Over-management for sugar maple

[wisconsitom]

Fellows,

What think ye all about the disturbing tendency I have seen all across the western Great Lakes northern hardwood forest (And I suspect elsewhere across the northern US).....that of managing only for Acer saccharum?  Hey, sugar maple-this state's state tree- is a great species.  But I happen to like beech, yellow birch, hemlock, northern red oak, the occasional upland white-cedar, the occasional mature white pine......along with sugar maple!  Very boring to just be looking at "sugar bushes" all the time.  My understanding of just one region-the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan-is that there was vastly more yellow birch and these other associated species in the original stands, and that a combination of uncontrolled fires and poor management decisions has led to this outcome.

Then too, in the area of my woods/plantation, which is central Oconto County, WI, quite near the tiny village of Suring.....one can see exactly the same thing.  Stands consisting of perhaps 95% sugar maple.  And that might be low!  Boring.....

tom

[GAB]

There is definitely some work involved, however a maple sugar bush will provide for an annual cash crop that can offset the property taxes and sometimes then some.
For many years in New England and NY, and a few other places, the farmers sugar orchard proceeds was the money used to buy seed and fertilizer for the spring plantings.  Since many small farms have gone away it is less so now.
Gerald

[wisconsitom]

Thanks GAB.  I get that.  But nowadays, it's the 1200 acres of corn, the 1000 acres of soybeans, and the 6000 cattle getting milked 3 times in each 24-hr. cycle...........that I believe is paying the bills.

tom

[maple flats]

I make syrup and I try to manage my sugar bush properly. First of all, a mono culture of sugar maple or any other species is not a healthy woodlot. If the sugar maples are the only trees in there they become much more susceptible to diseases and pest infestations. A healthy sugarbush is about 50-70% sugar maple maximum and a blend of many of the others you mention. The biggest exception might be the Beech, in a sugar bush they can be too prolific if you cut one down, hundreds of others sprout up from the extensive root system. If they are cut, then thousands can sprout up. They become a pest. However, if a beech is growing there it is often left, because all of the sprouting does not happen unless that mother tree is cut. I only cut beech in areas where I don't have sugar maples.

[GAB]

Thanks GAB.  I get that.  But nowadays, it's the 1200 acres of corn, the 1000 acres of soybeans, and the 6000 cattle getting milked 3 times in each 24-hr. cycle...........that I believe is paying the bills.

tom

Here in VT some of the larger farms have installed methane digester and are producing what is called cow-power.
I think the first one in VT was in the Middlebury area.  I heard that that farm has since added a second generator, don't know if they miscalculated the size originally or if the farm increased it herd size.
Some of these farms are selling bagged manure after it has been through the digester.
So income from milk, from the sale of green power, and the sale of dried manure.
Gerald

[Tarm]

Fellows,

What think ye all about the disturbing tendency I have seen all across the western Great Lakes northern hardwood forest (And I suspect elsewhere across the northern US).....that of managing only for Acer saccharum?  Hey, sugar maple-this state's state tree- is a great species.  But I happen to like beech, yellow birch, hemlock, northern red oak, the occasional upland white-cedar, the occasional mature white pine......along with sugar maple!  Very boring to just be looking at "sugar bushes" all the time.  My understanding of just one region-the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan-is that there was vastly more yellow birch and these other associated species in the original stands, and that a combination of uncontrolled fires and poor management decisions has led to this outcome.

Then too, in the area of my woods/plantation, which is central Oconto County, WI, quite near the tiny village of Suring.....one can see exactly the same thing.  Stands consisting of perhaps 95% sugar maple.  And that might be low!  Boring.....

tom

Sugar Maple is a shade tolerant species that can reproduce under dense shade. In Wisconsin and other Great Lake States the original forests had a dense understory of sugar maple seedlings. When the land was logged off over 100 years ago those young seedling grew up to be the sugar maple dominated stands of today. Your forest is the result of human activities. White pine, yellow birch and red oak can all be planted. Cut some small to medium size openings and add some new tree species to your woods. A caution, I suggest that you take a look at your current ground cover. Any sugar maple seedling visible? My woods has almost none. Be careful what you ask for.

[wisconsitom]

Tarm, Tarm,...Tarm,

You are consistently mis-reading my posts.  I am and was talking region-wide, and for discussion purposes only.  Not one bit of this is me asking you for advice on my land.  I was and am seeking discussion about a region-wide trend and not one which i just started noticing yesterday!

Just the other weekend, going up to my land, saw another N. hardwood stand with the (very few) widely-scattered eastern hemlocks all laying on the  ground.  I know of a large parcel in our state's NE where the "consulting forester" successfully convinced the new, 3rd-generation landowners to "get rid of all the goofy hemlocks", which has happened.  Large, old trees, all gone for little to no reason, by a family that absolutely does not depend on income from that stand.

And this is going on everywhere I look.  It is categorically worse than in past decades.  This is what I'm talking about.

tom

[Tarm]

Okay. For discussion purposes only, Wisconsin has a lot of sugar maple dominated forests because of the regeneration characteristic of sugar maple and the region-wise history of past cutting practices. The owners of these stands, if they choose, can diversify their species mix by creating growing space and planting new species.

As an owner of forest land I believe I have the right to manage my land in the manner I choose as long as I stay within the law. Hemlock is a slow growing species with a low commercial value. The owner of the property you mention has made the decision to grow something else. You seem angry that someone has chosen to manage their forest in a way different than you would. Such is the price of freedom.

[wisconsitom]

I disagree with the statement that hemlock is inherently slow-growing.  Sure, a suppressed tree, biding its time under a heavy canopy, is the very model of patience, "willing" to only grow one-half inch if that's what it takes.  Then months, years, or decades later, something happens over above, light streams down, and that "slow-growing" hemlock tree starts to race for the sun.  This, BTW, is a primary reason why such species eventually take over the earth in such regions...their very willingness to bide their time until conditions improve.  Not inherently slow-growing, but very conservative in their energy use.

Likewise, hemlock growing along woodland edges are absolutely not slow-growing plants.  Nor do most hemlock really come up in shade.

Angry?  No, but annoyed-only at people who skim a post, think they've got the gist, and blurt out stuff that is not related to initial post.

tom

[Ron Scott]

Hemlock inclusions are often found in northern hardwood ecosystems in the Lake States. We usually retain small areas of the included hemlock for wildlife thermal cover.

[Cub]

The tendency to see lots of sugar maple stands in the lake states is due to many many years of managing forests for maples. As was posted earlier many people ran sugar shacks and tapped them for early income to buy sees and fertilizer. I know this 1st hand because the farm I worked for for many years tapped for that exact reason. Beech birch aspen pine all the others have no value when it comes to syrup. So most places were cleared of that to make room for maples to grow and new maples to regen. Having said all that I am now selectively cutting maple for that guy. Lots of tree that are 40+ on the stump. Instructions were to clear all beech any good basswood and ash. He marked the maples he wanted out. Most of them are way past maturity and don't give much sap. His words were I want maples to have room to grow. Cutting maples for logs is a 1 time check. Tapping is an every year income. Although they run around 6000 taps on about 120 acres. I worked in 20 acres of it. Just my observations. 

[Cub]

Yes many people don't tap their sugar bushes anymore. But in my area there are guys that tap people's trees. Gather the sap and pay the land owner a certain cents per gallon of sap. Landowners turn and use that to pay taxes or a fancy new car or whatever. I do agree there should be management of these stands. But for a landowner they don't get money for the beech or basswood that grows in the place of the maple that was cut. It's mostly a money thing. And people like to see the pretty fall colors of the maples. 

[wisconsitom]

And some people, people like me for instance, really like the contrast between trees like sugar maple, and its usual conjoiners in the true northern hardwood/mixed-wood forest of the NE US and SE Canada.  I prefer the scene when there are varying shades and colors, as far as fall color goes.

I'm also always amazed at the enormous mass of humanity that never even notices the trees and woods around them until sometime right around Oct. 15!lol

tom

[Cub]

 
ms440 with a 28 inch bar. Took a lot of these guys out of that 20 acres. Many many more just like it and bigger on this guys chunk of land 

[Cub]

I agree with your statement about having a good mix of tree species in a forest. 
Also with your 2nd statement!! Lol 

[Klunker]

Mesification, The change of forests from their natural state to a more dominate Maple forest cause by mans changes in the environment.

The suppression of fire is the biggest reason we have more Maples less Oaks.

I have several areas in my woods that are dominated by large Maples.
This was disturbed by a sevre wind storm last summer.
I'm going to introduce some "new" native species next spring by planting White Pine and Walnut.
Also am going to plant more White Oak as there is no regeneration of White Oaks due to too much shade and too many deer.
Am also going to plant Beech to add more diversity to the lot.
There are maybe 1/2 dozen beech in the area and I'd like to have more in the mix.

I would like to add Basswood but was unable to find them as seedlings in the local county tree programs. I have maybe 1 or 2 basswood in the whole place.

Hackberry is another one I might add next year.

[wisconsitom]

Klunker, the scenario you outline, that of fire suppression leading to a change in the woods away from oaks and towards sugar maple...is a southern Wisconsin issue, not one that relates to my NE WI area.  But I agree with that which you say, just not for my area.  I applaud your management choices and wish you much success.  I have a son who tends a floodplain forest in that area.


In the NE WI area I speak of, these woods wold be oak-poor anyway.  Just not a real "oak-ey" area.  It was the northern hardwoods/mixed woods type of woods, with sugar maple, yellow birch, hemlock, basswood, white pine, N. red oak, etc....in the mix.  Now, all too often, just one tree type-sugar maple.  Blah...

tom

[randy d]

with oak wilt its sounds like oak may not be around long our sugar maple suffer from frost cracking and some root rot. That is why I like to see a good stand of aspen deer like it grouse need it as a primary food source and it grows fast. There are very few oak in this area and we tap are sugar maples to make syrup. 

[wisconsitom]

Randy,

  Gotta be honest...whenever I drive up 51 or 39, I get all a-tingle when those big green hills around Wausau show up in the view.  Great part of state, and heavily wooded.  I love my more easterly area...but you're in a real good zone!

Aspen is a workhorse in tree-world.  Whether for its own merits, or as the nurse stand for a range of later succession types, it is the preeminent choice for many sites.  When I lived in the U.P. I would often see mature aspen stands in decline...but with fir and pine coming up underneath.  Not a bad arrangement.

Where balsam poplar-really a type of aspen, it comes up all over the place from root suckers-really shines is in colonizing wet areas, places too wet for even trembling aspen, let alone bigtooth, which is pretty much strictly an upland species.  On my land, balsam poplar invades the oldfield, down at its wet end, and numerous white-cedar then seed into that area, grow slowly, and are in good shape to take over when the shorter-lived poplar begins to decline.  The white-cedar-of course-is only good for centuries!

tom

[brianJ]

Paying the bills is the most useful trait for a piece of land even better if it is yearly cash flow. So a predominately maple forest is the best on these hills and generally encouraged.   

[Jeff]

Angry? No, but annoyed-only at people who skim a post, think they've got the gist, and blurt out stuff that is not related to initial post.

I've come to the conclusion that you are an angry man with an attitude. I've been repeatedly directed to your remarks about the forum and its members. If you want to remain a part of this group, this is your last chance. If you have negative thoughts about a post or poster, keep them to yourself. You can have as many opinions as you like but you better not belittle someone else.  Last chance.

[hacknchop]

In my area here there have been a lot of clear cut going for biomass got a lot of different people upset especially since it's become a common practice in the now thriving Mennonite community. I have come to the conclusion that if you want to have a say on what people do on their land buy it.

[Ron Scott]

Sugar maple continues to be one of our high value hardwood grade species here. We continue sustainable management for it in our northern hardwood stands.

[hacknchop]

I didn't mean that they are clear cutting hardwood stands it is mostly the mixed boreal . They  sure don't waste much , processor ,one grapple skidder and tub grinder put out at least 3 tractor trailer loads a day.

[nativewolf]

With the price the mills re paying for sugar maple I can see why people select for it vs other species.  However, that may be a fad and the thing to plant may be birch .

[barbender]

Yeah, planting for what's selling now could be 40-80 years behind the curve in northern climes. 

[hacknchop]

I agree red oak was the wood of choice 25 yrs ago hard mpl  was just making a comeback but yellow birch has retained its value, in this neck of the woods there are a few private pine plantations mostly red pine , but we have been as private land owners practicing sustainable harvest in hardwood forests including some who operate successfull maple products retail and bulk.

[Otis1]

I think this is my first post here..

A bit of background for context; I am a private consulting forester in Wisconsin, I live near Wausau, and have worked on private and public land all over the state.  I agree with all of the previous comments as to why there is so much sugar maple.  I disagree that it is currently and intentionally being excessively managed for.

Whenever I mark a timber sale on the Forest Service or DNR land the prescription usually states to favor oak, yellow birch, and basswood and discriminate against sugar maple. Unfortunately ash has become high risk, but maybe this cold weather will kill some of those bugs. So many stands in northern Wisconsin have tons of suppressed 6" sugar maple. The prescriptions also generally call for canopy gaps every 2-3 acres in order to encourage other species, I try to place them near oak and yellow birch.

The same prescriptions state not to cut hemlock or white pine unless it is a safety concern or for a skid trail. When I mark private sales; I try to keep the big hemlock and white pine they are both beautiful trees. One additional note is that even planting other species isn't really guaranteed around here, there are some places in the state that you can't even plant red pine without the deer eating it.


*edit third post. I really only post online after a few beers

[wisconsitom]

Otis, while you did state  that you disagree with the premise that sugar maple is being over-selected for...in the present, I think the stands I'm looking at..and that we're all looking at...are the products of past management decisions, not necessarily decisions being made today.  I think that was what i was trying to get at.

  At any rate, I applaud your conscientious approach to marking on public lands.  It sounds perfect.  Can you tell us....does your timber marking differ greatly when done for private landowners?  Is "the customer always right"?

Thanks,
tom

[petefrom bearswamp]

NY has approximately 3 million acres in the forest preserve mainly in the-Adirondacks.
No management whatsoever.
The powers that be call it forever wild, we forestry types used to call it forever rotten.
climax hardwood forest on the appropriate sites has been reached on nearly all of the state land, Beech Birch and Maple with Hemlock and White pine and a few incidental species.
The beech is collapsing in most areas leaving sprouts and the other species including lots of monster trees.
My northern hardwood woodlot here in central NY is mainly Hard maple and Cherry as I harvested all but about hundred Ash back in 2008-9  in dread of the EAB.
I am now in the twilight of my existence but my son, also a trained forester, retired from state service, will inherit management of this parcel.
Foresters and woodlot owners should live as long as Methuselah to see the results of their labors.

[Otis1]

In response to Tom's question about private landowners. 

I find that 99% of the landowners that I work with are more interested in management for wildlife and aesthetics over profit.  Most landowner's would rather have good acorn producing oak every year rather than a one time paycheck. Occasionally I get a landowner that is just looking at $$, in those cases we have a serious conversation about what the long term outcomes will be. A good conversation about the silvicultural characteristics of their trees goes a long way in explaining why you have prescribed / marked the trees the way you did.

In most of Wisconsin hunting land is the primary objective, so creating canopy gaps and encouraging new trees to grow is easy to get landowner's on board with. If even just for deer browse. I have found that most landowners are relieved when you tell them that their few scattered 100-200 year old white pine, red pine, or hemlock don't have to be cut. At the same time, some landowners may decide to get the value of those trees before it's laying on the ground from a wind storm. 

I guess the short answer to your question is that the landowner owns the land, I don't.  My job is to help them manage for their goals/ objectives within the bounds of what is silviculturally acceptable.

Completely unrelated, but I'm gonna throw this out there. The WDNR has an excellent Silviculture Handbook on their website. It has descriptions of pretty much every type of harvest, TSI, and cover types. It's a great reference. Just search for it on their homepage. 

 

[Log-it-up]

Hey all
 Regarding the post from maple flats I was talking to a forester In my area and the did a big beech cut and where thining them out , I asked how they got them from growing back he said they cut the stump 2' high they sprout then die off might be worth trying

[Southside]

Oddly enough I learned the other day that the demise of the passenger pigeon actually played a very large role in the transition away from oak and into the northern maple forest we see today.  Had to do with their migratory habits and the impact billions of traveling birds would have on a forested area when it came to breaking branches and smothering the ground with droppings.  

Funny how often modern science forgets recent history and the impact it has.   

[mike_belben]

Maybe modern science is a little too preoccupied with climate alarmism.  My kids watch reading rainbow and other throwback TV from my day on wifi.  What a different world it was. 

[nativewolf]

Maybe modern science is a little too preoccupied with climate alarmism.  My kids watch reading rainbow and other throwback TV from my day on wifi.  What a different world it was.

Well I think the Passenger Pigeon example just shows how fragile/dynamic nature is.  Humans can easily easily change huge ecosystems be it from killing all the passenger pigeons to introducing the EAB or Chestnut Blight.  To think that we can't change the climate just as easily is just...bizarre to me.   We didn't destroy the earth by killing the Chestnut but man..that was a kick in the nuts (pun intended) for the eastern hardwood forest.  I think more effort should be given to the question: "ok, so what now".  Frankly if it is going to happen we have probably already screwed the pooch and our best efforts to contain might not be enough.  So what do we do?  Will this mean Sugar Maple moves 200 miles north?  Does this mean I should cut my best Northern Red Oak and plant YP?  Will walnut still do well here?  Etc etc.  So many many questions I have and there are NO answers.  I would not mind some help from state agencies on this question.  "If so then what now"

[wisconsitom]

Nativewolf, there are actual documents out now, stating exactly what you seek.  I'd have to dig around and find the reference, but a wetlands conference I was at last year featured a listing of "climate change trees" that went something like this;  So for say Wisconsin, where I am....the chart might indicate paper birch...or white-cedar...is going to struggle in the warming that's happening...and that perhaps those sites might be occupied by things like bitternut hickory, swamp-white oak, and other more warm-tolerant species.  It's much more detailed than I can outline here, but such does exist.

The writing is on the wall.  And it ain't pretty.

tom

[Southside]

Ugg... And the cedar and black spruce forests I played in growing up were all barren and under a mile of ice in the not too distant past, but the same state agencies seem to want to ignore that little detail. 

[TKehl]

The shifting dryline is what has my attention.  We had two bad drought years this decade that already had me thinking.  The dryline study added some urgency.  (Hard to say that about long term planning.)   ;D

As such over the next five years we have plans to increase water infiltration into the soil as well as add additional water retention for our pastures as well as increase our hay reserve.

[wisconsitom]

I've seen that shifting dryline too, TKehl, and it's got me concerned as well.  Can't have that creeping up on us....but we might!

Sometimes I think...and this is really unscientific thought going on here...that somehow, the western Great Lakes will stay a bit cooler and wetter as things heat up over the plains.  My only reason for this is watching one storm system after another kind of get lost up in N. Minnesota or just above Lake Superior and just kind of rotate around up over us and our area.  Could be sheer BS on my part.  Wishful thinking perhaps.  My hope would be that places like Northern Wisconsin would keep their "northern" character.



tom

[Southside]

Things are, and always have been, in a state of flux, nothing we can do about that in the big picture.  Opinion boils down to sample size in so many cases.  If a scientist were to arrive here in southern Virginia a year ago and study the climate for a full year, with no prior knowledge, they would arrive at the conclusion that it rains here 5 out of 7 days all year long, the red clay mud serves as a barrier to channel water down to streams, and pine trees grow in swamps.  All of which is atypical, at least in terms of known history.  What do we have a few hundred out of 4+ billion years worth of observed climate data, while the rest is hypothetical conclusion?  Pretty small sample size to draw such conclusive results from.   

[wisconsitom]

Pollen samples go back millions of years and are reliable indicators of climate characteristics.  Nor would any climate scientist make such obvious mistakes as you outline in your post, Southside.  We-by which I mean mankind-actually do have extensive climate records.  Not hundreds of year.  Millions of years.

Nor does the obvious fact that things change all the time somehow disprove the impact of what's going on now.

tom

[TKehl]

Exactly.  I have no desire to argue cause of change, just acknowledge that change happens and watch trends.
 
As such I'm trying to set our family farm (immovable object) to be as successful as possible within the range I see as possible.  For me, I expect the range of the next 50 years to be between the past 50 year average to something warmer and drier on average, (but also not ignoring that cooler and wetter isn't impossible).  It also seems like weather patterns are "sitting" in one place longer, backed up by studies showing a weakening jet stream.  (Long term or short term? ???) So we may have similar amounts of rain in the year, but have them be in larger events with a lot of runoff followed by longer dry periods. 
 
I don't ever expect to be on the west side of the dry line, but there is less rainfall in eastern KS and I could see that moving, accordion like, toward our farm.
 
Beyond water, I'm also looking at tree species to focus on, though changes there for my location are minimal thankfully.  It seems the species that may struggle most are ones I'm already culling heavily.  Though if planting new walnut, I may reconsider marginal sites and only plant on good ones.  I'm also strongly considering planting Chestnuts for nut production on 5-50 acres.
 
My goal is to set the farm up to thrive in the face of change, or if nothing changes at all.  ;)    8)

[wisconsitom]

TKehl, then in that sense, you and I are indeed on the same page.  Also like you, my intent is to set things up at my property so as to allow for the best outcome possible for the near- to mid-term.  After that, I simply can't track anything.  I suppose one way to look at it would be to say..."I'd like my grand-kids to have something good to work with up there"....or words like that.  Beyond 2 or 3 generations....who knows?

And in that regard, on my job I am responsible for something called "native restoration", whereby we in the Stormwater utility seek to install and enhance native vegetation communities around these relatively numerous and vast sites.  And in that capacity I have been given the task of designing a forest planting to take place at a new pond we start digging this summer.  Because the site is quite flat, wet-mesic, and because our soils here are circum-neutral due to limestone bedrock, and because we were originally very much in the belt that supported good white-cedar growth, I am using that species as the centerpiece of a forest community planting that will also feature early and mid-succession species.  Yet if I am completely honest....let's see...white-cedar can live 1000 years.....should I be doing this?  Even I have to admit, I'm not using the best science available in designing this planting.  Heck, I've got paper birch in there, and that too is on the list of species expected to have tough times here in the not-too-distant future.  1000 years is way too long to truly expect something to work out like that.  Of course, not one person has any kind of expectation like that, not because they are knowledgeable, but instead, because they know nothing about trees and forests and wouldn't even know what questions to ask!

I will write a management plan for my successor(s).  In that plan, I will outline changes that may occur, species that could be interplanted at a later date, and general succession ideas that could be followed.  The good news there is that there is not one correct path for the future....but many possible ways to go.  Further, the individual who is expected to take over for me when I retire in 2.18 years (lol)..is a capable and highly-intelligent guy.  He'll do a great job when I'm done here.

Thanks,
tom
 
PS...for a "native restoration" guy, I'm way outside the mold.  I actually believe that-for just one example, and there are many more-the hybrid larch that I and some others are touting could play a part in healing the landscape across the north.  Low-value forests could be cleared, the fast-growing larch planted in alternating fashion with whatever desirable species or group of species one deems fit...and then the lightly-shading larch will grow much faster, yield a usable product, and then be cut at about 20 years of age and out of the way for your oaks or whatever.  Tip of the iceberg.....I could go on and on......and on!  We can shape the world of the future.....not just in negative ways....but actually for the better!

Thanks,
tom

[Klunker]

I wouldn't get too shook up over global warming.
Global cooling would be much worse.
Maunder minimum is a real possibility.

Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy

Of course its going to be poo poo'd as there is no money in carbon offsets etc etc if the sun is at blame and there is nothing that can be done.

[TKehl]

I am familiar with studies about the solar cycle and the Maunder Minimum.  It is worth considering and is a factor in my decisions.  Change happens (large volcanic eruptions etc.) especially over long timeframes and Earth has mechanisms to get back to equilibrium as long as the pendulum doesn't swing too far.  I have no interest arguing about cause, but a lot of interest in avoiding negative impacts of change.   ;D  
 
I am a physicist that likes to farm, and only read a bit about climate science.  Enough to have opinions on why, but not enough to feel confident taking a position beyond my plans for the farm.  Even so, I'm only planning for the next hundred or so years on our farm is all.  😉  Around one generation of timber.  
 
Our farm has been in the family since 1911 and has required adapting several times.  I would go broke breeding horses and farming with mules like great and double great grandpa (even they supplemented with butchering on the side.)  I would go broke trying to run a small scale dairy like my grandpa.  I would go broke (and almost did) running pigs on dirt like dad.  All those things made a living for them for years, but the economic environment has changed.  The farm is profitable, but not at full time income levels yet.  Our mix involves beef cattle, meat goats, timber, sawmill, crafts, and a little heavy equipment work.  I have no idea what my kids or grandkids economic environment will be if they choose to stay on the farm, but I bet there will be changes.   ;)

[Klunker]

I would bet on colder and drier.

Past history dictates that.

The Sun is going to sleep last grand solar minimum 400 years ago(3) - YouTube

If global warming is a very real possibility how come all the believers (Al Gore for one) are burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow? They always want the Gov. to solve the problem with taxes and prohibitions that reduce the standard of living for the "little guys" while they fly around on private jets.

In any way trying to guess what the climate will be like in 10, 20 or 30 years is folly. There is no way of knowing. I'll continue planting what has grown in my area for the last several centuries.

If I had a choice between warmer or colder I'll take warmer, much easier to survive a warmer climate rather than a colder one.