USDA's Plant Hardiness Zone Map Shows Half the Country Has Shifted 42
The newly updated U.S. Department of Agriculture's "plant hardiness zone map" has gardeners across the nation researching what new plants they can grow in their warming regions, as the 2023 map is about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 2012 map. NPR reports: This week the map got its first update in more than a decade, and the outlook for many gardens looks warmer. The 2023 map is about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 2012 map across the contiguous U.S., says Chris Daly, director of the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University that jointly developed the map with the USDA. Daly says the new map means about half the country has shifted into a new half zone and half hasn't. In some locations, people may find they can grow new types of flowers, fruits, vegetables and plants.
Daly says he is hesitant to explicitly attribute the specific changes from the 2012 map to the 2023 map to climate change because of the volatility of the key statistic they used to create this map. They were mapping "the coldest night of the year, each year, over the past 30 years", Daly says, and it's a highly variable figure. In an email, a press officer for the USDA says, "Changes to plant hardiness zones are not necessarily reflective of global climate change because of the highly variable nature of the extreme minimum temperature of the year." But Daly says, in the big picture, climate change is playing a role in changing what grows where in the US: "Over the long run, we will expect to see a slow shifting northward of zones as climate change takes hold."
Daly says he is hesitant to explicitly attribute the specific changes from the 2012 map to the 2023 map to climate change because of the volatility of the key statistic they used to create this map. They were mapping "the coldest night of the year, each year, over the past 30 years", Daly says, and it's a highly variable figure. In an email, a press officer for the USDA says, "Changes to plant hardiness zones are not necessarily reflective of global climate change because of the highly variable nature of the extreme minimum temperature of the year." But Daly says, in the big picture, climate change is playing a role in changing what grows where in the US: "Over the long run, we will expect to see a slow shifting northward of zones as climate change takes hold."
Re: (Score:1)
It's the rate of change.
Different map [Re:but I think we all know it WAS] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
why let something stupid like facts get in the way of a denialist diatribe
Re: (Score:2)
um, nothing you mention seems to have anything to do with climate.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the facts state that global warming is GOOD FOR THE PLANTS IN THE GARDENS, retard.
Global warming is good for some plants in some place, bad for other plants and in other places. The map being discussed doesn't say "this is bad for plants!" It says "the types of plants that survive best over winter in this place have changed".
(and do note that this map is only about winter hardiness. It's not about other things, like drought-resistance or summer temperature).
Re: (Score:3)
It is people like the OP who will make our decedents suffer greatly. With mass migrations that I am sure will eventually happen, the US will probably experience what it was like in Europe during WWI. And no wall will stop it since many people from the West and Deep South of the US will be the ones migrating North. Never mind people on the coasts. Maybe Canada should build a wall :)
And your guns will not save you when there is no food to be had. When Carter was President, he was trying to get Climate Ch
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to. But we're going to make you guys pay for it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I thought it was pretty funny when I read the story about Vivek proposing it. I'm guessing he's only ever flown across the US.
Re: (Score:3)
when there is no food to be had.
Longer growing seasons in Canada will offset expanding deserts in the American Southwest.
California's Central Valley will have to use smarter irrigation, but the current practices, including growing rice with flood irrigation, are extremely wasteful. So there's plenty of opportunity for improvement.
Even if a shortage happens, we can deal with it by reducing meat production and eating more soy and veggies.
Re: (Score:2)
If only Canada wasn't experiencing droughts. And when it does finally rain, does it rain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but I think we all know it WAS climate change.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Climate gonna change, with or without humans.
Yes, anthropogenic climate change is in addition to natural climate change, not instead of.
At the moment, the human-induced climate change is happening much faster than the natural climate change cycle, with a time scale of a few decades, instead of hundreds of years.
Still, that is a time scale of a few decades. It's not like next year it will suddenly be worldwide deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
No carbon tax here [Re:but I think we all know...] (Score:4, Interesting)
??
The U.S. has not implemented any carbon tax, so the answer to that is "It doesn't exist".
Overall, you are exhibiting an argument that is disconnected: "If you credit the science that climate change caused by humans exist, then you must accept XX proposed solution." That does not follow from logic. The fact that humans are causing climate change is independent of your opinions on solutions.
It's getting toward to the argument you see from deniers: "My ideology doesn't like the solutions, so I will disbelieve the facts".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And non-sequiturs are no way to construct a coherent dialogue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I have learned that you have no pearls to cast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: but I think we all know it WAS climate change. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are ample examples throughout geologic time where catastrophic change happened MUCH more rapidly ....and yet the system oscillated back to a norm. (shrug).
The planet can take a 500,000 megaton punch every few dozen millennia and shrug it off but 1.5C is catastrophic and will wipe out life.
Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the planet will shrug it off. Over millions of years, temperatures rise and fall.
It's the humans, and the ecosystem we live in, that we worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
> In 1960, the US Department of Agriculture got into the act, publishing its first map, based on the data from 450 weather stations around the country. Unfortunately, they used different criteria from the Arnold Arboretum for establishing their zones, resulting in two conflicting maps.
> The Arnold Arboretum map remained the standard over the 1960 USDA map until 1990, when the US Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the U.S. National Arboretum, updated the USDA hardiness map...This revision s
If you don't have a green thumb (Score:2)
It's not the climate zone that'll do in your plants, it will be the bugs, wildlife and too much/too little watering.
The only thing I've ever had any luck growing is dollar weed.
Re: (Score:3)
Up here in the maritime Pacific Northwest, it's not the winter cold that kills many things... it's the rain. Lots of plants won't tolerate soil which can remain waterlogged sometimes for weeks on end, even if they can handle the temperature.
If a person likes to grow vegetables, you can have lots of success overwintering lots of things (onions, carrots, cabbage, lettuce, garlic, etc. etc.) simply by using raised beds - formal framed ones or even just raised / flattened mounds of soil. And putting a simple co
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live it is the climate. Plants and trees that used to remain vibrant in the Phoenix metro area with sufficient water are no longer tolerating the climate with any amount of water, the number of days above 110F is too much for them.
Granted, these sorts of plants wouldn't manage to survive here without human intervention to begin with, it's still kind of sad to see older neighborhoods lose their fifty+ year old trees because they can't handle the changes.
stats (Score:2)
"the coldest night of the year, each year, over the past 30 years"
In 2019 here it got down to -35
So it will be a while for that record to change
I'm not celebrating (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore your eyes and your dying crops (Score:1)
And huge numbers of people in the US are migrating SOUTH. For some absolutely insane reason. I will be moving opposite of the herd, because I dislike hot climates. If I live long, I’ll almost certainly wind up in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there are natural short-term climate cycles and that's enough for many to bury their heads in the sand. The fact that the 'real' damage will take 100+ years to hit us is enough for a huge number of others to do the same.
The part I love is that elevated CO2 levels impair cognition; we're as smart as we're going to get - evolution can't select for the change quickly enough to result in effective adaptation, we're going to get dumber and less capable for the foreseeable future. Maybe not by hu
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we rendered the planet uninhabitable, but for a beautiful moment, we created SO much shareholder value!
Duh and Sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit simplistic. The driving factor isn't temperature so much as water. Some northern places will become conducive to farming as winters shorten. In some areas temperature rise will change how early or late in the year a crop can be planted, and there will be changes in which crops can be planted where. But even the warmest places on earth can grow food as long as there's enough water. In fact, higher temperatures generally increase productivity.
Meanwhile, Siberia, Canada, and Alaska all hav
Who's going to tell the plants? (Score:2)