I think our forum could use more questions. Sometimes the posts slack up and no one seems to know what to say. Questions will give us something to talk about and maybe help everyone learn more.

"Evergreen in warmer climates" usually means that a plant will keep its foliage all winter in the warmer parts of the region in which it will survive. For example, if a plant is hardy in zones 5 through 9, it may be deciduous in zones 5 and 6, semievergreen in zone 7, and evergreen in zones 8 and 9. Microclimates, various weather factors, and even soil types may also effect whether the plant is actually evergreen in a particular locations. So, "evergreen in warmer climates" is a relative thing.

The ground can still freeze here, but it's nothing like it did 20 years or more ago. Now days, only the surface freezes and usually for only brief periods. Here again, it's relative because some areas get much colder than others. Sometimes you'll see a 10 degree or more difference in how cold it gets within a 50 mile radius of Knoxville.

I cut our Shasta's back to the ground after the first frost and they always come back with a vengeance but then its been 57 years since the Blizzard of Â51.

Here are some interesting weather facts about Nashville:

Nashville has a humid subtropical climate with hot, humid summers and chilly winters.
Average annual rainfall is 48.1 inches, typically with winter and spring being the wettest and autumn being the driest.
In the winter months, snowfall is not uncommon in Nashville but is usually not heavy.
Average annual snowfall is about 9 inches, falling mostly in January and February and occasionally March and December.
Spring and fall are generally pleasantly warm but prone to severe thunderstorms, which occasionally bring tornadoes  with recent major events on April 16, 1998, April 7, 2006, and February 5, 2008.
Relative humidity in Nashville averages 83% in the mornings and 60% in the afternoons, which is considered moderate for the Southeastern United States.
The coldest temperature ever recorded in Nashville was â17 °F, on January 21, 1985, and the highest was 107 °F, on July 28, 1952.
The largest one-day snow total was 17 inches on March 17, 1892.
The largest snow event in the recent memory was the storm on January 16, 2003, on which date Nashville received 7 inches.
Nashville's long springs and autumns combined with a diverse array of trees and grasses can often make it uncomfortable for allergy sufferers.
In 2008, Nashville was ranked as the 18th-worst spring allergy city in the U.S. by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Gaijingirl, 6b for Nashville is generally considered outdated. Pending the long overdue USDA zone map update, I think you would be very safe with 7a. While I agree with brandon7 that it is relative, I would think a common designation would be 7 or 8-11 in the US for "warmer climates".

Hey Jeff --

Speaking of allergies, I believe Knoxville won for worst allergy city in the nation this past year. Cough, gasp, wheeze.

Thank you for all the info and weather facts!

I definitely can agree with the allergy statements...didn't have any until I moved here...now I have to get my weekly allergy shots.

I'm glad to know about the zone...I have wondered about that, because I did hear from a nursery that we are somewhere in between, but every zone map I've seen always shows somewhere in zone 6.

"Evergreen in warmer climates" is a common phrase used in the nursery business that has slightly different meaning than the literal meaning of the sum of its parts. There are many words and phrases (especially in plant catalogs) that have slightly different meanings than many people would assume. Another example is "disease resistant". The phrase "disease resistant" is commonly used to indicate that the particular variety is resistant to a certain disease (or if you're lucky, more than one disease) that is common to the species or genus of the plant. So, although a "disease resistant" rose might be particularly unlikely to get black spots, that same rose may suffer considerably and frequently from powdery mildew. There are many more examples of changed meanings, so anytime you see a phrase like this in a plant catalog, consider that there may be more behind the meaning than is apparent to someone less familiar with "plant speak".

Global Warming: Updated USDA planting zone maps a hot topic
Updated USDA planting zone maps a hot topic
Ron Sullivan,Joe Eaton
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Westerners may swear by the Sunset maps, but for most of the country the U.S. Department of Agriculture map of plant hardiness zones is the gold standard. Why hasn't it been updated since 1990? A new version was prepared five years ago, under the auspices of the American Horticultural Society, but the USDA shot it down. Although what happened could be attributed to miscommunication, political or economic pressure may also have been involved.

'We sent the map back to USDA but got no feedback,' says David Ellis, now director of communications for AHS. Kim Kaplan, spokesperson for USDA's Agricultural Research Service, says the technical review team recommended rejecting the 2003 draft: 'It wasn't GIS/GPS compatible. The scientists said it couldn't be incorporated into existing models. The 'yes or no' decision was made at that point, even though other issues were being raised.'

Although the USDA denies it, there is also lingering suspicion that the Bush administration's discomfort with the concept of global warming played a role in the rejection of the 2003 map. 'The fact that the map shows warming put a big exclamation point out there,' says Kramer. The draft map remained on the AHS Web site for several months until the USDA's Kaplan asked the organization to take it down or alter it: 'We wanted them to make it clear this was not the official USDA map.'

In the meantime, the USDA decided its next update should reflect 30 years of data. Oregon State University's PRISM Group is working on the new version. Kaplan says the result will allow users to zoom in on locales, or type in their ZIP codes and get back a zone. 'Doing this at the GIS level, we can work at a much finer scale than ever before,' she explains. 'The zone borders will be much more refined.' How soon will it be available? 'The best I can tell you is the near future,' says Kaplan. 'The running joke,' says AHS's Ellis, 'is that it's not going to come out until we get a new president in office.'

Here is the 2003 map that was rejected.

Myrtleoak,

I couldn't get your link to work. I tried searching the AHS site for a similar link, but had no luck.

I've started using The Arborday Foundation's hardiness zone map more and more (especially for annuals and perennials, not as much for trees). There are technical issues with it, but it's generally more up to date than the official USDA map. Playing with some of the options at the bottom of the page linked below is interesting too.

I really dont like it when someone uses a gardening forum to bash people they disagree with politically. I also tire of trying to inform people about the farce global warming but I will never give up (LOL). I put this together for another gardenweb thread when someone crying about how global warming was going to doom our children and how we need to follow the advise of the experts at the UN. Here goes...

In order to put public policy actions in place to combat global warming which could have negative effects on economic progress, the following should be true.
1. global warming is occurring (probably true).
This is not all that unexpected since we may still be coming out of the little ice age which we know occurred at least from 1600-1850. Also warming is much smaller when measuring from satellite rather than from ground based measuring devices that are affected by urban heat islands.
2. the majority of the warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions and not natural (questionable).
Correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 is problematic. Ice core data appears to show that CO2 increases follow or lag higher temperatures and is therefore an effect and not a cause. Additional, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small (0.03 percent). Mans contribution to CO2 is a small percentage of CO2 (5%). CO2 contribution to global warming is small (4%). Much of the increase in CO2 due to man entered carbon sinks and is not still in the atmosphere (50%).
3. unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century (questionable)
IPCC predictions have ranged from a 1.5C to 5.8C increase by year 2100 over the last ten years (needless to say the best answer may be they dont know)
Computer models so far have done a poor job at predicting recent and past results. There is still a poor understanding of the global carbon cycle which makes any climate change due to CO2 unpredictable
4. The consequences of this warming will be disastrous (unlikely)
Typically only negative aspects of warming is noted, positive consequences should be noted as well
*Nighttime lows may be higher in temperate regions extending farming regions north
*Increased CO2 encourages plant growth
*Some desert regions (the Sahara in particular) may see increased rainfall based on historical data
In addition, if changes to the climate take place it will be over long periods of time allowing for the adaptation and migration
5. we have enough knowledge to put in place world-wide policy action that can reverse the warming (unlikely)
Also, any solution must be effective and be better than alternative actions (or inaction) and not produce unacceptable new problems.
The thought of political leaders from around the world sitting around a conference table debating the best policy to put in place (and enforce) in order to keep 2100 global temperatures at a +0C increase instead of +2.5C is laughable.
Fossil fuels are the life blood of the human economic engine that has improved the life of nearly every person on the planet. The level of proof for those wishing to change or effect the way we live is very high. The proof so far is quite lacking in my opinion. In addition, the proposed methods to combat this theoretical problem have been either impossible to implement or likely ineffective.
Let the flame throwing begin. :)

BTW. The 2003 map was very similiar to maps from the 1960's. Zones were lowered during the 70s and 80s when the earth went through 'global cooling'. Kind of blows that GW theory a little...

Midtn,

I'm confused by your post. No one (including Myrtleoak, if that's the post that drew your attention) had said anything really controversial, that I've noticed, until your post. Myrtleoak was just reposting an article in response to gaijingirl's question about why the effective hardiness zones don't match the USDA's outdated map. The original writer of the article Myrtleoak posted may have been aiming at a political objective to some degree, but then again, it is confusing and a bit flustrating that the USDA seems "frozen" in the past. I'd assume that Myrtleoak posted the article more to show that the USDA's map is outdated than to make any point about how "the majority of the warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions and not natural, etc." No one had attempted "to bash people they disagree(d) with politically".

Unless there's something I missed, it seems that you may have misread something (I've done that before) or jumped to conclusions prematurely. Your biases show through unmistakably in your post above, but I can't see how anyone else was trying "to bash people they disagree with politically." Global warming has been covered in most every forum on Gardenweb at one time or another. I think it's perfectly fine to discuss the subject to answer a related question, but would strongly question whether the topic should be interjected, as you have done, into someone else's post. Hopefully, it was just a mistake.

From Myrtleoaks post"Although the USDA denies it, there is also lingering suspicion that the Bush administration's discomfort with the concept of global warming played a role in the rejection of the 2003 map."
Let's get real, I don't think there is much doubt about what the writer of the article was trying to imply. Dont ya know that the big bad Bush administration is anti-environmental and they are putting a clamp down on the poor folks at the USDA. So much so that there is lingering suspicion (from who and by who the writer doesnt say?) that the folks at the USDA are afraid to speak up. Give me a break! In this political news environment any one who will say anything critical about the Bush administration are given accolades and a book deal complete with talk show interviews.
If there is nothing controversial about Myrtleoaks post then there should be nothing controversial about mine either. You will notice that I stuck to posting a logical argument rather than unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo like some silly writer at the San Francisco Chronicle.

I do not initiate global warming or other political discussions on this site. On the other hand I refuse to let posters use the site as a way to push their political opinion (global warming is a political issue) without a response. I have seen it happen too often. I think the forum readers deserve to hear the other sides point of view.

Midtn,

Myrtleoak's post was an article directly about the USDA's map and the discrepancies that gaijingirl had asked about. Myrtleoak wasn't the author. If you think more editing would have been appropriate when posting the article, by all means BRIEFLY just say that. I doubt a diplomatic comment from you would have bothered anyone including Myrtleoak. You might have even made a point and had people agree with you.

However, trying to hijack someone else's thread by posting extremely debatable opinions (and claiming them to be logical arguments) to bash people you disagree with politically (as if you have any clue what Myrtleoak thinks in the first place) is just plain rude. Comments like, "Let the flame throwing begin" are of no use and not welcome in this forum.

Let's just try to get back to the original topic and forget about all the political spin. Don't be the kind of person that does what you claim you "dont like".

Let me make a comparison for you. You got to the doctor and he tells you that your blood pressure is high. Your doctor has a medical degree. He advises you to take certain precautions because there is a CHANCE that the high blood pressure could lead to a heart attack. You tell him that you see no need to put yourself out financially for the cost of the medication, as there is only a chance of the high blood pressure leading to a heart attack. Furthermore, you tell him that although he has all of these "fancy degrees" and has spent many years studying medicine, his observation could be inaccurate. Instead, you will merely wait for an event that, in your opinion, won't happen. Midtn, are you a geologist or a climatologist? Do you feel that this is some king of "intellectual liberal elite" hoax? I'm sorry, but when an overwhelming majority of highly qualified PhD.'s make a suggestion, I'm probably going to listen.

Myrtleoak,

Your comparison is invalid because you assume that overwhelming majority of highly qualified climatologist agree with the man made global warming theory (THEORY). That is where your comparison is wrong. They do not. The theory is not proven. Many, many of the folks pushing this theory are not climatologist. Also the media loves to trump up bad news for their own benefit (something called ratings). They will always run with global warming (or global cooling or shark attacks or killer bees or whatever) over the status quo. A better comparison would be if you went to see two doctors. Doctor one tells you that you that may possibly have a condition. It is impossible to tell for sure if you have the condition or even that the condition exists at all. It may do nothing to you; however, it may kill you sometime in the future. It might kill you when you turn 80 or 90 years old. The doctor says it is possible but not guaranteed that if you give him some money (he is not sure how much it will take) that you may not ever show signs of having the condition. Also even if you give the doctor the money he requires, he will need to collect money from a lot of other people with this condition in order for him to be sure he can cure you. Using your brain you decide to get a second opinion. Doctor two tells you that there is a good chance that nothing is wrong with you. Doctor two tells you that there have been doctors like doctor one telling patients this diagnosis or similar ones for the last 100 years and no one has been able to prove the conditions exist yet. Doctor two says he would recommend that you enjoy your life and dont worry about it. Take care of other real diseases like cancer, diabetes, etc.
Get this point because it is important, doctor one and doctor two both have excellent qualifications and education. However, you also find out that doctor one is getting grant money from the government to study the condition he is trying to prove exists.