This did not age well)

[Jimbean]

On 1/3/2021 at 10:44 PM, Xenon said:

Hi John, here is a very rough map of zone 9 and 10 in Texas (based on the numbers only): 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Jimbean

[necturus]

Guess you still don't understand the USDA zone system. Houston could drop to 10 or below and still average out as 9B in the next USDA map. No question that map is overly optimistic, though.

Just wait, North and Central Florida's time is coming. 

[IHB1979]

1 hour ago, necturus said:

Just wait, North and Central Florida's time is coming. 

No question about it, but time has dealt plenty to Florida over the years, too; 1957, 1962, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1989, 2009 with a sprinkling of less devastating events like 1997, 2006, 2010, 2018, 2021. Central Florida was dealing with several days of low's in the upper 20's as recently as two weeks ago. 

Mother nature is playing the long-game and climate is a self-cleaning oven. Things that don't belong will be taken care in due time, both in Texas and Florida. 

 

[necturus]

1 minute ago, IHB1979 said:

No question about it, but time has dealt plenty to Florida over the years, too; 1957, 1962, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1989, 2009 with a sprinkling of less devastating events like 1997, 2006, 2010, 2018, 2021. Central Florida was dealing with several days of low's in the upper 20's as recently as two weeks ago. 

Mother nature is playing the long-game and climate is a self-cleaning oven. Things that don't belong will be taken care in due time, both in Texas and Florida. 

 

Yup, aware and in agreement. Enjoy what you've got while you've got it, but keep a chainsaw ready. 

[Xenon]

A bit fresh to rub salt in a wound no? Haha

As stated, the map is based on the numbers and the numbers alone using the zone system defined by the USDA. Even if you include yesterday's numbers, the zones hardly shift at all. SPI is still by the numbers, 10b. Whatever "score correction" you or anyone else assigns is arbitrary.  That being said, the zones themselves don't claim anything specifc either i.e this plant is bulletproof in this zone, this zone has x record low, etc.  Any inference beyond "annual average minimum for a 30 year period" is outside the scope of their definition. 

Anyways I intended for the map to display a loose extrenw temperature gradient across the southern part of state for comparative analysis not "this barrier island never gets cold". 

[Xenon]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:08 AM, necturus said:

No question that map is overly optimistic, though.

Promise I didn't inflate the numbers, it is just presented as is for the period 1991-2020 without any positive or negative corrections. 

[Jimbean]

5 hours ago, Xenon said:

A bit fresh to rub salt in a wound no? Haha

As stated, the map is based on the numbers and the numbers alone using the zone system defined by the USDA. Even if you include yesterday's numbers, the zones hardly shift at all. SPI is still by the numbers, 10b. Whatever "score correction" you or anyone else assigns is arbitrary.  That being said, the zones themselves don't claim anything specifc either i.e this plant is bulletproof in this zone, this zone has x record low, etc.  Any inference beyond "annual average minimum for a 30 year period" is outside the scope of their definition. 

Anyways I intended for the map to display a loose extrenw temperature gradient across the southern part of state for comparative analysis not "this barrier island never gets cold". 

Well it wasn't meant to rub salt in any wound.  I pointed out the facts like an engineer.  I'm interested in climates and applying a classification to data; anyone who follows my maps of Florida knows that I don't take averages seriously. 

[palmsOrl]

On 2/15/2021 at 12:08 PM, necturus said:

Guess you still don't understand the USDA zone system. Houston could drop to 10 or below and still average out as 9B in the next USDA map. No question that map is overly optimistic, though.

Just wait, North and Central Florida's time is coming. 

This.  One bad year does not define a given location's zone (though the data factors into the average).  Rather, a zone is based on an average of the preceding 30 years' lowest annual temperatures.

-Michael

[Jimbean]

1 minute ago, palmsOrl said:

This.  One bad year does not define a given location's zone (though the data factors into the average).  Rather, a zone is based on an average of the preceding 30 years' lowest annual temperatures.

-Michael

This depends on how you interpret the data.  My contention is that average annual lows are not a functional way to determine if a said classification of a plant would survive there. 

[Xenon]

34 minutes ago, Jimbean said:

This depends on how you interpret the data.  My contention is that average annual lows are not a functional way to determine if a said classification of a plant would survive there. 

Do you have a functional metric or formula to numerically outline an "adjusted" zone map? If you're going to assign an arbitrary curve or correction on top of an arbitrary cutoff, at least let it be consistently arbitrary.

[Jimbean]

55 minutes ago, Xenon said:

Do you have a functional metric or formula to numerically outline an "adjusted" zone map? If you're going to assign an arbitrary curve or correction on top of an arbitrary cutoff, at least let it be consistently arbitrary.

For Florida I have made several maps using different metrics.  I think the most reliable long term map is the one where I weight the record cold events more than the average.  Let me see if I can dig up my Florida map I made back in 2009.

[Jimbean]

Here it is.  I did an estimate of Texas too, but I don't know where to even begin looking for that one.

[Jimbean]

Actually I just found my Texas estimate I did back in 2010

 

 

texas.webp

[Xenon]

58 minutes ago, Jimbean said:

For Florida I have made several maps using different metrics.  I think the most reliable long term map is the one where I weight the record cold events more than the average.  Let me see if I can dig up my Florida map I made back in 2009.

You still run into the problem of trying to apply the magnitude of a benchmark "evenly" over a wide geographic area. For example, 1989 was generally more severe on the east coast vs the west coast of Florida. And if you are adjusting for record cold, are you also adjusting for record warm due to increased urbanization in some areas? Earlier you mentioned survival; how are you defining survival? 20, 50, 100 years? How can you possibly have enough observational data to create a map based on survival of what I assume are some indicator plants? Or are you basing survival off some loosely defined "kill temperature"? Which itself is problematic because it doesn't take into account stratification of air, advective vs radiational cold, length of cold, daytime heating, etc. 

Exactly how much weight are you putting on record events? And over what range of time? What exact formula did you use to come up with the zones? Your map is well constructed but it lacks context if you aren't completely forthcoming with exactly how the calculations were done and if they were done using consistently applied rules  

[Jimbean]

20 hours ago, Xenon said:

You still run into the problem of trying to apply the magnitude of a benchmark "evenly" over a wide geographic area. For example, 1989 was generally more severe on the east coast vs the west coast of Florida. And if you are adjusting for record cold, are you also adjusting for record warm due to increased urbanization in some areas? Earlier you mentioned survival; how are you defining survival? 20, 50, 100 years? How can you possibly have enough observational data to create a map based on survival of what I assume are some indicator plants? Or are you basing survival off some loosely defined "kill temperature"? Which itself is problematic because it doesn't take into account stratification of air, advective vs radiational cold, length of cold, daytime heating, etc. 

Exactly how much weight are you putting on record events? And over what range of time? What exact formula did you use to come up with the zones? Your map is well constructed but it lacks context if you aren't completely forthcoming with exactly how the calculations were done and if they were done using consistently applied rules  

I approach this problem by taking the data, but making assumption that new low records will not be made.  Right away I have three problems with this:

1.) Lack of data.  In many cases I have less than 40 years to work with.  I tried to solve this problem by calculating average differences of temperature between locations and extrapolating an estimate that way. 

2.) Not taking into account the type of cold, such as duration or the moisture content. 

3.) Ignoring the possibility that it has gotten colder than recorded in the past, or will break new cold records in the future.  I took a stab at this problem by noting the natural range of tropical plants in Florida and making assumptions by taking into consideration of what each species terminal temperature is.

 

I did adjust for urban heat islands.  I did this by using census bureau information on estimated population density, and tracking the annual minimum temperature change compared to other locations, again, extrapolating the data, and I came up with a formula whereby I was able to project the effect of the urban heat island with population growth. 

 

I define survival as at least a 50% recovery rate to the closet station's record low, or estimated record low. 

 

I drew the map according to an estimate of what the record cold temperatures are, also considering micro-climates (elevation, urban heat island, etc.).  I redefined the zones not based on the same scale of the USDA, but rather instead of calling zone 9B minimum 18F, 10A minimum as 23F, 10B as 28F, etc. 

 

Because there are so many dynamics going on, plus the issue with a lack of data and much of my analysis based on estimations, Koppen's climate classification approach might be a better option. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Jimbean
grammar

[AnTonY]

It aged like fine wine 

Edited February 20, 2021 by AnTonY

[NBTX11]

People don't know how zone maps work, apparently.  You can be a zone 10 and still experience temperatures in the 20's.  As long as your overall average of winter lows over an extended time period is over 30.  Which in the case of South Texas, it is.   Being a zone 10 doesn't mean you never get below 30, it means your AVERAGE winter low is above 30F. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by NBTX11

[Jimbean]

6 hours ago, NBTX11 said:

People don't know how zone maps work, apparently.  You can be a zone 10 and still experience temperatures in the 20's.  As long as your overall average of winter lows over an extended time period is over 30.  Which in the case of South Texas, it is.   Being a zone 10 doesn't mean you never get below 30, it means your AVERAGE winter low is above 30F. 

This is the USDA definition of a zone, however if you define long term hardiness of any given species +50 years, the system is not functional. 

[JohnAndSancho]

Can someone tell me what the point of this whole thread is? It just looks like a poorly timed wiener swinging. 

 

Forgive me if I sound spicy, but I am actively involved in a humanitarian crisis here and this he said/she said crap seems to be in incredibly poor taste given the immense suffering and loss of life. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by JohnAndSancho
Ehhh

[JohnAndSancho]

People have lost their lives. People have lost their homes. Please tell me why you felt this post was necessary. 

 

I've been dunking my toothbrush in the same shot glass of Dasani since Thursday because my dog needs bottled water more than I do, but by all means please reply to me from your safe and warm home and tell me how this post was more than a giant ego event. 

 

Good vibes. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by JohnAndSancho
Added a different angry reply..

[JohnAndSancho]

Also it's not lost on me the title of this post. Because this ain't gonna age well at all being posted from a warm and comfortable home while people literally freeze to death trying to find water for their families. 

[Reyes Vargas]

2 hours ago, JohnAndSancho said:

People have lost their lives. People have lost their homes. Please tell me why you felt this post was necessary. 

 

I've been dunking my toothbrush in the same shot glass of Dasani since Thursday because my dog needs bottled water more than I do, but by all means please reply to me from your safe and warm home and tell me how this post was more than a giant ego event. 

 

Good vibes. 

 

2 hours ago, JohnAndSancho said:

People have lost their lives. People have lost their homes. Please tell me why you felt this post was necessary. 

 

I've been dunking my toothbrush in the same shot glass of Dasani since Thursday because my dog needs bottled water more than I do, but by all means please reply to me from your safe and warm home and tell me how this post was more than a giant ego event. 

 

Good vibes. 

Well said.  We should be coming together and maybe ask for donations for Texas like water instead of debating zone maps.  A lot of Texas is still under mandatory boil water orders.

[Jimbean]

4 hours ago, JohnAndSancho said:

People have lost their lives. People have lost their homes. Please tell me why you felt this post was necessary. 

 

I've been dunking my toothbrush in the same shot glass of Dasani since Thursday because my dog needs bottled water more than I do, but by all means please reply to me from your safe and warm home and tell me how this post was more than a giant ego event. 

 

Good vibes. 

Did you read this thread at all?  I posted earlier that this is strictly for a logical perspective.  I did not intend disrespect.

Please do not assume that I, or anyone else outside of Texas has a comfy life backstory either, I've found myself into some bad situations before, and no one sympathized with me, nor did I expect sympathy.

This is a lesson in self-sufficiency, not empathy/sympathy.

[DCA_Palm_Fan]

13 hours ago, Jimbean said:

Did you read this thread at all?  I posted earlier that this is strictly for a logical perspective.  I did not intend disrespect.

Please do not assume that I, or anyone else outside of Texas has a comfy life backstory either, I've found myself into some bad situations before, and no one sympathized with me, nor did I expect sympathy.

This is a lesson in self-sufficiency, not empathy/sympathy.

To be quite frank, I feel like this entire thread, and your response here is rather callous.   Nothing personal, just how it read / comes across.   When I first saw it, I just left it alone because I thought it was in poor taste.    I don't think they ever said anything about a comfortable back story either.   He did mention sitting in a comfortable warm home with power and water, etc, which is far better than many have it in TX currently, and that was the point.   I think id feel a bit  the same way if we had a huge disaster here in FL and others from other unaffected place posted something similar.    Anyway, just my .02.      Hope everyone over there faired OK personally and things did not get too bad.   

[Xenon]

I don't think Jimbean was being intentionally malicious but maybe a bit obsessive. I do agree that this thread is poorly timed and framed. 

Jimbean, I think it would've been more transparent and conductive to discussion if you had provided some commentary or insight in your original post rather than have me guess what your intentions were. It did come off a bit as a "call out" as I hinted in my reply. 

As for the logical perspective on the topic, I'm still eager to hear what mathematical formula(s) you used to quantify all of the things you mentioned. It doesn't need to be as rigorous as a scientific journal, but all of those variables must be accounted for somehow in the numerical calculation or else it's like drawing lines on a map. 

[palmsOrl]

On 2/21/2021 at 4:47 AM, JohnAndSancho said:

Can someone tell me what the point of this whole thread is? It just looks like a poorly timed wiener swinging. 

 

Forgive me if I sound spicy, but I am actively involved in a humanitarian crisis here and this he said/she said crap seems to be in incredibly poor taste given the immense suffering and loss of life. 

 

On a more serious note, my heart goes out to all those who are suffering and to the loved ones of those whose lives have been lost.

[Jimbean]

On 2/21/2021 at 7:15 AM, Jimbean said:

Did you read this thread at all?  I posted earlier that this is strictly for a logical perspective.  I did not intend disrespect.

Please do not assume that I, or anyone else outside of Texas has a comfy life backstory either, I've found myself into some bad situations before, and no one sympathized with me, nor did I expect sympathy.

This is a lesson in self-sufficiency, not empathy/sympathy.

I responded here out of frustration, I honestly thought this would have been a good topic.  When I made it, at the time I don't think there were too many deaths or injuries. 

There is only one regular poster here that has met me in person, otherwise I'm very honest and blunt in my personality, and have the autistic trait to ignore people's feelings.  Months back, I ran into one of my instructors from when I went to UCF while shopping at Publix.  She was an instructor of psychology and also did therapy.  We talked a bit and she mentioned that since the covid lockdowns and people losing their jobs, etc. that she has been seeing a lot more people than usual.  Without thinking about the human suffering side of it, I said "wow business must be good for you now."  She looked at me a bit shocked but then she politely reminded me that people were indeed suffering (and for the record, I too got laid off due to the shutdown), and she did not feel like it was appropriate to just focus on the business aspect of it.  At that moment I felt like an idiot because in that moment in the conversation I was thinking about it in purely economic terms and not thinking about it with regards to how people were suffering. 

The point being, is not to read into my original post as in I'm making light of those who have died.  It's not at all about ego, but pointing out a blatant contradiction. 

[Jimbean]

16 hours ago, Xenon said:

I don't think Jimbean was being intentionally malicious but maybe a bit obsessive. I do agree that this thread is poorly timed and framed. 

Jimbean, I think it would've been more transparent and conductive to discussion if you had provided some commentary or insight in your original post rather than have me guess what your intentions were. It did come off a bit as a "call out" as I hinted in my reply. 

As for the logical perspective on the topic, I'm still eager to hear what mathematical formula(s) you used to quantify all of the things you mentioned. It doesn't need to be as rigorous as a scientific journal, but all of those variables must be accounted for somehow in the numerical calculation or else it's like drawing lines on a map. 

I'll see if I can find it.  I should have saved it since it took me hours to figure that out

Edited February 22, 2021 by Jimbean
grammar

[JohnAndSancho]

1 hour ago, Jimbean said:

I responded here out of frustration, I honestly thought this would have been a good topic.  When I made it, at the time I don't think there were too many deaths or injuries. 

There is only one regular poster here that has met me in person, otherwise I'm very honest and blunt in my personality, and have the autistic trait to ignore people's feelings. 

I absolutely reacted out of frustration too. As far as personality traits go, I'm an empath - so I'm literally feeding off of everyone else's unhappiness here. 

Seeing the reactions from our current and former elected officials really brought out the Irish in me, too. (Texans would rather suffer from months long blackouts than have government oversight? Really, Rick Perry? Really?) 

 

So, yeah. I don't know you personally, and I honestly probably overreacted a little bit, so I'm sorry for that. It's the internet, I shouldn't get so heated. 

 

Good vibes, man. 

[Jimbean]

On 2/22/2021 at 3:28 PM, Jimbean said:

I responded here out of frustration, I honestly thought this would have been a good topic.  When I made it, at the time I don't think there were too many deaths or injuries. 

There is only one regular poster here that has met me in person, otherwise I'm very honest and blunt in my personality, and have the autistic trait to ignore people's feelings.  Months back, I ran into one of my instructors from when I went to UCF while shopping at Publix.  She was an instructor of psychology and also did therapy.  We talked a bit and she mentioned that since the covid lockdowns and people losing their jobs, etc. that she has been seeing a lot more people than usual.  Without thinking about the human suffering side of it, I said "wow business must be good for you now."  She looked at me a bit shocked but then she politely reminded me that people were indeed suffering (and for the record, I too got laid off due to the shutdown), and she did not feel like it was appropriate to just focus on the business aspect of it.  At that moment I felt like an idiot because in that moment in the conversation I was thinking about it in purely economic terms and not thinking about it with regards to how people were suffering. 

The point being, is not to read into my original post as in I'm making light of those who have died.  It's not at all about ego, but pointing out a blatant contradiction. 

Just to be clear, I have not been tested for autism.  Sorry for the confusion. 

[Jimbean]

23 hours ago, JohnAndSancho said:

I absolutely reacted out of frustration too. As far as personality traits go, I'm an empath - so I'm literally feeding off of everyone else's unhappiness here. 

Seeing the reactions from our current and former elected officials really brought out the Irish in me, too. (Texans would rather suffer from months long blackouts than have government oversight? Really, Rick Perry? Really?) 

 

So, yeah. I don't know you personally, and I honestly probably overreacted a little bit, so I'm sorry for that. It's the internet, I shouldn't get so heated. 

 

Good vibes, man. 

Don't worry about it. 

[bubba]

Why does everyone seem to live on this horrid USDA map garbage. Does not Eureka Cali score an 11 even though it stays 40 F year round? It’s what grows that should determine zones. Koppen-Geiger tells you this and what grows is what counts. RGV can replant coconuts and not worry for another 100 years!

[Austinpalm]

2 hours ago, bubba said:

RGV can replant coconuts and not worry for another 100 years!

Let's hope so....

 

[necturus]

Koppen-Geiger is useful, but what you really need is it plus zones and standard deviations. 

There's a lot of schadenfreude on Palmtalk and society in general. Pretty sad stuff.

 

[Jimbean]

"schadenfreude" just learned a new word, thank you.

Koppen's classifications are better than USDA zones in the broad sense.  In my gut I feel that there is a better way. 

[DCA_Palm_Fan]

On 2/23/2021 at 8:50 PM, bubba said:

Why does everyone seem to live on this horrid USDA map garbage. Does not Eureka Cali score an 11 even though it stays 40 F year round? It’s what grows that should determine zones. Koppen-Geiger tells you this and what grows is what counts. RGV can replant coconuts and not worry for another 100 years!

I kind of agree with you on this.  The USDA zones are just minum tmeps that can be expected in typical winters.  They offer nearly nothing for extreme cold snaps and are only a real idicator of typical winter temps.    I think some hybrid system where temperatures, including extremes, as well as plant growth / survival data, including  data from events like what Texas just went through,  would be much more beneficial to everyone.  In such a system one could possibly see that while something is shown to grow in a certain place, that it is or is not long term viable  on a scale (10, 20, 30,40) years or more.  There has to be a way to do that, but it would be a fairly large collaborative effort of data collection and sharing.   

I look at the zones as a general guid, and also take them at face falue, knowing full well that we shoud not fully rely on them in the more marginal "A" zones.