New USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map for gardeners shows a warming climate

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:17 PM GMT on February 01, 2012

Share this Blog
32
+

Wintertime minimum temperatures in the U.S. have risen so much in recent decades that the United States Department of Agriculture decided last week to update their Plant Hardiness Zone Map for gardeners for the first time since 1990. The Plant Hardiness Zone Map is the standard by which gardeners and growers can determine which plants are most likely to thrive at a location. The map is based on the average annual minimum winter temperature, divided into 10-degree F zones. Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in the new 2012 edition of the map have generally shifted one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States. This is mostly a result of using temperature data from a longer and more recent time period. The old 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986, while the new map uses data from the 30-year period 1976-2005.


Figure 1. Comparison of the 1990 and 2012 USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Maps. Image credit: USDA and Arbor Day Foundation

Northwards, ho!
While humans are generally not attuned enough to nature's rhythms to tell if the climate is changing, plants and animals know the climate is changing. Many species of animals, insects, and plants have shifted their ranges poleward and to higher elevations in recent decades because of global warming. The 2007 IPCC report stated that "numerous studies document a progressively earlier spring by about 2.3 to 5.2 days per decade in the last 30 years in response to climate warming. That report also documented over 400 species that have moved their ranges poleward or to higher elevations because of climate change. For example, conifer trees expanded northwards into former tundra areas at a rate of 12 km per year between 1982 - 2000 in portions of Canada (Fillol and Royer, 2003.) Holly plants moved northwards by several hundred kilometers in recent decades into coastal Norway, Northeast Germany, Denmark, and coastal Sweden in response to warming temperatures (Walther et al., 2005.) As the climate continues to warm, plant and animal species previously unknown in many regions will appear, and will disappear from places they used to inhabit.


Figure 2. Change in the boundary line between conifer forest (taiga) and tundra between 1982 (grey line) and 2000 (white line) over Canada. In the grey box marked "Transect", the rate of northwards migration was 12 km per year, or 228 km (142 miles) in nineteen years. Image credit: Fillol and Royer, 2003, "Variability analysis of the transitory climate regime as defined by the NDVI/Ts relationship derived from NOAA-AVHRR over Canada", Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2003. IGARSS '03. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 72 - 22

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
SALMON, Idaho, Jan. 28, 2012 (Reuters) — Bird enthusiasts are
reporting rising numbers of snowy owls from the Arctic winging into the
lower 48 states this winter in a mass southern migration that a leading
owl researcher called “unbelievable.”
Thousands of the snow-white birds, which stand 2 feet tall with
5-foot wingspans, have been spotted from coast to coast, feeding in
farmlands in Idaho, roosting on rooftops in Montana, gliding over golf
courses in Missouri and soaring over shorelines in Massachusetts.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre80r0mp-us-owl s-migration/
Strange days .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

THE GLOBAL OCEAN is warming, but some places are feeling the heat
more than others. The Tasman Sea, east of Australia, has been identified
in a new study as one of five global ocean “hotspots”.

Temperatures here have risen here by 2ºC over the past 60 years –
three times the average rate of warming in the the world’s oceans. The
warming has been triggered by strengthening wind systems – a result of
climate change – which have driven warm ocean currents toward the poles,
beyond their known boundaries.

The rising temperatures could have stark consequences not only for
marine life, but for the ocean’s capacity to take up heat and carbon
from the atmosphere.
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/ta sman-sea-a-hotspot-for-ocean-warming-climate-chang e.htm

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Grim news -

Climate change drying out forests in western Canada

Research shows northern forests in the three prairie provinces are
drying up and shrinking from drought caused by climate change, while the
eastern boreal forest is holding its own.

A paper published Monday suggests the forests of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba are already emitting more greenhouse gases
than they absorb.

The finding could overturn assumptions that global warming would improve growing conditions for trees in the North.


Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120130/Climate -change-drying-out-forests-in-western-Canada-12013 0/#ixzz1l9dCwaSj
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NativeSun:
So the Co2 changes more than a little and the climate changes, but is the climate change all from man made pollutants or is there other factors involved like an El Nino or La Nina, a cold or warm PDO,AMO or Solar Min or Max.


The normal solar min and max cycles do not appreciably affect the Earth's energy budget (i.e, they balance out over climate scales).

The AMO, PDO, and other such features do not create heat. The Earth does not create any appreciable amount of surface warming. It all comes from the sun.

Their are so many variables that change the way the earths atmosphere heats or cools and I don't think we have all the answers yet. I don't like the idea of being taxed for something that we may have no contol over but I rather live in a warmer planet than one on the verge of an Ice Age if all of our so called knowledge about climate change is wrong.


A warmer planet does not mean life will be easier or better. Extinction events throughout Earth's history have often been a result of rapid climate change, both warming and cooling. Rapid change of any kind in climate has consequences and it is naive to think that they will not impact humans.

Billions of People will die if we enter another Ice Age and that would probably help with the excess CO2 problem. Just an idea.


Billions of people will die if the current arable land we feed everyone with turns into burning desert.

Warm does not automatically imply better.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The House on Friday passed the first in a planned series of Republican bills to effectively block the Environmental Protection Agency from reining in toxic pollution under the Clean Air Act.

We expect no less from the ones on the right.

Obstruction and personal interest trump whats good for the Country and the Planet, every time.


Clearly, the right is NOT on America's side. Their total disdain of what is the correct thing to do, is trumped by their collective arrogance, ignorance and greed.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
48 WxGeekVA "...the USDA does not benefit at all for confirming or denying climate change"

The USDA ain't that dumb. During the press conference accompanying the presentation of the new Plant Hardiness Zone Map, the USDA spokesman went way out of her way to avoid confirming any connection with ClimateChange. The reporters might have as well said, "Here, step on this landmine..." as to have asked such a politically loaded question.
Member Since: August 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
65. Skyepony (Mod)
55~ I think the term clean energy is more accepted by the coal industry to whom it is the lesser of the two evils.

As much as I'm against clean coal the technology is here. Not just CO2 but other pollutants the ones killing 10s of thousands a year prematurely in the USA & giving respiratory illnesses to kids at rates we've never seen, could be slashed huge this year if they can get the cross state air rule passed. Not only would the death rate drop, new jobs would be formed. House passed a bill to delay it..
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 174 Comments: 38155
To Tampa: I did a data analysis on the interactive Hardiness Zone Map compared with actual recorded temperatures and it is astoundingly accurate. In fact, it turned out that it was even more accurate than I thought it would be.

The accuracy of the interactive map just dazzled me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mharr:
Oh, come on, Dr. Masters. I don't believe that you fell for this, too (as did most of the media reporting on this new map).

Most of the visible changes in the map are primarily due to changing from 10 zones to 13 zones! Some areas did have a warmer zone, but many actually have a cooler zone. The map only looks warmer because there are more zones, and the colors were shifted "upwards". They could have shifted the colors "downwards" and the media would all be reporting on the "coming ice age" again.


The previously utilized zones (zone 1-zone 11)represent the same temperature ranges on the new 2012 map as they did on the 1990 map. For example, zone 9 still represents areas where annual extreme temps average 20-30F. They merely added two zones on top of the previous 11 zones, to account for areas where annual extreme lows average between 50-60F (zone 12) and 60-70F (zone 13). Thus, no change to the definitions of zones 1-11 was made whatsoever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NativeSun:
I would rather have it being a little warmer with a little higher CO2 count for the vegetation than an Ice Age or a colder earth.


Oh? And what happens if that little bit of warming turns the most arable land into desert by shifting the jetstream? Or what happens when a species migrates to an area where there is no natural predators? Or what happens when the cooler temperatures is what was keeping a the pest population in check (see the bark beetle and the pine forest devastation for that one)?

Rapid change on any scale, warm or cold, will have consequences. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better off we will all be.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Congratulations Grand Master Jeff!!! The only way for science to make the case will be if scientists make it personal. The Flat Earth crowd has played a much better game of this. Science needs to catch up. This blog entry is a great example of how scientists should try to communicate the issue.
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
Borders, and Nationalism are the seeds of Conflict, thus the Seeds for War.
And it is War that has driven the expanse of technology.

Through out History.

We killed 180 million people in the 20th Century, the greatest number ever in Human History.

And it was driven by conflict, which in the end is Human thought.

The mind kills completely and efficiently.

History shows us that in stark reality.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
"The old 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986, while the new map uses data from the 30-year period 1976-2005."

The comparison between the 1990 Hardiness map and the new Hardiness map very likely does not show a true difference because of the large overlap of comparing 1974-1986 and 1976-2005. The 1976-1986 is still in the new 1976-2005 data.

In other words, there would be a larger migration northward of those temperature comparisons if the 1990 release showed (for random example) 1956-1986, and the new one showed 1987-2007.

It would show a better representation if the 1976-1986 data was not included in the new release.

Given that the 1976-1986 data is included in the new release, a significant northward migration is still shown.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NativeSun:
So the Co2 changes more than a little and the climate changes, but is the climate change all from man made pollutants or is there other factors involved like an El Nino or La Nina, a cold or warm PDO,AMO or Solar Min or Max. Their are so many variables that change the way the earths atmosphere heats or cools and I don't think we have all the answers yet. I don't like the idea of being taxed for something that we may have no contol over but I rather live in a warmer planet than one on the verge of an Ice Age if all of our so called knowledge about climate change is wrong. Billions of People will die if we enter another Ice Age and that would probably help with the excess CO2 problem. Just an idea.


A warming world would be just as threatening as an ice age, if not even more dire. Look at the current drought in Texas and amply that through the entire upper Midwest..a.k.a. (worlds bread basket). How do you think the worlds population of 7 billion would react to one of major sources of food production going through a record drought, followed by record floods every decade. There is a direct correlation between Co2 and temperature of this planet. When one goes up the other follows.

Decade Total Increase Annual Rate of Increase
2002 %u2013 2011 20.72 ppm 2.07 ppm per year
1992 %u2013 2001 16.00 ppm 1.60 ppm per year
1982 %u2013 1991 15.10 ppm 1.51 ppm per year
1972 %u2013 1981 13.95 ppm 1.40 ppm per year
1962 %u2013 1971 8.88 ppm 0.89 ppm per year


As you increase the temperature, you increase the energy, which in turn increases chaos.
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Engineering school aint all its cracked up to be either...apparently.

: )
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
Quoting TampaSpin:



Sounds like the accuracy between the 2 maps are greatly in question....along with all the other Crap we see about GW!


Your faith in the face of overwhelming facts that contradict your view is truly admirable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
When did climate change' transform into clean energy'?
What happened to climate change and global warming?
MAXWELL T. BOYKOFF



What happened to climate change and global warming?

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said climate change just once compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.

By contrast, Obama used the terms energy and clean energy nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration's language and found that mentions of climate change have been replaced by calls for clean energy and energy independence.

Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: The phrases climate change and global warming have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.

In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as carbon pollution and heat-trapping emissions.

This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms is intended to make what's happening more understandable and more accessible to non-technical audiences.

These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20 countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of climate change and global warming dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011.

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate.

It's time for us to start talking about climate change instead of global warming. . . . Climate change is less frightening than global warming, the memo said.

Luntz was not alone in wanting to change the terminology. The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms global warming and climate change both needed rebranding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase our deteriorating atmosphere.

But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions.

To start, talking only about clean energy omits critical biological and physical factors that contribute to the warming climate.

Clean energy doesn't call to mind the ways we use the land and how the environment is changing. Where in the term is the notion of the climate pollution that results from clear-cutting Amazon rain forests? What about methane release in the Arctic, where global warming is exposing new areas of soil in the permafrost?

Clean energy also neatly bypasses any idea that we might need to curb our consumption. If the energy is clean, after all, why worry about how much we're using or how unequal the access to energy sources might be?

And terms such as carbon pollution ignore that climate change isn't just a carbon issue. Some greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, do not contain carbon, and not all carbon-containing emissions, such as carbon monoxide, trap heat.

When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,% the impact is more than just political.

Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can't alter the fact that, climate change or not, the climate is changing.

Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. He wrote this for The Washington Post. Email him at boykoff@colorado.edu.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/01/2007334/w hen-did-climate-change-transform.html#storylink=cp y
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
Quoting JNCali:
uh.. re the blog.. I understand the ability of animals and insects to move to more favorable locations but how do trees and bushes relocate?
(I am reminded of the cactus walking toward water in 'Rango')



trees and bushes stay in the same place. i guess, that when a bird eats some seed of it, and flies somewhere, poops it out in favorable location, it grows. lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
so called knowledge about climate change is wrong


To underestimate what we know is a Huge mistake,and it matter's not to the Facts of the matter. The Planet does not care about what any one Human thinks in the scheme of it all. The truth matters greatly though.

Its empirical.


Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.



Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LAKE CHARLES LA
WED FEB 1 2012


SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS RETURN ON FRIDAY AHEAD OF A COLD FRONT
THAT WILL MOVE THROUGH THE REGION DURING THE DAY ON SATURDAY. A
FEW OF THESE STORMS WILL BE STRONG WITH GUSTY WINDS AND FREQUENT
CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING. WE ARE FINALLY INTO A WET PERIOD THAT
WILL SEE THE CHANCE FOR SHOWERS INTO MONDAY.


Ok, only til Monday but I'll take it. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
THE DOMINO & POSITIVE FEEDBACK EFFECT OF JANUARY 2012 WARMTH ACROSS THE LOWER-48.

(Author: Me)

In particular order...

#1)Anthropogenic Warming - #2)Jet Stream Displacement Way North - #3)Severely Reduced Snowpack - #4)Anomalously Warm Temperatures.

Include LaNina / PNA / NAO wildcards
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So the Co2 changes more than a little and the climate changes, but is the climate change all from man made pollutants or is there other factors involved like an El Nino or La Nina, a cold or warm PDO,AMO or Solar Min or Max. Their are so many variables that change the way the earths atmosphere heats or cools and I don't think we have all the answers yet. I don't like the idea of being taxed for something that we may have no contol over but I rather live in a warmer planet than one on the verge of an Ice Age if all of our so called knowledge about climate change is wrong. Billions of People will die if we enter another Ice Age and that would probably help with the excess CO2 problem. Just an idea.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Do you think the people who updated the map "fell for it" too? Here's what they said:

"Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States."

Seriously, debate the causes or the effects of climate change, if you wish, but debating the fact that it's happening is beyond silly at this point. The planet is warming, period. And the new zone map has made accommodations for that.


And the USDA does not benefit at all for confirming or denying climate change, so they have no reason to make something up or cherrypick data for their own gains.
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3475


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
NOAA has been saying this for year's.

I've posted this Link so many times I know it word for word.



How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?


Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.
These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
Quoting aspectre:
36 NativeSun "I would rather have it being a little warmer with a little higher CO2 count for the vegetation than an Ice Age or a colder earth."

Whether it stays a little is the worrying part.


Why would it stay a little.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Politics,Religion, Science as we know it, is nigh.

The Future comes with such change that it is immeasurable.

Be Nice to one another.

It's natural, our whole past has led to this moment.

Embrace it.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
Thanks Jeff...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NativeSun:
I would rather have it being a little warmer with a little higher CO2 count for the vegetation than an Ice Age or a colder earth.


Granted. Do you have control of the "Off" switch for when it gets warm enough for you? A controlled lab experiment is far different from an experiment in the wild. ... Have you considered getting a greenhouse and not turning our atmosphere into one?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
who you putting your money on for winning that one?



Im going with the Singularity personally.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
36 NativeSun "I would rather have it being a little warmer with a little higher CO2 count for the vegetation than an Ice Age or a colder earth."

Whether it stays a little is the worrying part.

21 WxGeekVA "Sadly enough, yesterday in my mothers garden, the first daffodil flower appeared. That's almost two months earlier than they used to 10 years ago..."

The apricot tree went straight from losing almost all of its leaves to budding new ones. Never came close to doing that before. I suspect that bodes ill for its future.
Member Since: August 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
Quoting hydrus:
What gets me is that some people dont believe the climate of the Earth is getting warmer. For the non-believers out there, whether it is man made or not, whether there are record low temps being broken or not, no matter who you are, what you say, what you think, or what you do,,.........The Earth Is Getting Warmer....And thats a fact...accept it.


To except climate change is to except change.

People resist change at all cost.

To except climate change is to except that you and every one else will have to change.

People change only when forced.

So far we have kept the government (we the people, see Citizens United for reference on this) from forcing the change

Looks like it will be nature (or god if that floats your boat) will have to take a shot at some forcing....

who you putting your money on for winning that one?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.

“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”

Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.

Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?

Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.

Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?

Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.


Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?

Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.

Image: Greenpeace/Flickr

“Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change,” Norgaard’s World Bank white paper.

See Also:

Should Earth Scientists Take a ‘Hippocratic Oath’?
Humans Halfway to Causing Dangerous Climate Change
Climate Change Caused Radical North Sea Shift
9 Environmental Boundaries We Don’t Want to Cross
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
I would rather have it being a little warmer with a little higher CO2 count for the vegetation than an Ice Age or a colder earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
35. Skyepony (Mod)
Amazing how fast the trees are moving north.. Beatles, bugs & drought been unkind in the south. I have seen by far more trees die (excluding at the hands of developrs) in the last 10 yrs...

If the new map had only the past 13yr period like the old map instead of a 30 yr period, we would have seen even more shift. I really like the new attention to detail, elevations, using more data to come up with the lines. From a gardener's perspective much improved. Especially around my interest in WNC. There we'd adjust our planting zone to the elevation more. This map way better reflects that. Of my three areas I grow in the SE none changed.

On the subject of gardening..my blog is updated with (besides tropics) the Feb growing info..what days are good to plant by the moon, when to plant what in FL (there is links for some other states in the SE). ECFL..we are planting the good stuff this month.. All beans, cantaloupes, corn, cucumber, eggplant, peppers, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, all squash, tomatoes, watermelon, beets*, carrots, celery*, collards, leek, mustard, parsley, snow peas, potatoes*, radish & turnips*.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 174 Comments: 38155
Remembering Columbia and her Crew, comment #544
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
What gets me is that some people dont believe the climate of the Earth is getting warmer. For the non-believers out there, whether it is man made or not, whether there are record low temps being broken or not, no matter who you are, what you say, what you think, or what you do,,.........The Earth Is Getting Warmer....And thats a fact...accept it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
were sprouting new Handles like Pecans tree's in June
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128645
Quoting mharr:
Oh, come on, Dr. Masters. I don't believe that you fell for this, too (as did most of the media reporting on this new map).

Most of the visible changes in the map are primarily due to changing from 10 zones to 13 zones! Some areas did have a warmer zone, but many actually have a cooler zone. The map only looks warmer because there are more zones, and the colors were shifted "upwards". They could have shifted the colors "downwards" and the media would all be reporting on the "coming ice age" again.
Do you think the people who updated the map "fell for it" too? Here's what they said:

"Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States."

Seriously, debate the causes or the effects of climate change, if you wish, but debating the fact that it's happening is beyond silly at this point. The planet is warming, period. And the new zone map has made accommodations for that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting JNCali:
uh.. re the blog.. I understand the ability of animals and insects to move to more favorable locations but how do trees and bushes relocate?
(I am reminded of the cactus walking toward water in 'Rango')


I





If places north of the current line, aren't frozen tundra anymore, as it might have been in years past. Pollen can fly around(be transported by insects, animals. etc) , and land in new areas of land to germinate and sprout trees.
Member Since: August 10, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 365
I just read a tweet that said Groundhog Day, planned for tomorrow, has been canceled, as Punxsutawney Phil says he's pretty sure spring has already arrived in western Pennsylvania. (FWIW, there were 46 record daily high or high minimum temperatures set or tied in Pennsylvania in January, and just six record daily lows or low maximums. IOW, not too wintry.)
Quoting JNCali:
uh.. re the blog.. I understand the ability of animals and insects to move to more favorable locations but how do trees and bushes relocate?
(I am reminded of the cactus walking toward water in 'Rango')

Random seed dispersal, mostly. Individually rooted plants don't generally move, but seeds travel by animal, wind, or water to other places. Where those places are hospitable, they take root.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh, come on, Dr. Masters. I don't believe that you fell for this, too (as did most of the media reporting on this new map).

Most of the visible changes in the map are primarily due to changing from 10 zones to 13 zones! Some areas did have a warmer zone, but many actually have a cooler zone. The map only looks warmer because there are more zones, and the colors were shifted "upwards". They could have shifted the colors "downwards" and the media would all be reporting on the "coming ice age" again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This would be interesting..If it panned out..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Sadly enough, yesterday in my mothers garden, the first daffodil flower appeared. That's almost two months earlier than they used to 10 years ago. A personal confirmation of climate change, and not a good one either.
Been pickin,em here for a month...This would be interesting..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
uh.. re the blog.. I understand the ability of animals and insects to move to more favorable locations but how do trees and bushes relocate?
(I am reminded of the cactus walking toward water in 'Rango')

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
back later.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Forecast looks nice today...70F, tomorrow 70F....if only tomorrow, there was a 60% chance of Iso T-Storms.

lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting skook:





Release No. 0022.12
Contact:
Kim Kaplan
(301) 504-1637

"This is the most sophisticated Plant Hardiness Zone Map yet for the United States," said Dr. Catherine Woteki, USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. "The increases in accuracy and detail that this map represents will be extremely useful for gardeners and researchers."

"The new version of the map includes 13 zones, with the addition for the first time of zones 12 (50-60 degrees F) and 13 (60-70 degrees F). Each zone is a 10-degree Fahrenheit band, further divided into A and B 5-degree Fahrenheit zones."

"Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States. This is mostly a result of using temperature data from a longer and more recent time period; the new map uses data measured at weather stations during the 30-year period 1976-2005. In contrast, the 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986.

"Some of the changes in the zones, however, are a result of new, more sophisticated methods for mapping zones between weather stations. These include algorithms that considered for the first time such factors as changes in elevation, nearness to large bodies of water, and position on the terrain, such as valley bottoms and ridge tops. Also, the new map used temperature data from many more stations than did the 1990 map. These advances greatly improved the accuracy and detail of the map, especially in mountainous regions of the western United States. In some cases, advances resulted in changes to cooler, rather than warmer, zones."

Link



Sounds like the accuracy between the 2 maps are greatly in question....along with all the other Crap we see about GW!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 178 Comments: 20443

Viewing: 72 - 22

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.