Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dave-Vero

Arbor Day Foundation hardiness map

Recommended Posts

SubTropicRay

Everybody needs a soapbox once in a while.  

Have a good holiday neighbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 21 2006,07:36)

QUOTE

(palmblues @ Dec. 21 2006,01:16)

QUOTE
Larry,

  just wondering why you think its a politcal agenda the NADF has? i see no mention of anything political on their site or even blame reasons for the warming.

Here is a cut and paste from their press release---whats the point of the last sentence?

As I have mentioned above, I do not know the truth about global warming (it appears no one does).  But, why cant they just give us the numbers and not add their own commentary?

I just get so disappointed that poltics has to invade every aspect of our lives (and that we cant even get gardening info without it being biased in some way).

"In response to requests for up-to-date information, the Arbor Day Foundation developed the new zones based on the most recent 15 years' data available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 5,000 National Climatic Data Center cooperative stations across the United States.

The new 2006 arborday.org Hardiness Zone Map is consistent with the consensus of climate scientists that global warming is underway. "

"

 i think you've simply misinterpreted those last few lines from th NADF is all. to me it says the NADF used the last 15 yrs for the new map b/c of the consensus of climate scientists that global warming is underway.

 i would think climate scientists are probably the people to

talk to if you want to learn something about the climate. and its the 'consensus' of 'all of them' that the earth has warmed. the climate scientists arrived at this consensus via actual global temperature records that show the earth has warmed by 2-3 degrees in the last 60 years.

 thats not a poltical statement, thats fact, scientific fact.

whether global warming is a natural phenomenum or man made is beside the point. it is a reality that the earth is warmer now than 60 years ago. politics has nothing to do with it. i think you're confusing the 'facts' with the 'politics' of it.

  so the NADF simply produced an up to date zone map

based on scientific measurements from the last 15 yrs. they gave you the facts and an explanation why. that does not make it political.

but you can always put politics into anything if you want. maybe the map should be called 'the liberals new global warming hardiness map' subtitled 'based on scientific data from the last 15 yrs only'?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Tampa

Consensus is not science.  Also consensus implies all climatologists consider global warming to be a reality, this is poop.

15 years, 50 100 even 500 are not enough to define climate.  The most that can be gained is a reasonable perspective on the weather.  Weather is everyday, climate is something that a  data set from recent history cannot accurately describe.  Climate is more like this: Central Florida has warm humid summers and mild mostly dry winters and springs.  

Weather is like the record high for whatever date  is 75, low is 2 average high is 71 low 55 and so on.  It seems more specific but is essentially no more informative than a brief a climate description as given.

The Arbor Day doohickey is very pohippylytical, why mention a fantasy comment like that when: Grow some trees, man. will do just as well?  

Using 15years is OK in some ways but why not a map with 15, 50 and 100 year "climate" doodlings.

Climate does not change like the weather, the weather does.  Also a good year of no lows  below the Zone 10b threshold does not make a zone 10 or 9b a Zone 10b for that year.  The Zones are OK for some but they leave a lot of useful insight unsighted.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Tampa

Also, just  a note:  There was nothing wrong with the equipment used to measure temperature in the first half of the 20th century.  

I think the reason to use so small a data set is to promote the assumption of global warming outside of context - perhaps to promote think globally act locally, which is fine but not "scientific" at all.

Justmy $100 bucks worth

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(Alan_Tampa @ Dec. 21 2006,19:19)

QUOTE
Consensus is not science.  Also consensus implies all climatologists consider global warming to be a reality, this is poop.

15 years, 50 100 even 500 are not enough to define climate.  The most that can be gained is a reasonable perspective on the weather.  Weather is everyday, climate is something that a  data set from recent history cannot accurately describe.  Climate is more like this: Central Florida has warm humid summers and mild mostly dry winters and springs.  

Weather is like the record high for whatever date  is 75, low is 2 average high is 71 low 55 and so on.  It seems more specific but is essentially no more informative than a brief a climate description as given.

The Arbor Day doohickey is very pohippylytical, why mention a fantasy comment like that when: Grow some trees, man. will do just as well?  

Using 15years is OK in some ways but why not a map with 15, 50 and 100 year "climate" doodlings.

Climate does not change like the weather, the weather does.  Also a good year of no lows  below the Zone 10b threshold does not make a zone 10 or 9b a Zone 10b for that year.  The Zones are OK for some but they leave a lot of useful insight unsighted.

Alan

i don't believe NADF said consensus is science? and consensus does not imply all scientists believe ... consensus is a mutual agreement among all ... and a mutual agreement among all carries weight and strength no matter what you want to believe ...

 this is a Hardiness Zone Map based on the last 15 years ... this is what we are talking about here ... the NADF published that information to let everyone know what it is based on ... its not the gospel based on millenia of scientific info, its just a zone map based on the last 15 years ... sheesh ...  :)

  and of course there is nothing wrong with the scientific data collected pre 1950 ... unfortunately that data is outdated and no longer useful if you know the earths temp has changed since that time ... scientists don't do experiments based on information that no longer applies ...

  just look at Larrys graph for AW ... from 1950 - 1990 the temps ranged from 23* to 40* with one at 40 and 5 below 30, 2 below 25, and most from 30-35 ... then look at 1990 to now ... the temps are 32* to 44* with 5 above 40 and all above 35* except for the one 32 ... the climate hasn't changed but the weather sure has for the last 15 years ... it sorta shows that something has happened for a decade and a half ...

  and what does the NADF gain by supporting (whatever that means?) global warming ... there still going to sell trees ... it makes absolutely no difference to them whether its a zone 5 tree or a zone 10 tree that they sell ... they simply stated they based their new hardiness map on the current 'climate'  ie 'weather' conditions ...

robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 21 2006,18:04)

QUOTE
i think you're confusing the 'facts' with the 'politics' of it. but you can always put politics into anything if you want. maybe the map should be called 'the liberals new global warming hardiness map' subtitled 'based on scientific data from the last 15 yrs only'?  :)

I am not Republican nor a Democrat, so I dont think my statements are biased one way or the other.  At least I try and separate that BS from reality (althought it is hard these days) :D  Im pretty sure both sides (which represent each sides of the global warming argument seemingly right down party lines...which certainly seems rather coincidental) are not lookign at things squarely.

Ok...now that that preface is out of the way.....

The background story is that the USDA (the original creators of the zone maps) did create a 2003 revision to the 1990 map.  This map rocked!  It had 15 zones in it (but did eliminate the a/b subzones unfortunately).  But, it appears that the current administration did not like what they saw.  It showed too much warming in too short of a period of time for their liking.  So, they forced the USDA to withdraw it and work on it again (one can assume that the second time around they will produce a map that is to their superiors liking).  

So, in a nutshell, I guess one could say that the "man isnt the cause of global warming" won round 1.  The old status quo 1990 map stayed out there as the "truth".

But.....oddly enough.....about a year later the Arbor Day group, who had never published a hardiness zone map previously (as that was the USDA's job), comes out with a 2004 map, which is very very close to the USDA's 2003 draft map.  The "man is the cause of global warming" side gets their message out by an end around.   I guess they win round 2!

Now, word is that the USDA is working on the lastest version of the map and it will include 30 years worth of data.....not 15.  I wonder why?  ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 21 2006,20:38)

QUOTE
  just look at Larrys graph for AW ... from 1950 - 1990 the temps ranged from 23* to 40* with one at 40 and 5 below 30, 2 below 25, and most from 30-35 ... then look at 1990 to now ... the temps are 32* to 44* with 5 above 40 and all above 35* except for the one 32 ... the climate hasn't changed but the weather sure has for the last 15 years ... it sorta shows that something has happened for a decade and a half ...

What if this year that station drops to 25F?   It will change the look of the chart.

That wont prove global warming doesnt exist.  It will only prove that the data set is still too small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 21 2006,20:38)

QUOTE
[   just look at Larrys graph for AW ... from 1950 - 1990 the temps ranged from 23* to 40* with one at 40 and 5 below 30, 2 below 25, and most from 30-35 ... then look at 1990 to now ... the temps are 32* to 44* with 5 above 40 and all above 35* except for the one 32 ... the climate hasn't changed but the weather sure has for the last 15 years ... it sorta shows that something has happened for a decade and a half ...

Im really sorry about this, but I found an error in my chart.  I hope their arent more (I will double check later tonight).

The number I had in the data for 2003 was incorrect (it was too high).

Here is the chart again.  

AW2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

I have a much higher res pdf of the withdrawn 2003 USDA map, but unfortuantely cant host it anywhere (as something other than an image).  So, here is that image.  

2003USDA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 21 2006,20:55)

QUOTE
Im really sorry about this, but I found an error in my chart.  I hope their arent more (I will double check later tonight).

The number I had in the data for 2003 was incorrect (it was too high).

Here is the map again.  

AW2.jpg

Larry,

  even with your changed data the chart shows a gradual upswing in temperature. if you run a line threw all the lows and then run a line thru all the highs, each line simply goes up and up. the low in '62 was 23* to a low in '02 of 28/29*. the high in '52 was 37* to a high of 42* in '04. a change of + 5-6* right across the board, constantly going up.

  who knows what it means. iirc there is historical evidence of gw causing a massive ice age millions of years ago on this planet. the only thing for sure is that if it keeps going up, something will happen. but something always does happen anyway, don't it?   ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(palmblues @ Dec. 21 2006,21:17)

QUOTE
Larry,

  even with your changed data the chart shows a gradual upswing in temperature. if you run a line threw all the lows and then run a line thru all the highs, each line simply goes up and up. the low in '62 was 23* to a low in '02 of 28/29*. the high in '52 was 37* to a high of 42* in '04. a change of + 5-6* right across the board, constantly going up.

  who knows what it means. iirc there is historical evidence of gw causing a massive ice age millions of years ago on this planet. the only thing for sure is that if it keeps going up, something will happen. but something always does happen anyway, don't it?   ???

oops, i meant if you run a line thru the lowest lows and then of course the highes highs ... too much firewater ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tropical1

I think for Florida the 2003 map from USDA hits the mark. There are plenty of zone 10 plants doing quite well in the area on that map delineated as zone 10. I question the arbor day map in central Florida. However, it is undeniably warmer here in Florida post 1989. Also, I dont think one cold event negates these zones since they are based on averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

The other thing we are not accounting for (with the specific discussions about the Albert Whitted AP station), is the urbanization effect elded to by Ray above.

The area around Albert Whitted AP is now pretty much built out with wall to wall condos and tall office buildings.

I suppose this discussion would be more meaningful if we could look at a station which is pretty much in the middle of nowhere, yet still has long term data available for it online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBTX11

Looking at Larry's chart it is obvious that ANY map with the 80s in it would be skewed downward.  3 of the 4 coldest temps in the last 60 years came in the 80s.  Therefore, any short term map that included the 80s would be wrong in the downward direction, because it would give the impression those are averages, when in fact they are not.  If you are going to include the 80s snaps, then you must do so over a longer period of time, so it doesn't improperly skew the map.  Also, like I said, the zone map from 1960 was quite similar to the 2004 and 2006 maps.  The 1990 map is an aberration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS Man about Palms

Just a throw out here, How much did "man" and "industry" do to stop the last Ice age? ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

I really dont want to see like I am "picking" on Arbor Day per se (as Im sure they are good folks doing the right thing by promoting the planting of trees).  

But, they just do some things, besides using the 1990 (cold) map as the comparator, that seem to be misleading.

Take this page from their website showing the zone changes between the 1990 USDA map and their 2006 map----

http://arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

They do not tell you that---

1)  The 1990 map had a/b and sub designations.  As such, an area shown as 9b on the old map and 10 on the new one, did not have a full zone increase.  They had a half zone increase.  But, the "map change" graphic still shows a half zone change as "+1 zone".  This leads the average Joe to think, at least at first glance, that theres been a 10F (one zone) increase, in average extreme minimum low temperature.  For the areas which they classify as "+2 zones", the skewing appears even worse.  

2)  If, for example, an old 9b area had an average of 29F for the old data period and 30F for the new data period, there would be a full zone change when comparing the old map to the new one.  Again...this is very misleading.  The change was tiny (and probably statistically insignifcant given the small data sample), but it doesnt look that way when one glances at the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(syersj @ Dec. 21 2006,22:27)

QUOTE
Also, like I said, the zone map from 1960 was quite similar to the 2004 and 2006 maps.  The 1990 map is an aberration.

Jim-

Do you have a copy of that 1960 map?  Ive looked for it online for over a year and still cant find it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

Okay I can't resist.

Larry that is exactly what this is targeted at, the average joe!

Since I started the ball here referring to the NADF and them having a political postion  (agenda) with regard to global warming.

Whether you beleive global warming exists, or not, is not the point. If it exsists whether it was caused by man, or is a natural cycle is not the point.

I just think it is a crying shame that they are subtly marketing their postion with cute little maps, showing the tropics creeping north,and alluding to global warming.

Gardening ought to be one place where politics and  marketing doesn't have to invade our conscienesss.

The bottom line ,as has been said here all you have to do is drive around your neighborhood to find out what zone you are in,and what you can or can't grow!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
richtrav

LOL, a 15-year map is just a brief look in the rearview mirror, not a good indicator of what's coming ahead (just think of all the poor suckers who used the 1990 map to decide what they should be planting). There is the same bias in these latest maps, only now it's just a warm bias. This latest trend really could be from GW or it could just be temporary like most weather phemonena (or a little of both). Long strings of warm winters have occurred before, just as cold periods have come and gone. That's why they used to use 30-year periods for climatic calculations (and still do for everything else other than zone maps). Hurricanes have been shown to flare up in multidecadal cycles, I think there is at least some evidence that Arctic outbreaks may trend in a similar way. Fifteen years is just not long enough to catch on to patterns like that

You know I usually don't live on advice from a fortune cookie, but I think mine the other night was spot on: the longer you look back into the past, the farther you can see into the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 21 2006,21:53)

QUOTE
The other thing we are not accounting for (with the specific discussions about the Albert Whitted AP station), is the urbanization effect elded to by Ray above.

The area around Albert Whitted AP is now pretty much built out with wall to wall condos and tall office buildings.

I suppose this discussion would be more meaningful if we could look at a station which is pretty much in the middle of nowhere, yet still has long term data available for it online.

that is a point well taken about AW Larry ... and of course that is what man is doing all over the planet ... building up huge urban areas that retain heat ... i am pretty sure its not Ma Nature whos doing the construction ...

   and to all again, it does not matter if global warming is a natural phenomenom or if its man made ... its already here, believe it or don't ... the truth does not require your belief in it in order to function ... you can go to any weather oriented source in the media and their are maps/videos/etc showing how the earth has warmed over the last 60 years ... whether one chooses to believe it or not is the political side of it ...

   and maybe 20 years from now the data will show its was a cycle and the planet is cooling again ... anything is possible ... lets all hope, anyway ...

    playing the devils advocate here - i do know one thing tho ... if 35 years from now the planet is 8* warmer and still heating up, the folks who say GW is not happening and asking if man warmed up the climate enough for the dinosaurs to live for hundreds of millions of years, these same folks will be claiming 50 years is not enough data to go on to show gw, we now need at least 200 or 300 years of past info to have any real idea of the climate :P

    and once again, the NADF zone map is ONLY based on data from the last 15 years - nothing more or less ... it does not claim to be anything more ... i know i'm going to go by it and plant some Royals in my backyard  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 22 2006,05:26)

QUOTE
that is a point well taken about AW Larry ... and of course that is what man is doing all over the planet ... building up huge urban areas that retain heat ... i am pretty sure its not Ma Nature whos doing the construction ...

Ma Nature has provided the, shall we say, impetus for procreation...heheheheheehe....and we all need somewhere to live :D

I suspect that heat retention has something to do with it, but heat generation must also be considered.  If it were only heat retention that was the problem the oceans would be some very bad contributors to this problem (as there are hardly better retainers of heat than massive bodies of water).  

As a small example.....75-100 years ago people sweat their you know whats off without A/C.  Are we willing to do that now?

Imagine trillions and rillions of little heat creating lightbulbs (which represent the inefficiencies of every process be it electrical or mechanical) being lit up constantly around the country and planet......where is that heat going?  All of it cant radiate out into space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 22 2006,05:26)

QUOTE
    playing the devils advocate here - i do know one thing tho ... if 35 years from now the planet is 8* warmer and still heating up, the folks who say GW is not happening and asking if man warmed up the climate enough for the dinosaurs to live for hundreds of millions of years, these same folks will be claiming 50 years is not enough data to go on to show gw, we now need at least 200 or 300 years of past info to have any real idea of the climate :P

If the planet warms 8F, those folks will have to make those claims from a boat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 22 2006,05:26)

QUOTE
i know i'm going to go by it and plant some Royals in my backyard  :)

As mentioned above....theres no better true zone indicator than plants.

Get a Royal to survive another decade in a 9a area and then we might just be onto something with these maps :D

But, if I was betting man, I wouldnt wager (or spend) much money on those palms!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(palmblues @ Dec. 22 2006,05:26)

QUOTE
 and maybe 20 years from now the data will show its was a cycle and the planet is cooling again ... anything is possible ... lets all hope, anyway ...

What if we do enter a cooling cycle, but the planet would have cooled more without man's effects?  If that happens, it wont mean that the man made global warming crowd was wrong, it will just mean that they were less right and the effects muted from Ma Nature's more overwhelming effects.

And, if 100 years from now we are under water in FL, will we know for sure that is was because of man's effects and not just some cycle?  Hasnt FL been under water before?

In the end, it all boils down to keeping the planet the way we want it for our best survival.  It really has nothing to do with what Ma Nature wants.  She will survive just fine (and could really care less what the ocean level is, what the avenerage temperature is, etc).  Truth be told, Mother Nature likes change and we as inhabitants dont....so we will always be at odds to some degree.

Just my philosophical 2 cents....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZoneTenNut

Really interesting discussion. For certain, there is NOT a concensus of ALL climatologists on this issue. This is just inaccurate, hence all the debate. It is fact that temps are trending higher in recent history, but whether we are the ones causing this or whether this is a natural cycle is still, anybodys guess. I don't recall specifically where I've seen or read about this, but there has been various research projects into temperature patterns going way back, which used things like ice cores taken from old glaciers and rings on trees, etc., where the global temperature chart looked like the stock market, with ebs and flows up and down. Sooooooo, I'll plant the Cyrtostachys Renda and enjoy this warming trend, but also plant the Livistona Chinensis for the inevitable swing of the pendulum back the other way.   :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave-Vero

To judge from what pops up in Science magazine, global warming is almost univerally accepted as a reality.  But there's a big row among hurricane climatologists as to whether it's worth factoring warming into seasonal/long-term predictions.  There were LOTS of hurricanes back in the 1920s.   Hardiness in Florida is defined by rare severe freezes that have driven the citrus industry southward.  There used to be commercial groves just south of Gainesville, and more recently in Orange County.  Sea level rise is a reality, causing considerable vegetation change in the Keys during the 1930-1990 period.  

I think the 2003 hardiness zone map, developed by the American Horticultural Society under contract to USDA, provoked a lot of criticism from potential users.  

Here's a story from the Charlotte Observer.  It mentions palms and they talked to USDA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBTX11

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 21 2006,22:52)

QUOTE

(syersj @ Dec. 21 2006,22:27)

QUOTE
Also, like I said, the zone map from 1960 was quite similar to the 2004 and 2006 maps.  The 1990 map is an aberration.

Jim-

Do you have a copy of that 1960 map?  Ive looked for it online for over a year and still cant find it!

It was posted on the old board before it crashed, on a subject similar to this one.  I will have to look for it, i didn't save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn
and once again, the NADF zone map is ONLY based on data from the last 15 years - nothing more or less ... it does not claim to be anything more ... i know i'm going to go by it and plant some Royals in my backyard  :)

Palm blues,

First I'm sure that NADF is a great organization ,plant trees and make the world a better place,all good and well.

But I think you are being a bit disingenuious,not accepting the fact that  they are promoting a cause other than planting trees,and  this map has an AGENDA!

In the article above, from the Charlotte Observer,

a small except:

"Picture palm trees lining Tryon Street.

A warming climate means Charlotteans and others across the Carolinas can grow trees previously suited to hotter places, a tree advocacy group says.

A new plant-hardiness map, produced by the National Arbor Day Foundation, puts Charlotte in a warmer zone than a 1990 map by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Once in Zone 7, the city has now crept into Zone 8, which has expanded to cover most of the South.

"The 10 hottest days on record all occurred since 1990," said Arbor Day spokesman Woody Nelson. "There's no way that (1990) map can be accurate."

Nelson said the foundation released its map this week because, for "no clear reasons," the Agriculture Department hasn't done its own update. The new map reflects most climate scientists' views of global warming, the foundation said."

If this were not the case, why would a representative of NADF make these statements to any newspaper, radio, or tv reporter that interviews them.When if they were only concerned with promoting trees and tree planting,say something like..."heres the MAP ladies and gentlemen...here are the trees you can plant in your ZONE...now get out there with a shovel and start digging holes and planting!"

This map was created to promote the idea of global warming as much as,if not more than to tell tree planters what they can plant in there ZONES!

I'm done  stick a fork in me!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(syersj @ Dec. 22 2006,11:47)

QUOTE
It was posted on the old board before it crashed, on a subject similar to this one.  I will have to look for it, i didn't save it.

Find it find it find it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBTX11

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 22 2006,12:02)

QUOTE

(syersj @ Dec. 22 2006,11:47)

QUOTE
It was posted on the old board before it crashed, on a subject similar to this one.  I will have to look for it, i didn't save it.

Find it find it find it!

If it is there, I will find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBTX11

I found it!!!!

Here is the 1960 USDA map.  As you can see, it closely matches the 2003, 2004, and 2006 maps and NOT the 1990 map.  Proof, IMO, that the 1990 map was an aberration.  Compare it to the 1990 map also on this site!  I tried to post the map, but it said the file was too big, maybe someone else can.  It is time for folks to stop referring to the 1990 map.

http://www.iceagenow.com/PlantHardinessMaps.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

Awesome Jim!

Here they are side by side by side....1960 and 1990 and the withdrawn 2003 maps.

Plant_Hardiness_1960.jpg

Plant_Hardiness_1990.jpg

2003USDA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

Good work Jim!

What is interesting is comparing the 1960 USDA map to even the current NADF 2006 map side by side!

Here in Florida at least it was somewhat warmer in 1960 than it is today in 2006!!!

IMO this is the problem  with using statistics to try to deterime trends in weather and climate.

Depending on what data is used ,  you can put any kind of SPIN, on that you want!

And just so you don't think I am picking only on the NADF.That is the reason I beleive the USDA map was delayed,was because the data that the goverment got back wasn't what they wanted,so they sent it back to get the SPIN they wanted!!

And to those who say this isn't political ,I say take your head out of the SAND!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(gsn @ Dec. 22 2006,13:17)

QUOTE
What is interesting is comparing the 1960 USDA map to even the current NADF 2006 map side by side!

For ease of viewing----

Plant_Hardiness_1960.jpg

2006_zones.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(gsn @ Dec. 22 2006,13:17)

QUOTE
IMO this is the problem  with using statistics to try to deterime trends in weather and climate.

Depending on what data is used ,  you can put any kind of SPIN, on that you want!

As I have mentioned above.......the fact that the 1960 map shows the country pretty much as warm (or warmer in the case of FL...look at the size of that Zone 10 area) than the 2006 Arbor Day map doesnt mean global warming doesnt exist.  But, it does highlight the fact that our data periods are still too short.

In 1960, people werent talking about global warming......I suspect they were just getting over the previously widely held "scientific" thoughts that a major cooldown was coming (or was supposed to have come).   I believe from from the late 1800's and several decades into the 1900's, there was doom and gloom over a very much immediately pending ice age.  Time has obviously shown us that this didnt happen (although the 1980's were dang cold!)   Now, its the reverse.  Time will also tell if the current "science" predicting massive warming is correct or not.  And, with time, we learn more and more (and hopefully get a little smarter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBTX11

Interesting note about the 1960 map.  FL and the rest of the SE appear to be about the same as the 2006 map, but the midwest and northern tier appear to be warmer on the 2006 map than the '60 map.  

You have to wonder how accurately they measured temps to put into the 1960 map, some of those lines look very generalized and not specific like the current maps.  They probably did not test as many stations, thus the generalized looking zones.

Side note, is it just me or is the tip of Louisiana a zone 10 on the 2006 map.  I guess there are zone 10s outside of Cal, TX, and FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
galveston1602

Jim,

It looks like theyve got zone 10 in la....

Ive been to venice la (the tip of la)

And let me just say that its not very palmy.... it looks really similar to what youd see in Houston or New Orleans proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(syersj @ Dec. 22 2006,21:02)

QUOTE
Side note, is it just me or is the tip of Louisiana a zone 10 on the 2006 map.

Looks that way to me Jim if I squint my eyes tight!  There sure seems to be a little tip of Z10 hiding there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(galveston1602 @ Dec. 22 2006,22:00)

QUOTE
Ive been to venice la (the tip of la)

And let me just say that its not very palmy.... it looks really similar to what youd see in Houston or New Orleans proper.

Allen-

I didnt think there was anyhting but Cajuns, Jambalaya and gators (running away from the Cajuns) out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

(spockvr6 @ Dec. 22 2006,22:05)

QUOTE

(syersj @ Dec. 22 2006,21:02)

QUOTE
Side note, is it just me or is the tip of Louisiana a zone 10 on the 2006 map.

Looks that way to me Jim if I squint my eyes tight!  There sure seems to be a little tip of Z10 hiding there.

Yes it is there.

Here is a zoomed in look at the area using the high res tif file on the Arbor Day site.

Louisana.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...