USDA Hardiness Zones Shifting North
by Giulianna LamannaFrom the National Arbor Day Foundation:
The National Arbor Day Foundation has recently completed an extensive updating of U.S. Hardiness Zones based upon data from 5,000 National Climatic Data Center cooperative stations across the continental United States.
The last time the USDA Hardiness Zones were updated was 1990. The latest data gathered, however, suggests that the zones are moving north, which is to be expected as the United States as a whole grows warmer. The Arbor Day Foundation’s website provides the following interactive map, which allows you to see what changes have been happening:
Yeah, I saw this last year. I trot it out whenever someone starts talking about global warming. I tend to see some interesting facial expressions in reaction.
Comment by jhereg — 8 January 2007 @ 3:01 PM
We planned our forest garden in what was a 5a in 1990—I hope they’re OK now that they’re in a 6a. I guess I’ll have to wait till spring to know….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 January 2007 @ 3:12 PM
It’s increasingly looking like one of my favorite food trees, the avocado, will work just fine in zone 9…
Comment by Jeff Vail — 8 January 2007 @ 3:34 PM
[quote]We planned our forest garden in what was a 5a in 1990—I hope they’re OK now that they’re in a 6a. I guess I’ll have to wait till spring to know…. [/quote]
They probably will be, especially if you selected more towards the less domesticated varieties of fruit trees. As I understand it, even if they don’t get the requisite amount of chilling, the trees themselves should do fine, but with more erratic fruiting. I don’t suppose there’s an experienced orchardist reading…?
Comment by jhereg — 8 January 2007 @ 3:47 PM
Hey –
moving into 6a, you may be in store for 3-season gardening… and that’s freakin’ HUGE for self sufficiency! One of my primary issues when we decide where we are going…
Janene
Comment by janene — 8 January 2007 @ 5:00 PM
I wasn’t sure how to answer the idea that global warming would make some places that are now too cold to farm, arable. So you could just shifting cultivation polewards. Seemed like it might be true. But then, I realized: warmer climes still don’t change the tilt of the earth, and they don’t make the days longer. We’ve got a very short growing season up on the Big Level, and while the warming climate may help lengthen that somewhat, it’s not going to do diddly for the tilt of the earth.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 January 2007 @ 5:08 PM
Jason,
The further north you go, the LONGER the day in the Summer, so day length isn’t going to be a problem.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 8 January 2007 @ 6:04 PM
And the shorter it is in winter.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 January 2007 @ 6:24 PM
Hey –
Yes, but no matter how warm it gets, nobody is likely to be planting four season at the poles
But once you hit eleven - twelve hour days, you’re golden — assuming its warm.
Janene
Comment by janene — 8 January 2007 @ 7:10 PM
But the closer to the poles you go the less area each band of latitude represents. Although the North American continent gets wider to the north globaly this should lead to a reduction in the area of arable land.
Comment by Stephen Wordsworth — 8 January 2007 @ 7:55 PM
[quote]Although the North American continent gets wider to the north[/quote]
Don’t forget all that (relatively) open area that used to be part of the USSR. That widens a bit as well.
It’s actually pretty interesting. Plants really can be day-length specific, but not all of them are. I hadn’t given it a lot of thought before, but it might be a good idea to put together a list of plants that are day-length tolerant.
Comment by jhereg — 8 January 2007 @ 8:20 PM
Thank you so much for pointing this out. I will be using this to update our customers on zone changes in pnw. For your information here is a link to an article on climate change and seed collecting I wrote for our company catalog
rich
Comment by Rich Haard — 9 January 2007 @ 1:41 AM
I know you think the global warming issue is settled but there are a few people who are not so convinced.
Check out Fintan Dunne at breakfor news.com.
He’s just posted a new audio regarding this subject:-
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12375#12375
Apparently it’s getting colder- and drier!
So who’s right?
Comment by Scot Galego — 11 January 2007 @ 9:48 AM
My own opinion, based solely on the graph from your url, is that the ‘trend’ lines applied are incorrect, and therefore the conclusion is incorrect. My ‘guesstimate’ is that the data shown there is much more level. Note too the minimum points on the graph, there appears to be a steady and progressive trend towards higher temps even into 2006.
I do agree tho’, that in many places the climate is getting drier.
Comment by jhereg — 11 January 2007 @ 10:16 AM
If you listen to the audio the ‘clever ‘guy explains his theory.
He sounds like he knows his stuff. As for the graph, I don’t know, but there’s more data on the links. The audio takes about half an hour. Give it a try, if just for the accents!
Comment by Scot Galego — 11 January 2007 @ 10:46 AM
It’s not just us–it’s basically every honest researcher who’s looked into the question. “Break For News” is chock full of sensationalist conspiracy scenarios and half-baked theories.
We are.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 January 2007 @ 10:52 AM
Actually I think he cuts through a lot of the half baked conspiracy scenarios and tries to give a handle on it all.
Did you listen to Prof. Bob Carter?
Did you like the accents?
I’ll give your ” We are ” a read though.
I think what the Prof. says about the political aspect is curious.
Comment by Scot Galego — 11 January 2007 @ 11:21 AM
I’m afraid I don’t really have time to waste on something that starts off ascribing global warming to “natural cycles,” a ludicrous position that even the most egregious, Exxon-paid “skeptics” have abandoned. The ten hottest years on record were in the past 12, but it’s getting “colder”? 2005 was a record-setting hurricane season across the board, and 2006 pelted the Pacific with super-typhoons, but it’s getting “drier”? Even the Republicans have come to accept the reality of global warming. The “debate” over whether or not it’s happening has already gone on far too long, and foolishness like this has had a great deal to do with why it’s probably already too late, so no, I will not indulge it.
P.S. — The “We are” link is a blog run by a number of actual climate scientists. This is no claim to my own prominence: “we” are right because “we” are listening to what the experts who’ve studied the question, and all the evidence they’ve collected, have to say.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 January 2007 @ 11:34 AM
At the end of the day guys and girls I’m still not sure either way, but I think I’ll keep those woolly mitts just in case.
And hey don’t beat up on Fintan too much, he’s just trying to sift through the murk and make sense of it all.
Have you listened to any of his ‘treeincarnation’ stuff?
I think you might connect on a couple of things there.
I like the idea that we’re immortal!
But this is for another thread.
Saludos a todos.
Cheers to all
Comment by Scot Galego — 11 January 2007 @ 11:49 AM
“Treeincarnation,” eh? Reminds me of some of the stories Radin relates in Primitive Man as Philosopher. Ever see The Fountain? That does sound right up my alley, though.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 January 2007 @ 1:07 PM
[quote]and 2006 pelted the Pacific with super-typhoons, but it’s getting “drier”?[/quote]
To be fair, parts of the world are becoming drier. Kilimanjaro, for instance. Of course, in every case that I’m aware of this is related to agricultural and/or pastoral deforestation and environmental degradation from human activities and most certainly [b]not[/b] from “natural cycles”…..
Comment by jhereg — 11 January 2007 @ 1:49 PM
According to the map, Buffalo NY has been overtaken by a more southern zone. Presumably we’d be seeing more deciduous trees. But it’s not just getting warmer, it’s getting crazier. We had our earliest big snow ever this year, while the leaves were still on the trees. Snow stuck to the leaves, weighing heavily, ripping off almost all horizontal branches (and several others) from almost all deciduous trees. It was a graphic illustration of why northern places have evergreens with needles, and I’d expect the same for Buffalo in this new climate. Of course they’ll probably pretend nothing’s changed and re-plant with all deciduous.
Comment by Chris — 12 January 2007 @ 4:01 PM
Hi there, just a little conspiracy theory on those “Exxon paid” skeptics and Republicans :-
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12462#12462
Keep those winter woolies!
Comment by Scot Galego — 16 January 2007 @ 7:29 AM
Exxon’s been denying that it funds global warming skeptics for quite some time now. The truth of the matter is easily documented, however. But your link, Scot, is one of the most weakly reasoned rants I’ve endured since the last time I read about nature’s perfect harmonious time cube.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 January 2007 @ 12:15 PM
I can see you’re tiring of this discussion so I’ll leave it (soon), but since you mentioned them (Exxon & Reps) I thought I’d send you the link. I don’t know about your mate with the “numbers-itis” though- I only managed a few lines before it started to hurt my eyes, but I’ll interpret that stuff about killing myself as your way of saying “that’s enough”.
I was never trying to convince you-just help you hone your argument maybe. But even there I suspect I failed!
Yeah ,I knew this guy once,mad like, - he wanted to fly a metal kite with wires in a thunder ( and lightning!!)storm and he was explaining how an 8 was two 3’s and stuff and I told him “don’t worry man-you’ve just got numbers-itis”- maybe it’s the same guy!!
I guess you could use the same technique- “Don’t worry man-you’ve just got conspiracy-theory-itis”!!!
Comment by Scot Galego — 16 January 2007 @ 5:21 PM
There are plenty of real conspiracies out there. As the self-styled “9/11 Truth Movement” is fond of pointing out, “9/11 was a conspiracy–the only question is whose.” The question is one of evidence. In that case, the overwhelming evidence that it was al-Qa’ida’s conspiracy, rather than the government’s. The government has done plenty of evil things behind our back, and there’s no shortage of false flag operations that deserve our open scorn, but there’s no need to weight the scales with those crimes they very obviously did not commit, when they have so many that are genuinely their own.
The evidence for global warming and peak oil are both overwhelming—so overwhelming that those who continue to try to deny them are simply being willfully ignorant. Your sources are bona fide crackpots, Scot, and I’ve decided that the issues we face are far too serious to waste time on such insanity. To even compose a full rebuttal provides them with far more dignity than they deserve; it suggests that they’ve made a logical or valid point to be refuted, when they haven’t done anything like that at all.
If I’m going to comment further on this at all, I may write an article on why conspiracy theories are given such weight by primitivists, why so many primitivists are so paranoid, and what role it is that such stories fulfill that makes us so willing to believe them in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 January 2007 @ 5:33 PM
Well you know-”just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not after you!”
But yeah, I think that would be a good subject for an article.
I still think we’re on the isle of Barra, you going 6 miles that way and me 8 miles in that direction.
When peak oil kicks in(ie “they ” turn off the tap-leave it man,let it slide!) and global warming fucks the climate up so much that the gulf stream stops and we enter a new ice age(resist man, be strong!!)-we’ll both be at the same point and the more we are prepared the better.
Actually I’m boring of conspiracy a bit , although I like to keep tabs on it-it’s like I know it was “them” and anything associated with them is then obviously highly suspect(like peak-global stuff)(let it go man, I know you can!!!)
Maybe this has something to do with it all :-
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/html/
That’s maybe more up/down your street and if so why I thought you mind find the treeincarnation stuff interesting.
But really I want to talk about disconnecting-leaving your job(ie. civilisation) and doing it for real-starting the tribe and going “wild in the country” “where snakes in the grass, are absolutely free!”
Later man
Comment by Scot Galego — 16 January 2007 @ 6:23 PM
The climate change might well disrupt Gulfstream, and Europe might become uncomfortably cold. The global warming is a chaotic process, and chaotic processes given more energy will generate bigger fluctuations.
So, we’ll keep getting some crazy weather
Comment by _Gi — 16 January 2007 @ 7:14 PM
1. How do I get a larger copy of map showing updated hardiness zone changes.
2. Is it possible to get a state map that has these update showing the highways and towns.
Comment by gspud01@earthlink.ne — 4 March 2007 @ 5:30 PM
What a missed mark. How can the ADF deceide its time to re-number the Hardiness Zones for plants? I believe they have a political agenda of their own, and one that is in no way related to the green industry.
According to the Arbor day hardiness zone I am located in zone 6 or 7 (I guess they don’t know which), when I am actually in zone 5b. This past spring we had a late freeze in April (coldest on record) and killed plants that were even predictated to be hardy to zone 5. If I went by Arbor Day map I would have lost my entire garden!!
My point is that even if global warming is a given; the reclassifaction of USDA hardiness maps needs to be done in relation to the ‘low’ end of temps and surely on a scale that enables the entire green industry to be in sync.
Please get real ADF. gt
Comment by gary tourtillott — 2 September 2007 @ 1:26 PM
This isn’t official because it’s not from the USDA, so I think you’re overreacting somewhat. The ADF has much more limited resources. But the underlying idea is sound: the hardiness zones haven’t been updated since 1990. In that time, we’ve had some of the hottest years ever recorded and unmistakable signs of global climate change. The hardiness zones have changed.
Lots of people make the mistake of thinking that global warming should be consistent, with the irregular surface of the earth somehow all warming at the same time and at the same rate. I’m sure you don’t have to think about that for more than a few minutes to realize how foolish that is. Try heating just your dinner on the stove consistently, and try to think how unlikely it would be for a system as complex as the earth. Global warming doesn’t just mean things get hotter. In some places, it will even makes things colder. But mostly, it makes things more erratic.
I used to live in a 5a; now, we’re in a 6a. That certainly seems consistent with the changes I’ve observed. Like you, the chill was our usual concern, but now we’re seeing problems on the other end, of things getting too hot for some of our plants. So no, it doesn’t make sense to rate hardiness zones solely from the coldest they get, because the other extreme will impact your garden, too. Not only have the hardiness zones marched north, they’ve also gotten wider.
Is the ADF’s update a complete one? Of course not, they’re a private organization, not the USDA. But it puts the pressure on the USDA to do a full update, and that’s a very good thing. Personally, we’ve been planting as a zone 6, and I’m glad we have, because otherwise our whole garden would have been wiped out.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 September 2007 @ 9:58 AM
Yeah, southern & southeastern OH seem be best represented by zone 6, tho’ it used to be mostly zone 5. OH has had to deal with warmer temps across the board (incl. winter) and, in some areas, mild drought. A second look at the hardiness map seems in order.
Comment by jhereg — 4 September 2007 @ 7:49 AM
this is an interesting map, but the net net is that the shifts in hardiness zones are meaningless. if you look at the “differences” map, the up/down shifts are pretty much distributed in equal bands across the continent. so how does this “prove” global warming?
Comment by Anonymous — 27 February 2008 @ 5:30 PM
I guess I’m confused. I find the differences map the most compelling arguement. If global warming is a reality, shouldn’t the hardiness zones creep towards the poles? The differences map shows exactly that: the hardiness zones in North America have moved roughly half a zone northward. Parts of zone 6 are now zone 7, parts of zone 5 are now zone 6, etc.
Comment by jhereg — 28 February 2008 @ 8:55 AM
I’d say Anonymous must have misread the map. Those alternating bands don’t represent alternating cooling, warming and no change, it represents where the bands of the hardiness zones have shifted. All the zones have moved roughly half a zone northward. In other words, everything has gotten, generally, warmer. It offers very clear and compelling evidence of warming.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 March 2008 @ 4:22 PM