Don't feel bad Joe... every time I transplant something we end up with roasting-rays up here on the hill... I've put in transplants of Lemon Balm no less than four times now and twice on Spearmint, and every time had the transplants die off - despite being watered, babied even, and having good rootstock... go figure. It gets a tad frustrating, especially with these "easy" plants - it's not like they are exotics.

Still, I'd rather have these cooler days... have enough hot summer days and muggy nights in the near future to do me in and make me feel wilted until Fall... I suspect that if I were a plant, I'd probably be a root-crop or something semi-tropical that would be green all year but preferred a mountainish climate - warm enough to grow and bloom, but cool enough to never be wilty...

LOL, I used to say that Detroit was too hot for me, but since I've moved here and gotten a little older I now think TN is too cooold for me in the winters.

Or more precisely... "It has no business getting this cold if it's not going to have the decency of at least snowing." ;-p

The climate has changed, A LOT, in the last 3 decades or so. The first time I moved to TN (from WI) it was a decidedly temperate climate - four distinct seasons, predictable seasons at that, and extremes (heat or cold) were "rare". The second time I moved to TN (from TX via AL) the summers were a bit hotter, a bit muggier. Not enough to be concerned with though - not the extremes I'd known in Phoenix (heat) or Houston (humidity). I decided, years later, to "settle" in TN, of the reasons not the least of which being believing it was still like I remembered it, and that surely the flukes I'd heard about across the miles and years, were just that, flukes. If I knew 8-10 years ago what I know now (or figured out 7-9 years ago), I would have reconsidered where to "settle" or perhaps not thought of it as "settling" so much as a place to land and reassess geography where "weather" was concerned primarily. Spring is a blur between Winter and Summer, a smudge - recognizable only by the consistently inconsistent freezes and the onset of allergies. Fall is fleeting, like the sweetest whisper on the wind before it becomes more dismal than some less-than-choice regions of Europe and injects its depression upon everything, and like any proper buzzkill, trudges along groaning for weeks on end before meeting up with "unseasonably" cold spells and with a damp that goes to the bone (I'd rather be ice-fishing)... Summers "have become" virtually unbearable to my spectrum of tolerance but even now, I look to my preference in plants because I find that what I grow or have in my "collection", is a fairly precise indicator of the climate (by the plants' natural preferences vs. what they _can_ live in) that would be more ideal for me, my body, my perception....

I mean really, for this? I could make the jump, deal with the repercussions of just pulling up stakes and shooting the gap without anything other than a satchel of clothing and no money to speak of save what I laid out on a one-way plane ticket, and go back to Scotland. I take into consideration the political climates of the world - and I don't want to be bothered with them - and allow myself to entertain other places that I've not actually been to... Australia maybe... perhaps some part of Mexico... Alaska (I'm serious, and my husband is serious when he indicates that he wouldn't go with me there)... I think I seek something more "balanced" if not consistent... I suss that "global warming" might have already tipped the balance for finding my geographic utopia in my lifetime... but maybe not.

I certainly don't want to get into a Global Warming/Political discussion here, but I would suggest that your evidence is more anecdotal and perceived than scientific. In the mid 1950's there was a warm period in TN that lasted several years. Lots of record breaking temps were set, and it was nearly routine to see summer highs in the 100's (something we haven't seen in years). Then in the 1970's there was a cold period where we had colder winters and higher than average snowfall. In fact there was a great "Global Freezing" scare in the 70's. Time magazine had a cover about it and experts predicted another ice age that would make large portions of the Earth uninhabitable. It's true that the last few winters have been warmer than average, but that's due to El Nino. Our summers have been average or below in recent years.

To me, the Nashville area is almost identical to the weather I am used to in Detroit, MI with the exception that it seemed far less humid here than in Detroit and there doesn't seem to a solid freeze because the temps will bounce in and out of the freezing area all winter long.

I like the warmer/dryer environment to be sure... ;-p

I didn't want to get into a socio-political/global warming discussion either, which is precisely why I used blanket phrasing. If I wanted to get that indepth about it, it wouldn't be on GW, it would be at one of the conferences addressing the factors scientifically. I wasn't in TN in the 50s. But I must say, the rarity of 100+F summer days hasn't been rare for us on the hill in the last almost-decade - yet not enough to bump us into a different USDA zone, so I PRESUME a mesoclimate in effect for "the hill" and neighbouring area.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact for me personally that it has become too bloody hot here in the summers (and no small part of the springs) and entirely too muggy to find pleasant, the winters drudge on and the cold makes old injuries and aged joints hurt. By the same token, I thrill with the "proper" Autumn morning, Summer midnight, Spring eve, and Winter midday... even if they are brief and fleeting.

I have certainly enjoyed the Spring weather of late.

It's interesting you say that summers have become to hot for you. For me (and this purely anecdotal and not the least bit scientific), the summers seem cooler here then when I was a child.

Where is "the hill?" In Nashville, I don't think we've seen triple digits in years. The last time I remember was 1999 when we hit 101. That was a hot summer; lots of record highs. We also haven't set a summer record high since that year.

One doesn't have to interject politics to talk about global warming. Global warming is an absolutely undeniable fact. Human influence on global warming and the change in weather patterns here in Tennessee are also absolutely undeniable facts. It is also near certain that the change in weather patterns (i.e. El Nino) is caused or greatly influenced by global warming.

I'm sure some people do exagerate the effects of global warming to make political points and this is unfortunate. It's almost as unfortunate as when someone tries to deny that global warming exists. Denial of global warming is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

One aspect of the discussion that IS up for opinion is how much effect people have on global warming compared to other factors. Although scientist are studying this and know much more than they did just a few years ago, the jury is still out. While all the facts aren't yet known, it would appear prudent to err on the side of caution within reason. What is reasonable would also be up to personal opinion.

To summarize, talking about global warming facts or even perceived results is not political, and the existance of global warming is a proven fact unlike a global freezing scare.

I know it is a fact that there has been a small increase in average global temperatures in recent years. However, I have two pet peeves relative to Global Warming:

1. People who don't know anything about it (I happened to have studied and researched it fairly extensively) who say "It's that Global Warming" every time it's hot outside. I mean, it's the South; it's supposed to be hot. And for the record, our summers in Nashville have actually been cooler than average recently. Also, so many people hear one little blurb on the news and suddenly become "eco-experts." There is very little wide-spread understanding of the extreme complexity surrounding this issue.

2. The elite left-wing eco-activists who deal in fear, alarmism, and hypocrisy. You know the type; they talk about coastal flooding, wide-spread extinctions, and the end of life as we know it. Of course, that is gross over-reaction at this point. Then they leave their palatial estate, hop in their Hummer, drive to the airport, and hop on their private jet to go to the Environmental Conference. These people have bigger carbon footprints than some small countries. All the while they'll preach about conservation.

Regardless of the Global Warming debate, I personally believe very strongly that conservation of natural resources and taking care of the Earth is vitally important. But let's have a little sense about it...

I have a pet peeve about people who jump on the debate bandwagon when something is said in relaxed, non-debate discussion and turning a whole thread sour.

I know I was sure a heck of a lot more interested in this thread when it was discussing the weather for MTPS and the "coincidences" in trying to "play" with or against the weather for sowing, transplanting, etc. and sometimes getting really lucky in a perfect window of opportunity and sometimes getting nailed by quick changing weather, and sometimes just wanting to strangle whatever weatherman gave a skewed report despite all of the fancy-schmancy gadgetry and statistics - especially when listening to one's bones could have settled any question about what to do or not do in any span of days to come.

At least I can find some amusement in the scrambling I got to see here to validate an intentional detour from the otherwise natural evolution of a thread.

I'm glad we had such incredibly nice weather for MTPS - that "cooler" week was nice, the weekend for MTPS was even nicer - and then of course jumping right back "up there". We hit 92F here on the hill yesterday and hotter today. I did take advantage of the out of state wildfires though - the smoke we had was enough to temper the sun's rays just awhile longer than usual this AM and I got more transplants attended to. I'm still trying to figure out where to put a couple of Sycamore trees though. :P A lot of the "full sun" plants for transplant aren't handling full sun here very well so I may make some adjustments to where they "would" go to more like where they "should" go if I learned the lesson about full sun plants last year well enough. Some rain would be nice...

Who are these 'elite left-wing activists'? The only people I have seen with Hummers are overweight, middle age auto dealers. This sounds like a fabrication of conservative talk radio, my friend. And you may need to do a little more of your 'research' with actual scientific data, not spin. Animal and plant species are on the move north; people often have a tendency to look at the climate patterns of their own short memory and lifetime. Also, recent research has shown that the climate shifts are going to be much more complex than the 'hotter, drier summers' that the status quo equates with global warming. Some areas may see an increase in percipitation, some areas (like Europe) could see alterations to the Gulf Stream that may actually produce colder temperatures in that area. Studies in this area have shown that summers are not necessarily getting much hotter; there seems to be a shift away from a 'continental' influence (hot summers and colder winters ie more marked seasonality) to a more subtropical influence (same summer, mild winters). The result: less marked seasons, longer growing season overall, and milder winters still with sporadic cold spells. Does this situation seem familiar? Also, I don't want to get into this argument again, but the current USDA zone system may be incorrect by as much as an entire zone or more (depending on whether you're in a metro area or not). The zones are supposed to indicate 'average minimum temperature'. Go to the National Weather Service records for your area (they're available) and go through each year and record the lowest temperature recorded, then calculated the mean (this will take some time) and see what you get. You'll be surprised (I sure was). Metro Knoxville since 1990: 8a. The USDA maintains that this ia too short of a period to properly display zones, yet this is what zone maps are! They are only meant to entail 15 year increments. This was all fine and dandy when we had several winters in the 80's that set all time record lows, but when they started compiling maps after that they had a problem. They allowed one update but then the brakes were put on the 2005. I wonder why? Also FYI: some people would like for you to believe that many areas of TN were always zone 6 until very recently; this is false. I have researched old zone maps and have discovered that it was not until the 1980's that this occurred. The net result: Knoxville was zone 7 until several cold winters in the 80's produced a lower 15 year average. If you don't believe me, start hitting the search engine. They had no problem moving it down following one 15 year average, but have stalled ever since MOVING IT BACK TO WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS. Sorry, I've gotten off on a tangent. This will probably ruffle some feathers for sure!

Here is a link that might be useful: 1960 USDA map

That's really interesting. It was hard to read, but it looked like the 1927 map had us in Zone 8! It would seem that they don't want to make the adjustment because it is too politically charged. And I have heard people use that zone change and the controversial map as evidence of Global Warming. It seems like if the USDA just realeased the new map, along with some sort of statement explaining that it's just a return to previous zones after a non-typical cold period in the 80's, it would eliminate the issue.

I'm not trying to make this turn ugly, but I resent the fact that you think my information comes from spin and conservative talk radio. I can assure you I never have and never will listen to conservative talk radio (NPR all the way!). And weather has always interested me, so I have read books, watched documentaries, and done internet research on the topic. I'm not an expert by any means, but I know enough to discuss it intelligently. My biggest frustration is people who try to debate this (or any) subject who are uninformed. I appreciate the fact that you know what you're talking about. It's a complex issue, much more so than a 30 second blurb on the news will ever lead a person to believe.

If you think the only people driving Hummers are car dealers, you must not live in Franklin, home of the soccer mom in the ginormous SUV! :)

Where is "the hill?"

By the way, here is a particularly good website on the subject. It's the Enivronmental Protection Agency's site on climate change. I think it does a good job of presenting a lot of different evidence without spin or political slant. I particularly like the past climate change section for putting everything into perspective.

Here is a link that might be useful: EPA Climate Change Site

Hmmmm makes me wonder how often Al Gore takes the bus or walks anywhere. I'm sure he's jetting around the world or riding in a big ol' limo to tell us about the negative effects of carbon fuel on the planet. I say stay home, plant a garden and communicate to us via the internet he invented!

Susan, Al Gore has had a zero or negative carbon footprint for years. He does this partly by purchasing environmental credits (environmental credits are things like buying blocks of green power from the local power company), but he also does do quite a bit to directly reduce his own carbon footprint (things like using 100 percent green power through the Green Power Switch program, using solar panels and compact fluorescent bulbs, and mostly using commercial air flights as opposed to chartering his own aircraft like some in his position would do).

Edb2n, "coastal flooding, wide-spread extinctions, and the end of life as we know it" has actually already started in case you haven't been watching the news. Haven't you heard about islands like Tuvalu? Surely you've seen reports on the increasing level of extinctions caused by the effect myrtleoak mentioned above. Some may exagerate these reports, but even without any additions, they should be quite alarming. This stuff is already documented fact!

As for hardiness zone shift, the chart shifts are mainly due to effects like El Nino. They are most likely caused by or at least greatly affected by global warming, BUT the shift does not really describe global warming. When a warming weather pattern is shifted, it's a shift in pattern not an increase in overall temperature. Look at the zone shift as an effect, but not as a measure, of global warming.

Read the article in blue. Its fairly close to what I believe about all of this global warming talk.

Here is a link that might be useful: ANOTHER VIEWPOINT

A number of things pop up in that article that beg a little investigation. One example is when they state that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature change. I cannot find a study that shows this as a general trend. In fact, the studies I find contradict this. Look at the EPA's website (and don't forget, the EPA has been outed by their own scientists for watering down the real science associated with this topic) and click on Past Climate Change. Here you will find a typical graph of carbon dioxide v. temperature over the past 400,000 years. The chart clearly shows that temperature lags carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

Another example is when Bryson talks about how much more important water vapor is to temperature rise than carbon dioxide levels. HELLO!!!! First look back at the graph. There is an obvious direct correlation between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. When the temperature rises, so does water vapor in the atmosphere. It's a self-fueling cycle! You certainly can't assume that the water vapor level is going to be constant. In fact, this would directly contradict every study I have seen on global warming prediction.

This article sounds nice at first, but it has some serious issues. Bryson may be a genius, but that article seems more misleading than helpful to me. It seems like they try to sweep the real science under the rug and hope that we won't lift the rug and look underneath.

I try to keep an open mind on this subject like everything else, but almost every time I see an exaggeration or a misleading article, it always seems to be on the part of people trying to deny global warming. I really do want to think that global warming is not as bad as many say, but the critics aren't going to convince me by cover-ups or obvious misleading statements.

Here is a link that might be useful: EPA on Climate Change

As I understand the science, CO2 actually does (just barely) lag temperature increases. This is because the oceans release CO2 when they heat up and absorb it when they cool down. This is confirmed on the EPA site.

As for coastal flooding, some models suggest it is possible in the future, but they are theoretical at best. There are many areas worldwide where sea levels have actually gone down, and many that have experienced normal rises in sea level (the kind that has been going on for centuries). Some of the areas where there has been rapid rising is due to other factors like river delta subsidence and ground water pumping.

I guess my point is that this topic is so much more complicated than most people understand. People think that we used too much hair spray in the 80's and drive too many big SUVs now, and that's why it's hot outside.

Despite all this, I still believe strongly in conservation, not just to combat Global Warming, but for the long term health of our planet. I drive a small, fuel-efficient car, recycle, compost, and try to be smart about that kind of stuff. I don't have the luxury of buying power credits (a way for the rich to feel better without actually having to sacrifice anything) or installing solar panels, but I do what I can. I also strongly believe that if people knew more about the issue and the media presented more complete information (rather than sensationalizing it), it would be better for everyone as well.

for what it's worth, the seeds in question that started this thread have decided to germinate anyways...despite Al Gore's fear-mongering and the recent politicking that's taken place on the list.

I swear, that man will make a republican out of me yet. <sigh>

You might want to go back and re-look at what is actually happening with the carbon dioxide v. temperature. When the oceans release CO2 during hotter periods and absorb it during colder periods, this amplifies the effect. This is actually what is said on the EPA site. There are other factors which can be easily reviewed on many sites and sources if one chooses to look.

Come on dude, river delta subsidence and ground water pumping have nothing to do with sea level rise (I am assuming you were serious?). Give me a break. Turn on the TV. Watch the icebergs falling into the water at an exponential rate! You can see that areas like Greenland are melting at phenomenal rates. At the current rate, and even with the most conservative models, see level rise is going to be a significant problem for millions of people within the next 100 years. The islands of Tuvalu and other islands around the world are not sinking and they aren't suffering from "river delta subsidence and ground water pumping".

I think that maybe the reason some people don't get what global warming is all about is that they just refuse to accept what's right in front of them. Instead of a lack of understanding, maybe it's just that they are afraid to admit the truth. One could certainly say that they believe human influence on global warming is less than what is often accepted by others. One could say that some people may be over reacting. But in public conversation, one should not simply refuse to accept scientific fact.

arjo: "that man" and brother Bill did me in years ago.

atwork: you mention people refusing to accept scientific fact. Funny thing is, to me, global warming is not scientific fact. Scientific fact to me means that there is no debate between scientists. Global warming is a theory that says that increases in CO2 and certain other gases will cause an increase in Earths average temperature over time.

Brandon: Im with you in trying to keep an open mind, but I see just as many misleading and exaggerated statements pushing global warming as scientifically proven.

Here is a link to a website that can give a ton of information about global warming. I am linking to one certain page, but for those interested, there are many pages of information about this subject. While some pages seem to present just the conclusions (this will certainly cause the "non-believers" to jump to conclusions before checking things out further), other pages do go in depth into the solid science backing the almost universally accepted theory among scientist and scholars that current global warming is largely due to human activity.

Here is a link that might be useful: IPCC Report

Doug, give poor old Al a break. After all, how would we have gardenweb without him (my pitiful attempt at an Al Gore joke). When I listen to him on talk shows, I do think he is genuinely trying to do his part, as he sees it, to "save the world".

I think you make a good point about the word "fact". Global warming can mean different things to different people. Global warming (the current rise in average global temperatures) is a fact. Also, some of the results like sea level rise are facts. Global warming theory (the causes and future of the rise in temperatures) is a theory. Many aspects of the theory are widely accepted by most scientist. Some aspects are very contoversial.

"You might want to go back and re-look at what is actually happening with the carbon dioxide v. temperature. When the oceans release CO2 during hotter periods and absorb it during colder periods, this amplifies the effect."

I'm sorry, I thought that's what I said. Maybe I wasn't clear.

And FYI atwork, I quoted the thing about river delta subsidence and ground water pumping directly from EPA. They were discussing the many causes of sea level rise, and two particular areas that have seen rapid rise for those reasons. Also, the sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, they didn't just start recently. Places like Tuvalu (which is only about 7 inches above sea level) are doomed regardless. And they qualify the studies on sea levels with all kinds of quotes like these: "The IPCC found significant uncertainty in the analysis of 20th century sea level change. Also, there is little knowledge about the regional pattern of sea level change." Or "Furthermore, some processes affecting sea level have long (centuries and longer) time-scales, so that current sea level change is also related to past climate change, and some relevant processes are not determined solely by climate." Or "According to the IPCC, current model projections indicate substantial variability in future sea level rise between different locations. Some locations could experience sea level rise higher than the global average projections, while others could have a fall in sea level."

Projections range from an increase of 3 inches to about 3 feet in the next century.

I'm glad that we can argue in a civil manner and not resort to nastiness and name calling. Good job everybody! You would be surprised at the number of individuals that are not capable of this!

I wish everyone talking about the subject would try to be accurate and honest in their efforts. Many lies and coverups have been brought to light recently in the news. Even some of those that genuinely seem to believe that global warming isn't a problem use spurious methods to back their argument. Some take out tiny little bits of larger works and bend them to fit their argument. I guess there is some of this on both sides, but I certainly see far more from the deniers.

The sites I have quoted and the vast majority of scientific works on the subject today say that global warming is real, that scientific study and data strongly suggest human activity is responsible for much if not most of it, and that efforts must be made now to prevent catastrophe in the future.

I don't understand people that deny what's apparent to most serious scholars. I don't understand what's in it for them to deny what is causing a lot of problems and suffering already and is bound to cause a lot more in the future. I don't understand why they want to debate what is as certain as most of the science society accepts today as established fact. Questioning is one thing (and a good thing) but blind denial is another.

I think an old actuary friend of mine that once told me a very valid truism...

"If you torture the numbers long enough, you can make them say anything"

...and ever since then I've always held any type of statistical quote or proof in high suspicion not knowing source of data.

His very good example of this was (then) a report that said that accident rates have gone up some 8% since the nationwide speed-limit laws were repealed and states went up to 70 MPH limits.

He showed me the same set of statistical data and pointed out how the report failed to note that the number of daily commuters had risen by 17% and a good deal more than half of those were under 25 years old. It also showed that the majority of the accidents used in the report were not even on highways but were on major thorough-fairs where the speed limits had not changed.

**the numbers above meant as an example only, I can't recall the precise figures but the general idea is the same.

Here is a link that might be useful: Actuaries Are Scary People ;-p