I don’t think these tell us very much, if anything. There are a lot of climate zone maps and they vary quite a bit. In any event, USDA (right or wrong) says they don’t tell us anything about climate change because they’re based on the lowest experienced temperatures over a period of years and because the mapping has improved over the years.
“Because the USDA PHZM represents 30-year averages of what are essentially extreme weather events (the coldest temperature of the year), changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.
Compared with the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new PHZM is generally one half-zone warmer than the previous PHZM throughout much of the United States, as a result of a more recent averaging period (1974–1986 vs. 1976–2005). However, some of the changes in the zones are the results of the new, more sophisticated mapping methods and greater numbers of station observations used in this map, which has greatly improved accuracy, especially in mountainous regions. These changes are sometimes to a cooler, rather than warmer, zone.” planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/AboutWhatsNew.aspx
That is a different position from the one you first stated. You said quite confidently “Climate change is fiction, and of no relation to any real phenomenon.” Now you are saying “I don’t know if climate change is real or not. I just have not seen any clear and convincing evidence of it.”
My sole and only point was that USDA says you can’t use climate zone map changes as an indicator of global warming, and for the reasons they state.
Again from USDA: “…changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming”. The publication goes on to say why they’re not.
And the specific publication from which I quoted does not address global warming in any other way. It certainly does not say the new maps are “consistent with an average pattern of warming”. But you know that. Should any reader have any doubt about that, he can just read the publication.
The hardiness maps may not be an indicator of global warming, but they are consistent with it. I’m sure if the hardiness maps had moved the least little bit in the opposite direction, opponents of global warming would be pointing to them as evidence to the contrary. In fact you have already done that with your attempts to use the range of roadrunners and cattle egrets in Missouri as evidence that there is no global warming. So it seems odd that you would object to someone using equally weak evidence in support of the theory.
Hitler annihilated millions of people. Now we, esp the rich and profligate of the world, are annihilating billions and billions of people over the next 100s and 1000s of years.
The only question that remains is will we go to Hell for it. (Of course, we can repent in the last minute and confess.)
RE the abortion issue, I’ve found it much more easy to convince environmentalists that abortion is wrong by telling them that we are saving the earth for the children, so it makes no sense to abort them – than to convince climate change denialists that CC is real and is and will be harming & killing people, esp as it progressively worsens in the future from what we have emitted to date and will be emitting during our lifetime.
There is absolutely nothing to change their minds, even those among them that are against abortion, like “why be concerned about only those threatened with elective abortions and not care at all about others threatened with death from environmental hazards?”
One can be against abortion AND against killing of innocents thru other means. One can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I’m not sure why CC denialists are so difficult to convince.
Is it that THEY (other people) are committing abortion, while WE ourselves are the goody-goodies and could not possibly be doing anything wrong, ergo CC could not possibly be real and we could not possibly be harming and killing others.
Or politics – the party that seems to be against abortion (one wonders if they truly are) is the one that for the most part denies CC and has no problem with killing and harming people thru environmental harms. If one favors that party, then striving to rid oneself of cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to find any fault at all with the “death and destruction” part of their platform, or even see that it is there.
One could vote for the anti-abortionists, then write letters to them that they should also do right by the environment
It is interesting you refer to prolifers as “the anti-abortionists”. That is the term used by the secular media, not by prolifer citizens or politicians themselves.
I am not denying the importance of caring for the environment. This includes modifying our activity to avoid climate change. But the very real, ongoing slaughter of abortion, and euthanasia, and other threats against life is by far the greater problem right now. If we won’t protect babies now, do you really think people in the long run will protect the Arctic ice?
Why is the media paranoid almost to the point of shrieking about “climate change deniers”? This is worse than being labelled a Communist in the 1950s, almost as bad as being a Nazi. They have made list of these creatures, who are essentially blacklisted from academic employment or any credibility, on any topic.
The **obsession **with one valid insight - that human activity can have bad effects on the environment, which is true - clouds the minds to the very real, actual slaughter going on in your city.
It’s a shame this has become personal with you. You proved nothing about what lives here and what doesn’t, any more than you “proved” MMGW is going on in Missouri by citing one El Nino year, simultaneously ignoring the University’s temperature graph showing no warming trend since 1895. And I wasn’t the one who initially pointed that out. Another poster was.
My citation of the USDA publication was directed to another poster who seemed to think map changes indicate more than they do. She, and others might have wanted to know that. As to the roadrunners and egrets, I was still right. I just let it go because it was descending into an unbecoming exchange, just like this one is.
Regardless, I again invite any reader who is interested to simply read the USDA publication I cited. There might be any number of things that might convince one that MMGW is reality. But, as USDA itself says, comparing new to older USDA climate zone maps is not one that should.
You proved nothing about what lives here and what doesn’t…
I did cite authoritative sources which you did not dispute at the time.
any more than you “proved” MMGW is going on in Missouri by citing one El Nino year…
I never claimed I was proving MMGW in Missouri. I was only disputing your claim that no evidence of global warming is being experienced by those in your region.
simultaneously ignoring the University’s temperature graph showing no warming trend since 1895.
As I said repeatedly, the University’s temperature graph does show a positive warming trend. I was not ignoring it. I was correctly reading it.
And I wasn’t the one who initially pointed that out. Another poster was.
My citation of the USDA publication was directed to another poster who seemed to think map changes indicate more than they do.
I should have said something at the time, but I will say it now. I do not agree with lynnvinc about the interpretation of USDA hardiness maps as evidence of global warming. I agree with you that newer measurement methods and more monitoring stations are likely responsible for much of the differences. But I did say that the change in the maps is at least consistent with global warming. This is very different from saying that it proves global warming or even gives positive evidence of it. It is merely consistent. That is, it is not evidence to the contrary. There. Have I weakened my claim sufficiently that you can accept it?
I think you are under the impression I’m saying more than I am. I’m not saying the USDA publication I cited demonstrates MMGW or any lack thereof. I don’t think it says either. In that sense, then, it’s neither inconsistent with MMGW theory nor consistent with it.
I agree the publication says their methods have changed over the years; more stations, better instrumentation, etc. But what I took from it is that the main reason we should not look at map changes to argue for or against MMGW is that the climate zones are based on lowest possible temperatures over a period of time.
In my particular zone (sometimes it’s hard to tell because of the addition of sub-zones and minor uncertainty where one begins and ends) it appears the lowest temperature expectable is five below zero. I don’t believe that happens most years, but it does happen now and then. Most of the time, it’s much warmer in the wintertime. But what USDA is saying is that I shouldn’t plant something that can’t take five below even so, because sooner or later it will probably winter-kill.
I was not using that slight change in plant hardiness zones (if there has been a change, which some here seem to doubt) to prove global warming, only to show that (if those maps be true) that GW happens very slowly as an effect of it being at the level of climate (which is the aggregate of weather over time and larger areas), rather than the level of weather, which is very difficult to predict. For instance, people talk about California’s sunny climate as a reason to move there, then some old cartoon I saw in the 50s showed the California side of the border as a downpour, while Arizona is bone dry :). I think getting an atlas and seeing the various climates of the world could be helpful for people to understand climate, and how it differs from weather.
I was also trying to explain that climate is easier to predict than weather, just as suicide rates are easier to predict than individual suicides, etc. Not sure (my memory of physics class in the early 60s is much faded), but I think Brownian motion is also an example, since it is difficult to predict the movement of individual molecules, but the behavior or state of the totality of the molecules can be better understood and predicted.
Over many decades and over centuries the average global temp has been going up and down, often due to solar radiation cycles. No one disputes that. Altho (not sure) I think some scientists attribute some of the cooling in the 70s to the aerosol effect – the pollutants like SO2, which have a cooling effect, that we emit when we emit GHGs. If anyone remembers the gross pollution in the 60s and early 70s (couldn’t even see your hand in front of your face in LA).
A couple of scientists not in the mainstream back then even thought we could perhaps trigger (after 100s or 1000s of years) an eventual ice age (due to knock-on effects in the climate & earth system).
The aerosol effect was not well understood back then. Now they understand it much better AND we’ve been able to reduce those aerosols, since they are also harmful pollutants.
Those aerosols have a residency in the atmosphere of a few weeks, while CO2 they say 100 years (but a portion can last up to 100,000 years), and CH4 (a potent GHG) some 10 years, so the bottom line is that most climate scientists back then still expected the warming to happen, which it eventually did.
As mentioned climate is a very long term thing, so we have to look over many decades, not just one or two. The longer the term we look at, the better we can understand what factors are driving the climate.
So think of it as natural fluctuations until the 80s – some ups some downs, much of it due to short term solar radiation cycles, some due to el ninos (sloshing in the system), etc. Then from the 80s, a divergence from the natural factors, and a warming despite natural cooling factors, tracking the increasing & accelerating GHG emissions (mainly CO2).