Trees of old

[Tahuyaman]

And the Indians, so closely sensitive to nature like they are, killed the last mammoth.

Trees will grow back.

True mammoths are gone forever.

Thanks, indians.

It is thought that climate change combined with hunting caused their demise. That couldn't be true because we know climate change didn't exist in that era. Climate change is a recent thing as a result of our lifestyle. Indians didn't drive SUV's.

[countryboy]

I talked about this in a thread yesterday. It is a good topic so I thought I would start a thread on it. The trees that we used to have on this planet were something amazing they were bigger than we can imagine. Think Redwoods. We decimated them during our industrial revolution. Now all we have are smaller trees.

It is a great loss. People of today dont even know what one of those trees looked like. They are lost to history. Some trees were up to 20 ft in diamater. We cant even imagine that today. That is as wide as a living room, or two, depending on the size of your home.

The thing is that we dont even know that we are missing out on something because we havent had those trees in our lifetime. But we are missing something. I imagine there could be a future where even the trees we have now are something that people may not know ever existed. The trees we have now are the size of saplings in comparison to the trees of old. The trees of old were a marvel.

One record breaking find was an old cedar that was near 24 foot around and 227 foot tall with a canopy that spread 49 feet. that is amazing. http://www.thedailyworld.com/life/th...ult-big-cedar/

Attachment 25973 Attachment 25974 Attachment 25975 Attachment 25976 Attachment 25977

While their numbers may be few, there is at least one Giant Sequoia Grove still in existence today. So yes, we know what they looked like, because we can see them in person. I've been there, you should check it out sometime.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=551

[donttread]

There are a few of these big trees left in the world but not many. They are the last standing symbols of what we once had. Here is a huge one in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_(tree) But it is said that many of these old trees are dying from drought and disease. Who knows how much longer we will have these icons of the past.

Attachment 25979

Height above base[1]	274.9 ft	83.8 m
Circumference at ground[1]	102.6 ft	31.3 m
Maximum diameter at base[1]	36.5 ft	11.1 m
Diameter 4.50 ft (1.37 m) above height point on ground[11]	25.1 ft	7.7 m
Girth Diameter 60 ft (18 m) above base[1]	17.5 ft	5.3 m
Diameter 180 ft (55 m) above base[1]	14.0 ft	4.3 m
Diameter of largest branch[1]	6.8 ft	2.1 m
Height of first large branch above the base[1]	130.0 ft	39.6 m
Average crown spread[1]	106.5 ft	32.5 m
Estimated bole volume[11]	52,508 cu ft	1,487 m3
Estimated mass (wet) (1938)[12]	2,105 short tons	1,910 t
Estimated bole mass (1938)[12]	2,472,000 lb	1,121 t

Wow. I've seen "virgin" white pines that I thought were huge but they are nothing like this.

[Tahuyaman]

Trees will grow back...

It's amazing how quickly logged land is reforested with harvestable timber.

[Dr. Who]

It's amazing how quickly logged land is reforested with harvestable timber.

Fast growing trees don't produce the kind of arboreal canopy that old growth trees produce and thus don't have the capacity to exchange as much CO2 and Oxygen. They are also more sensitive to climate changes and die off. Bigger trees have more extensive root systems and withstand both drought and wind - even fire, better than smaller trees. Forestry companies replace old growth trees with lower quality fast growing trees for lumber. They complete change the character of old growth forests. It affects the air and it affects the indigenous fauna.

[Tahuyaman]

Fast growing trees don't produce the kind of arboreal canopy that old growth trees produce and thus don't have the capacity to exchange as much CO2 and Oxygen. They are also more sensitive to climate changes and die off. Bigger trees have more extensive root systems and withstand both drought and wind - even fire, better than smaller trees. Forestry companies replace old growth trees with lower quality fast growing trees for lumber. They complete change the character of old growth forests. It affects the air and it affects the indigenous fauna.

Reforested lands have more underbrush than the old growth forests. Your explanation as to why is off the mark. They are not more sensitive to climate change. That's just a nonsensical statement intended to support the hoax of man made climate change

Besides, this is why we need to return to the forestry practices of the past and remove this underbrush. That makes the forest healthier.

[Dr. Who]

Reforested lands have more underbrush than the old growth forests. Your explanation as to why is off the mark. They are not more sensitive to climate change. That's just a nonsensical statement intended to support the hoax of man made climate change

Besides, this is why we need to return to the forestry practices of the past and remove this underbrush. That makes the forest healthier.

In old growth forests, the underbrush is generally killed off by fire every couple of years. The forest survives. Today, forest fires destroy thousands of hectares of forest entirely. I agree, the underbrush should be cut away, but there should be more effort made to plant the kind of trees that become "old growth" and not just weed trees for lumber.

[Lummy]

Fast growing trees don't produce the kind of arboreal canopy that old growth trees produce and thus don't have the capacity to exchange as much CO2 and Oxygen. They are also more sensitive to climate changes and die off. Bigger trees have more extensive root systems and withstand both drought and wind - even fire, better than smaller trees. Forestry companies replace old growth trees with lower quality fast growing trees for lumber. They complete change the character of old growth forests. It affects the air and it affects the indigenous fauna.

Do they know how much CO2 particular plants and trees take in? Can they look at a plot of land and from the species and number growing on it estimate how much CO2 is absorbed?

[Tahuyaman]

In old growth forests, the underbrush is generally killed off by fire every couple of years. The forest survives. Today, forest fires destroy thousands of hectares of forest entirely. I agree, the underbrush should be cut away, but there should be more effort made to plant the kind of trees that become "old growth" and not just weed trees for lumber.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Lummy]

Do they know how much CO2 particular plants and trees take in? Can they look at a plot of land and from the species and number growing on it estimate how much CO2 is absorbed?

Because if the quantity of CO2 removal is fairly uniform across species of plants, then not much CO2 exchange is lost from logging -- at least in wet areas like the Pacific NW. Even clearcuts are green and thick with vegetation a year or two afterwards.

In the Rocky Mountain forests, not so much. That region is a lot slower to recover just because it's so much drier.