temp.

Don't get too anxious. Ask some of the California growers about their recent experiences. A lot weren't so lucky.

I think it's funny
how scientist try to predict whats going to happen
only god can do that ! Most scientist don't have a clue !

take hurricanes for example..

2006 was supposed to be worse than 2005 not my predictions
scientist predicted that Did it happen ?
just to be on the safeside they say this year will be above average we'll see..

Why do we even worry about global warming any ways..
scientist built the titanic
god built the ark !

No this is not a religious debate i am just stating the obvious !

Topher, I'm glad you brought that up. After my postings, I thought I said too much and would just enfuriate others, but the whole Dr. Gray thing came into my head.

I find it irresponsible to give information out labelled as "expert" or "fact" rather than "hypothesis" or "prognostication". In the case of Dr. Gray, he should shut up on NUMBERS (since last year he had to swallow his pride 3 times and lessen his expert opinion). Please just say if the year is though to be "below average, average, or above average in activity". That way we can all be aware and not laugh about building up cat0like reflexes when the media screams "hurricane in Atlantic" when it's 2000 east of Puerto Rico still.

It leads to complacency and erodes confidence in research and science. It becomes a joke, a scam, "BS"

We can lend a good estimate, but so much we still do not know, nor can we.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who chuckles at the "experts" hurricane predictions. Who changes their estimate three times? As time passes there is less hurricane season left and then you reduce your initial estimate. That's brilliant.

I'll just continue to be prepared, no matter what is predicted. Hopefully people have learned that by now!

One of the hallmarks of climate change global warming is extreme weather conditions- 72 degrees here in CT and snow in Malibu CA- Frankly I cannot believe the unsophistication and narrowness of so many here- climate change and global warming does not mean it is going to become warm all at once- you people here for the most part from RED states are just plain DUMB.

dragontek-

I had respect for your posts and thought them of value until your last one.

The topic of this thread is...or was..."Global Warming in Motion".

My first statement was that I am not discounting global warming.

The point I was attempting to make was that a simple very short term data map from Arbor Day does not show "Global Warming in Motion". If it could only be that simple. The 1960 map was presented to show that it doesnt seem to be.

Current weather conditions have nothing to do with global warming

One of the hallmarks of climate change global warming is extreme weather conditions- 72 degrees here in CT and snow in Malibu CA

So which is it dragontek? Does current weather have something to do with global warming or not?

Dragontek

Do you predict hurricanes too ?

Well, here is something you should take a look at. Myself, being unsophisticated, narrow and living in the Red states have for you!

Here is a link that might be useful: our global warming in motion!

wow, this turned rancid.

Wingo, as you mentioned very early on, the can of worms is open.

Let's put this thing to rest.......

I didn't mean to get everyone all worked up. For that, I'm truly sorry I ever posted this. Perhaps I should have changed the title to "Map shows POSSIBLE Global Warming".

On the other hand, it shows just how sharply divided people are on this isssue.

Dragontek, your last remarks were uncalled for. Why resort to insults? It was in your very first post on this topic that you said "until something that comes along that disputes the rapid warming and melting in the arctic-", and then go in the opposite direction and state:"climate change and global warming does not mean it is going to become warm all at once". YOU are the only one who suggested that, but then insult anyone who might think that as being "from a red state and just plain DUMB".......how would you feel if someone here made a remark like 'people from BLUE states are arrogant, prejudiced and prone to childish name-calling'? It might bode well for you to remember that many of the people living in the warmer, more hospitable RED states are retirees and business people who relocated from the colder, less hospitable BLUE states.

As for donray posting his link....sorry, you lost me there. A link to a page showing the Confederate flag and lyrics for 'Dixie'? Not sure what that has to do with global warming. Unless you were just trying to get back at dragontek....I fear all you may have accomplished by posting that link was to reinforce dragontek's rather outdated and predjudiced views.

Maybe spockvr6 hit the mark early on....short-term data should not be ignored, but it's not a means to an end. Only another piece of the puzzle. In the grand scheme of things, a few years is nothing. From a chronological viewpoint, even 10,000 years is a mere wink in the eye of time. It's only been within the last 30 to 40 years that we as humans have become more attuned to our climates and the weather. There's still just so much we don't know, and can't predict. Loss of the ozone layer, factory and automotive exhaust emissions, the loss of wetlands and rainforests....all of which are playing a role in our changing climate, for better or worse.

While I do not suggest surrender or indifference, just shrugging our shoulders and trying to roll with the punches, I do say that a lot of what happens with the weather in the coming years will ultimately be beyond anyone's control. It will be up to all of us to try and make the best of it and shape a brighter future with a more stable climate.

so is there a new map? link?

cotton, look at the first posting in this thread discussion....on the arbor day page from wingo's link you'll see "hardiness zone map" on left side in a box...

I would ask some of you when was the earth at the correct temperature and why that temperature was the best? Maybe man or Mother Nature is leading us back to her preferred temperature of the planet? º

One big problem with most of these measurements is too few data points. It is like saying it was 20C at noon today, it is 10C tonight so it is going to be -60C by next week.

It has been cooler than now during the Little Ice age (1400-1850) and as warm as or warmer than now during the warm period before the Little Ice age (1000-1400). This all happened long before man was burning fossil fuels.
Possiblilities are:
The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age.
The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar output.
The observed warming actually reflects the Urban Heat Island, as most readings are done in heavily populated areas.
If you are worried about CO2 check into the amount of CO2 generated by one large volcanic eruption. In addition, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. Some scientists believe their studies show that CO2 varies up and down because of temperature changes and is not the cause of temperature changes. Water vapor contributes many, many times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2. If you want to fight the greenhouse effect you should be targeting clouds since they provide at least 60% of the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is only about 0.037% CO2. The fact is we have no idea how man made (or Mother Nature made) CO2 will affect the climate. (Computer models so far have been wrong). I will finish with the fact that I love the beauty of the world we live in; otherwise I would not be on this board. Keep you yard, neighborhoods and parks beautiful. Drive the most gas efficient car your comfortable with. Travel less by air if it makes you fell better. Forcing society to completely change that way it works to conform to a theory doesn't make sense at this point.

Whether you like global warming or not, it probably means that more palm trees will grow in the US. With more palm trees growing, the US will probably look like the photo as depicted by the USDA.

(No offense to California Fans)

Here is a link that might be useful: USDA Plant Guide

It really depends upon which forum you are in.

If you are in the plant propogation or growing from seed forum, then global warming does not exist and is a farse spread by liberals and Soros to gain political advantage towards the 2008 election year on the coat tails of Al Gore's movie which won the Nobel prize because Sweden is in Europe and liberals look forward to the day when there will be a world federation controlling evering from what toothpaste you use to what useful labor you are designated to from birth. The Kyoto protocol is therefore designed to topple the independence of sovereign democracies by hedging in a way to dictate terms that affect the economic marrow of industrilized nation prosperity and bend their collective will toward the now tired and worn theme of one world order.

On the otherhand, we have those who cheer global warming as being devisive in actually promoting those goals. It's kinda like self-fullfilling prophecies. But nature, while it can be predicted to a degree, isn't necessarily a prophet's dream.

But I suppose, in some forums, global warming is more of a reality, based upon our belief that science doesn't lie. It may not always be right, but science generally doesn't intentionally falsify or mislead. What 'Big Bang?' It's an unproven theory. The theoretical is not fact. But here we have the true technocrats who are tugged and pulled at by the opposite gravities of rabid liberals and ultra conservative prudes. And like nature going volcanic, those same technocrats turn off their televisions, as an alternative to aspirin for curing the subjective head-ache. The empirical pill of reality with regard to global warming is still in the lab and the technos await its release with the same interest they garner for a manned mission to Mars, whether God's will or not.

I kinda like the idea of growing a palm tree in Antarctica.

:)

My 2 cents...... We could "perhaps" be in an Earth warming cycle. NASA has admitted that they incorrectly calculated the hotest year on record and it's now something like 1916(?)...... But you won't see this highly reported cause the "political theme" is Global Warming. Scare people enough and they will believe. Ever see where some of the tempertaure collection boxes are located? (next to airport runways, burning oil cans, etc) Scientists predicted a higher than normal hurricane season, the last few years...... well another season is gone and it was below average. But of course that's ALSO because of Global Warming. Anyways I'm not saying Global Warming does not exist. The Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods long before man ever existed. This year we have discovered evidence of life in regions where it was inhabitable... where snow has melted away. The South Pole is growing RECORD ice this year while the North Pole is loosing some. Polar Bear population is at an all time high. The Earth's continents have continued to shift for as long as the Earth has existed. (Continental Shift) And locations will flood while others will add more land. New animal species are still being discovered while some are going extinct. Isn't that what has always happened before man? MOST, and I repeat most is natural in my opinion. Animals adapt (climate and food chain) - natural selection.

I believe man has contributed to global warming but the Earth's axis, rotation speed around the sun, and the Sun's Solar flares have been more responsible with fluctuations in the Earth's temperatures and climate changes. It's hard for us to see past our own life span but our lives aren't even a blink of an eye when compared to the Earth's life.

That doesn't mean we should be irresponsible and start polluting like it's the industrial revolution or over populate beyond our available food supply but we can enjoy this warming trend because we will eventualy enter a cooling trend.

Throughout the long history of civilization, the patterns of our relationship to the planet have been fairly consistent - we tend to cut down the ancient forests, erode the top soil, dam the rivers, drain the wetlands, wiped out keystone species, and in so many other ways eviscerate the web of life. A few thousand years of telling this story, and here we are. The sun is cycling hotter and sending more solar energy into the biosphere, which is clearly beyond human control. In the past this increased energy would have been cycled by the planet's systems, its forests, and rivers and winds and life. The devastation of these cycles and systems globally, which would otherwise move that energy through the biosphere, is totally our responsibility. Choice:Consequence ~ ReGenerate your local ecosystems. Free the rivers. Honor your remaining ancient forests. Plant new ones. Align your future with the needs of your landbase, your watershed, your bioregion, and create a good future.
Dominic, Ashland, Salmon Nation

I'm about to open a biiig can of worms.

But first, since the idea of man having the ability to affect the planet on such a large scale is such a hard concept to grasp, I'll start small... the following link provides an exceedingly good example of how quickly we can (or can allow others to) remove all vestiges of life, as we blissfully enjoy our gated communities, free from the harm of wild areas and it's associated chaos. An amazing photographic journey "In a mere 11 days over 50 acres of old growth forest were bulldozed and graded for more warehouse space to this ever-growing business development."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mambolove/sets/72157600105926173/

"the latest phase of Pinnacle Park, an Industrial Park that is a total of 880 acres. Much of the Pinnacle Park project spreads over Cockrell Hill, until 6 years ago this hill remained untouched and one of the last green spaces just west of Dallas. Of course where there is green space we think we can do something better then what the natural rhythms of our earth can provide."

I'll let that sink in before the next installment begins. But I'll leave you a hint of things to come, with the following link.

Here is a link that might be useful: