I am not hear to debate climate change, non-change, or causes.

===>>> then what other reason would there be to post what is basically politics in a garden forum???

when they have a database approaching 1/2 the age of the earth.. i will move beyond considering it all mere speculation ...

otherwise.. i can ponder the lint in my navel myself ..

ken

"then what other reason would there be to post what is basically politics in a garden forum???"

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but judging by most of the threads in this forum, climate/weather has an effect on gardening.

That's just called reality.

"that due to lose of Artic Sea Ice, the atmospheric circulation pattern is beginning to change, apparently making it increasingly likely that whatever cold air is present, will spill down into eastern North America, and Eastern Asia"

I've heard the same statement made concerning winters in Britain / western Europe. I'm not convinced.

Resin

From: The Washington Post

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

====================

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post

It seems to me that what Arktrees is saying is that climate change patterns are more complex than some might imagine. I don't know of anyone with any knowledge of the subject that doubts climate change is fact, and, as he said, there is no reason to go into the political aspects of it in this thread. Nothing was even mentioned about the cause of the overall phenomenon, for instance.

I have long noticed that our local climate, here in Tennessee, was being changed to a greater degree than many other areas. Understanding of the complexity of the issue is highly important to me in my selection of plants and plans for microclimate usage. Without my consideration of how climate has changed and how it is likely to change in the future in my area, my garden would have a much lower chance of being successful.

Another aspect of Arktrees's topic is the realization that everyone's climate isn't changing equally or even in the same direction. The average temperatures have changed drastically here in Tennessee in the last few decades, but it would be a mistake for someone familiar with conditions here to think the the same changes have occurred in other parts of the country or the world.

This old weatherman follows the issue very closely. There is a far from uniform reaction across the planet to increasing the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

Not only may the northeastern part of the North American continent cool from the change in the Atlantic atmospheric circulation patterns, but the precipitation patterns may change as well. Across the globe. These two phenomena are related.

{{gwi:494885}}

Combine this with the increasing total effect we have on the biosphere, and surely many, many, many more people will find a way to grow food in their yards. Out of necessity.

We need to discuss these things to be ready to teach others.

Dan

Climate change talk can avoid political issues if we avoid debating the cause.

Resin I believe the Gulf Stream is the north easterly flowing ocean current which brings you somewhat warm, moist foggy weather. The debate is if it begins. To flow differently how different will England's weather be.

For your location that far north what are the comparable islands? We cant compare you to a location in land locked central asia because the ocean will still be there and have SOME moderating effect.

What is southern sweeden like? I am using my cell so I am totally going off the map in my head. Perhaps that pennusula of Russia's northeast of Japan is a better comparison. Think its the one KAL007 flew too close to.

Dan, if I used that map/source, I'd only be planting annuals, cacti, and succulents. I sure hope that Aiguo Dai's predictions don't hold true. I use more short term predictions and observations for my gardening, because I think the longer term stuff is just too far extrapolated to be of much use (in gardening planning). Besides that, if things go as bad as some predict, there may not be any need to worry about ornamental gardening in the future anyway.

Besides that, if things go as bad as some predict, there may not be any need to worry about ornamental gardening in the future anyway.

Way back to ancient Egypt and Babylon, ornamental gardens were seen as indicators of wealth. Surely on a small sphere of finite dimension and rapid human population growth, there is only so much wealth.

Nonetheless, my main point is we have to be mindful of changes and make efforts to pass on gardening knowledge to as many as possible.

Trees will still have a place in residential areas, if only for cheap shade and all the other benefits they bring will be a bonus.

Dan

Didn't we go through with global cooling a couple decades ago? Global warming... now they call it climate change or whatever. I personally lost all the respect for them after finding out Climategate and Chicago Climate Exchange scam (Al Gore, Obama, Soro, Goldman Sach, Strong, etc are involved). It had the potential to bring in 10 trillions of dollar a year if Trade and Cap bill had been passed. That meant expensive energy bills for us. Google for youtube of Obama's interview where he said something about energy cost going to be a lot more expensive. I assume he meant by that if we had passed cap and trade bill.

I don't really trust them at all. It's all about control over everything...

I've seen how they tried with nutrition. Huge disaster. They basically lied to use in order to change the way we eat. Look at Food Pyramid... total scam. I looked up everything. Nothing matches in the literatures. I will say this... high carbs, low fat that they always promote does not prevent heart disease or diabetes. It's the opposite. Same thing with widespread vitamin D deficiency where they pretend to act like there's no such thing but when you look up in the literatures, it is a huge widespread problem costing us several trillions of dollars in healthcare over a decade.

If federal gov't is involved with anything, watch out.

Every glacier I visited in Alaska is retreating though.

It COULD be part of the greater natural cycle - the sun is pretty stable but any increase in solar output has to warm us and we know the sun has cycles.

It could be man caused, greenhouse gasses warm fish tanks in experiments.

Heck, urban heat islands which we all agree exist, could be slowly warming the countryside.

All I know is them glaciers are getting smaller and before you quote Inhofe on ice flow remember he got his information from a fiction book. (I have an interview with the scientist who got the information saved someplace on one of these pc's)

I made the post for the benefit of those that care to use the information provided in a meaningful way. I have not interest in debating any of you, as the odds of you actually listening or changing your mind is remote. I am not going to waste any part of my life trying to convince those that will never listen,sensationalistic news paper articles, and lack of understanding of the scientific method is not a grounds for debate. Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, every one of you is completely dependent upon science. It built the world around. If you want to take the position that science is not to be trusted, that it is worth nothing, then do the following, otherwise you "don't have a leg to stand on" when claiming science can't be trusted.

Turn off and throw out that computer you reading this one as it was created by many branches of science working together. These include but are not limited to research into electricity, elements, the production techniques on and on and on......

Throw those clothes you are wearing away. The cotton was grown using weed science, crop science, textile research, the cotton plants were selectively breed using, sprayed with pesticides that were created by chemistry, on and on and on...... Oh it's polyester... get ride of it, that a product of science as well on and on and on......

Don't eat, that corn was created by genetics etc same as the cotton was....on and on and on......

Start walking barefoot now. The gas for your car was found using GASP! Geology, which is science, then there's the distillation by GASP! Science. Batteries, rubber, wiring, ignition system..... Science again???? on and on and on...... And that does not count the materials and production of your shoes and socks.....

Throw out the pain killers you have, remove those antibodies from your blood that are there because you received a vaccine that was created with science, oh, and no blood pressure medication, no lipitor, or anything else from medicine......

You can have nothing steel, concrete, copper, paper, plastic, on and on and on......

In short, by being here you show that you absolutely believe in science, otherwise you would not have the technology to be here. The real story is, you don't want to accept what is inconvenient for you for whatever reason. Everything beyond hunting and gathering using stones and sticks is science either current or past.

Climate change is far more complex than we currently know. But changing it is, whether you want to accept it or not. Science can not give us precise answers, but it can tell us some kind of major ride is just ahead.

Those that want you make use of the information provided, you are welcome. Those that don't, Oh well.

Arktrees

Is the moral of the story that climate/weather is unpredictable and will always remain so?

whaas,
The point is that we are undergoing climate change, and you must stay aware of what is happening. As more is learned and observed, there will be regional consequences that must be dealt with no matter the cause of the changes.

Arktrees

The climate is always changing....always has been....

We're in what is called an interglacial period, which began about 10,000 years ago, give or take....

But don't you folks worry, the Great Winter is coming...and after that, Ragnarok...
Mother Ice has ever propelled our kind forward, and I have every faith that her rough
hands will shape us into superior creatures yet again.


Josh

Well, how about we all hedge our bets a little? Climate does change, and one just has to observe what is happening in the local area to change with it. It's been warmer here the last number of years...meaning I can winter peach trees now and they died here 30 years ago. We get more heavy storms before ice up, so the shoreline erodes more. This means that folks with a summer cottage on that scenic sandstone cliff are losing big chunks of land at each heavy storm. The sensible response is to buy that vacant piece behind the cottage, so the kids can haul the cottage back from the shore when you leave it to them in your will. Otherwise, it will go over the bank, into the sea, like others have done. If you have a woodlot, and live where spruces are finding it too warm and dry the last 20 years, plant some hemlocks, red oaks, sugar maples, beech, sweet chestnut (C. dentata) or whatever trees are native to a degree or two south of you. I'm at just over 46 degrees, and have been sourcing seed and seednuts from just under 45 degrees north and they are doing really well. Sure they will migrate on their own, if the forest is mostly contiguous, but it will take longer. If you would normally plant a tree in your yard, make it a food tree, whatever grows in your area and produces something you eat. For me, at 46 degrees north, that means apples, pears, plums, peaches, cherries, walnuts, chestnuts, all kinds of yummies. Why trees? Trees are less affected by short droughts, and we are getting those the last few decades. You might find that seed source makes a difference, I'm Maritime, so seed from other slightly more southern Maritime areas does better for me than seed from the interior of the continent. My neighbour put in a tap drain to drain the eastern edge of his potato field so that he could still harvest in the fall when the fall rains have come. This made several acres of my woods pretty wet. I planted western red cedar there, and they are flourishing...they will be nice saw logs when the kids go to retire, and I will ask them not to cut the increase, just what I have planted.

It is true that there is a small %age of the population who for whatever reason cannot accept that basic physics works on our planet. Nonetheless, they are subject to basic physical laws as well and their kids will need to deal with what we left them.

This requires our patience and practice to teach the next generation on how to cope with a rapidly changing biosphere. The biosphere is changing more rapidly than the biota can adapt, so we will need to be vigilant. And patient. Surely fools will be fools, and that means their kids may not be adequately prepared (and certain media conglomerates refuse to report facts), and that's where we come in. It is obvious the gummint has been bought off by the energy corporations, so it is up to us to cope.

Dan

>My neighbour put in a tap drain to drain the eastern edge of his potato field so that he could still harvest in the fall when the fall rains have come. This made several acres of my woods pretty wetSounds quite illegal.

The climate is incredibly, mind-numbingly stable in terms of any human scale, unless you're worried about axial wobble every 400,000 years or so.

Here's how to explain that in 30 seconds.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html

I think there is a great deal of confusion between the chaos of observed weather and global climate.

I will submit that the original post here, talking about the potential for more harsh winter weather (while not statistically significant on a global scale) in parts of north America and Europe due to AGW may be true. NOAA has made initial observations. Scientists are publishing their observations. Peer review is being conducted. For most of us, it may mean losing fall plantings and not-quite appropriate-for-zone plantings. Fact is, no one knows what the weather will do. It is chaotic.

When it comes to CLIMATE, I suggest avoiding all mass market media, lest you make the same mistake readers did in the 1970s. From 1968 to about 1979, 62% of peer reviewed papers predicted AGW in the form of CO2's enhanced greenhouse effect or similar human climate forces. 28% took a neutral stance. 10% predicted global cooling. TWO of the most sensational ones made magazine covers (Newsweek and Time)

Multiple Sources linked here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Plant trees. They will help, even if it is only by the simple beauty of nature.

There was an article on the yahoo home page about a mummified forest on Ellesmere Island north of the arctic circle, there are a dozen more like it, according to the article. They found trunks of birch, larch,spruce and pine.So I guess these trees were covered by the ice for many years and that the arctic has warmed 4.5 degrees since 1970. So what I personnally get from this is that with more warming they will eventually have trees again. If anyone else reads this I'm eager to hear what their interpretation is for my own curiousity.I do believe the earth's getting warmer but am not educated in all the stuff others on here are going into. It's just an interesting article, that is recent.Go on Yahoo home page and it's under climate ( recent articles)

"10% predicted global cooling."

...and nearly all the Flat-Earthers believe in either global cooling, a static climate, or the climate-as-usual absurdity. Current public opinion doesn't alter existing reality, only the way in which we will deal with reality to prepare for the future.

Poaky1, the fossilized trees you are talking about can describe the conditions found at that location at a certain time, but they alone don't tell us about the events or trends before or after the time. There's no one that seriously studies historic climate change that doesn't realize the Earth has been considerably warmer, at times, than it is now. Likewise, it's been colder at times. The people that understand global warming and are concerned about current trends are worried about unusual trends and their meaning for the future, not about actual average temperature extremes due to occur in the near future.

AND, as this thread hinted at before, the real issues in the near future are likely to be changes in weather patterns, not overall shifts in temperature (at least not directly). It's pretty obvious that weather has changed in the last few decades, regardless of what the exact nature of that change is or what's caused it.

Some people will look into and accept reality (whatever reality is), some will refuse to believe in reality at all (and will support extremes on either side), others will set somewhere near the fence. Some of the ones that refuse to accept reality will do so no matter what proof is given. What I think is a shame is that we can't discuss some of the things that reality is bringing our way without getting into the argument about what's causing reality or whether reality even exists. It's sad, IMO.

Don't forget the "Little Ice Ages" that predate SUV's....

These tidbits are inconvenient for those invested in AGW, but they speak to the truth of the matter.


Josh

"These tidbits are inconvenient for those invested in AGW, but they speak to the truth of the matter."

Sad, very sad. I thought Ken was jumping to conclusions when he responded, but apparently he actually has ESP and knew where this was going. I had more faith in many of you, but I was wrong and Ken was right (at least about the results). The facts are the facts, some of them have relevance to gardening. The others belong elsewhere in my opinion. I don't even see how anyone could seriously bring up AGW in this conversation without a wanton disregard for the peacefulness of this forum.

And, yes Josh, I realize it's not all one sided and that you weren't the first to bring up AGW in this thread. It's just that your post was the latest one to be politically motivated.

Josh, Update on the "Little Ice Ages" of the "middle ages". Those occurred during the Moulder (sp?) minimum, where for a couple centuries the number of sunspots dropped drastically. During this time Europe had extreme winter temperatures that are refereed to "The Little Ice Age", and many people assume this was true for the whole earth. Nope, was not the case. Turns out it was a regional event. While the total radiance of the sun did drop, it was by a very tiny amount. There is little or no evidence of significant cooling over the rest of the globe. The puzzle was why? There has been no know explanation.... until recently. Turns out the sunspots are likely key. Reason being, ultraviolet light. Evidence indicates that ultraviolet light emissions from the sun dropped by up to half due to lack of sunspots. This ultraviolet light heats the upper atmosphere where the ozone is. Less UV=cooler upper atmosphere=changed conditions for the planet and climate. Turns out when you feed these resultant conditions into our current climate models, the jet stream shifts significantly OVER EUROPE and the north Atlantic, but not so much elsewhere. Result is much colder temps over Europe but not elsewhere. This is not proof that is what happened in the "Little Ice Ages", but it is a mechanism, and is an area of continued research. Assuming this turns out to be essentially correct as appears to be likely, then far from refuting that small changes in temperature will have little effect, it actually confirms it.

Lastly, for those of you that don't understand the way that science is set up, it's not the same as the corporate world we are all familiar with. Everyone is trying to make a name for themselves. It's not profit (though money can come if your successful enough), but recognition. The way you do that is prove you are you are right. But to way to REALLY make a reputation is to PROVE everyone else WRONG and that your RIGHT. Why do you suppose you know the name Albert Einstein? Answer, he PROVED EVERYONE else wrong, and I do mean EVERYONE, and himself RIGHT. The upheaval that Einstein created happen once a century or two at most. Issac Newton, Darwin, Galileo, among a few others are comparable. Science is self correcting, that is why the story can change over time, but usually actually just becomes more complex as the understanding becomes more complete. So for a climate scientist the ideal would not be to confirm the current thinking, but to actually sink it. Problem is, that is looking less and less even a remote possibility.

Arktrees

Arktrees,

Do you have a link to a good simple experiment, essentially CO2 warming the fishtank?

I used to have one that believe was from one of the University of Missouri campuses.

So, what have you guys planted lately that you wouldn't have planted if the weather in your area was more like it was a couple of decades ago? Or, if you live in an area with a more stable climate, do you consider possible future climate variation (even just a short term change, like a two year drought, or an especially cold year) when choosing plants for your yard or garden?

Oh, the politics. Oy veh!

Won't go there, thank you.

The non-political question I'll answer -- "What am I growing now that I wouldn't have in the past"

Southern Magnolia, M. grandiflora. Back in the 70's, we always got down to like -20 to -25 most every winter, and I remember a -32 once. Now, the coldest it's gotten in my yard in the past decades has been like -12 or -14. Still cold enough, but warmer than it used to be. In the interim 30 years, my area was massively developed, so there is much more of an "urban heat island" than there used to be.

My southern magnolias are doing well, I've had them like 7 years now. They partially defoliate most winters, but are tough plants that grow right back, by early June they are beautiful again. I do protect them pretty heavily for the winter -- I surround them with a 3 tier tall stack of bagged leaves, and then throw a tarp over the top of that from Thanksgiving until the end of March.

I have planted peaches and sweet cherries that I was unable to grow in the past. I had very little growth in the '90's on my spruces, too hot and dry in Aug and Sept for them...however, the sweet chestnuts seem to like that. Local farmers have had to irrigate potatoes off and on for the last two decades, where as before, that was not needed. There are willows, poplars and birch invading the high arctic, in areas that used to be above the tree line.
Re the neighbour's tap drain, that is not illegal. It is common practice here, so as to allow harvest if the summer has been dry and crops need the extra time after the fall rains finally come. It caused no harm to my woods, and may be a net benefit, as Thuga plicata grows well here now, and is very high value...western red cedar. I am not sure how much cold it takes in its native range, so can't comment on whether it would have grown here in the past or not.

Jocelyn

toronado,
I'm sorry, but I do not. You may be able to google up something similar with the use of CO2 in greenhouses, and it's effects (including temperature), as that is a common practice for much of the world and likely researched.

Arktrees