life of a tree revealed in the rings

On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>
>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>
> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
> seasons?
>


I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:00:44 -0500, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>>
>> The water goes ... UP???
>
>No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...

ROTFL! The first time I was in Paris, and I was using the commode, not
the "B" just to be clear, I flushed the commode, and the room I was in
was on the 5th floor, the water literally leapt out through the seat.
Not a pleasant experience.

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:51:41 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>>
>>The water goes ... UP???
>
>Relatively, yes. ;-)

VBG!

On 1/5/2016 8:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>
>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>
>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>> seasons?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>> climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>
> I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
> those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
> rings in it. Which some people would discount, but also a friend of
> mine who was studying ice "rings" or layers that geologists used for
> the age of ice discovered that it actually bore record of rain or
> snowfall, which is why some rings were close and some wider in
> patterns. I'll look it up tonight.
>


;~) Well the Arc, is a super natural object and all that goes with
that... ;~) But I would be interested in what you find.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:19:08 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 01/06/2016 10:22 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 01/06/2016 9:55 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:15:26 -0800
>>> OFWW<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>>> seasons?
>>>
>>> it is not that simple
>>> some can be decades and longer
>>
>> An individual growth increment? I'm certainly not aware of anything that
>> shows such a pattern. Reference????
>...
>
>Or perhaps are you simply referring to a period of time such as a
>prolonged drought or the like that can bring a period of growth to near
>standstill for as long as the particular event lasts and sometimes for
>sometime thereafter before the specimen really fully recovers (presuming
>it survives and does do so eventually, of course)?
>
>That sort of thing certainly happens for any number of reasons, weather
>patterns being the most notable for a given specimen. Over a longer
>period of time over a number of generations one may see other more
>longer-term trends although one may have to have some additional help in
>that the forest was uprooted in a devastating event such a a flood,
>buried in an anerobic environment and became fossilized or otherwise
>preserved in order for us to find rings to count and ponder over their
>meaning...a few thousand years for individual trees is their lifetime, a
>mere blink of the eye in geologic time.
>
>The bristlecone pine is, afaik, the longest-lived single tree, reaching
>into the 5-6,000 yr neighborhood. The giant sequoias are mere
>youngsters in comparison in the 3-4,000 range.
>
>What's really unusual is that the Pando quaking aspen grove is the
>oldest overall by a wide margin (80,000 to to perhaps as much as
>1,000,000 by some estimates) but it's not the part you see; it (they? :)
>) is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen. Individual stems
>are more like only 100-130 years in age but they come up from the
>underground root system, not by flowering/seed production. The whole
>grove of some 100 acres and 40-50,000 "stems" are identical clones
>genetically.

There are tree's like that in La Jolla, Calif. To the naked eye people
mistake them for scrub pine due to their small stature, but some wise
person recognized them for what they are not too awful long ago, and
now they are protected. The only spot, I think, in NA

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:16:54 +0000, Spalted Walt
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>
>>>http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>
>>Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>seasons?
>
>You might want to rethink that:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

These pages are full of errors, and a good deal of it is written by
those with narrow visions who think that what they see here in the US
applies globally. They have pulled in some historic notes in order to
add weight to their arguments, but they failed and the pages reflect
it by asking for confirmations, etc.

See my reply to Leon, where it is easy to see that it is the growth
season or lack of it that gives the rings. Sometimes multiple rings
from one year to the next.

I have seen mentions of this in some of our national parks.
>
>https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2905/es2905page01.cfm
>
Disclaimer on this page, "In general tree's have one growth ring per
year"

On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:

>
> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here. ;)

That's an old wives tale. Everyone knows they don't flush their toilets
in Australia...


--
-Mike-
[email protected]

Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:n6p14q$bsd$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>
> The water goes ... UP???
>

That's why outhouses are so common in Australia even though the rest of the
world has had indoor plumbing for decades.

Most places on the earth suck, Australia blows.

Puckdropper

On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>
> The water goes ... UP???

No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...

--
-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/9/2016 2:11 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:00:44 -0500, Mike Marlow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>>>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>>>
>>> The water goes ... UP???
>>
>> No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...
>
> ROTFL! The first time I was in Paris, and I was using the commode, not
> the "B" just to be clear, I flushed the commode, and the room I was in
> was on the 5th floor, the water literally leapt out through the seat.
> Not a pleasant experience.
>

I had heard about French toilets long before my first trip to France,
but when I had my first encounter with them it still came as quite the
surprise. Not very fond of that idea at all...

--
-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/13/2016 2:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <plonk>
>
> this is good sign
> if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search
>
> but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part
>

Actually, no - the indications of failure are on your part. You have a
proven history here.



--
-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/13/2016 2:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <plonk>
>
> this is good sign
> if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search
>
> but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part
>

Actually, no - the indications of failure are on your part. You have a
proven history here.



--
-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>
>The water goes ... UP???
The water when it drains spins in the opposite direction. Toilers
designed for here would not flush properly there.

The line of demarcation is the equator.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:24:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 1/5/2016 8:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>>
>>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>>
>>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>>> seasons?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>>> climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>>
>> I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
>> those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
>> rings in it. Which some people would discount, but also a friend of
>> mine who was studying ice "rings" or layers that geologists used for
>> the age of ice discovered that it actually bore record of rain or
>> snowfall, which is why some rings were close and some wider in
>> patterns. I'll look it up tonight.
>>
>
>
>;~) Well the Arc, is a super natural object and all that goes with
>that... ;~) But I would be interested in what you find.

As the story goes, before the flood there was no rain. No rainy
season, no rings, or very few?


Anyhow, here are a few page links, and basically the growth, or rainy
season and the end of it determines the rings. So in area's that have
a regular rainy season you will get a growth ring. In a severe drought
it can be difficult to tell if there is a growth ring or not. I have
included the areas of tropical forests to show that there can be
multiple growth rings per year, and that basically a tree is a tree is
a tree.

Here in the west I can remember seeing large trees with growth ring
anomalies shown in the local museums of national parks where
uncertainty prevailed in the reading of rings due to weather patterns.

Bottom line? Tree's don't have birthday's. :)


https://www.theforestacademy.com/tree-knowledge/annual-growth-rings/#.VoyxRI9FyUk

Annual rings generally exist in trees where the climate halts growth
at some point during the year. In our country, winter causes this
shutdown. In other countries, it is the dry season. Growth begins
again in the spring or rainy season.

But what happens to trees growing in countries where there is no
alternation between growth and rest periods?

For example, a country where it rains all year long! Remember that all
trees grow by adding successive rings. So in such an area, the
beginning and end of the growth period may occur any time during the
year, depending on the local conditions.

Some trees in tropical forests, like the okoumé (Gaboon), manage to
create several dozen very thin rings in a year, and never the same
number from one year to the next. It is often difficult, even
impossible, to distinguish them with the naked eye. In such cases, it
is extremely hard to determine the age of the tree.



http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html

Dendrochronology is the study of climate change as recorded by tree
growth rings. Each year, trees add a layer of growth between the
older wood and the bark. This layer, or ring as seen in cross
section, can be wide, recording a wet season, or narrow, recording a
dry growing season. Because the rings are basically recording a good
growing season or a bad growing season, they are indirectly recording
more than just moisture. They also document temperature and cloud
cover as they impact tree growth as well. This record of annual
summer information is very important when you consider that certain
types of trees grow slowly over hundreds and hundreds of years, and
therefore contain a record of as many years of climate and climate
change.

There are limitations to this research though. Trees in the
temperate zone only record the growing season, so the winter season,
no matter how dramatic, will not be seen in the ring record.
Interestingly, trees in tropical regions grow year round and therefore
show no real obvious annual growth rings. Therefore climate data from
equatorial areas is difficult to piece out and use. The record is
limited geographically in another way too. Trees do not grow in all
places on Earth, therefore we don’t have a tree ring record of climate
change for each region and ecologic niche globally. (No trees in
polar regions, high in the mountains, in the ocean!!!)

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 06:39:11 -0800, "Existential Angst"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>>
>>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>>
>>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>>> seasons?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>>>climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>>
>>I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
>>those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
>>rings in it.
>
>Are ~those people~ the same ones who believe our square
>planet is only 6000 years old and the baby Jesus put all
>those dinosaur fossils here ~just to test our faith~ ?

No, and this is not the place for that type of discussion.

I'd say growing seasons is the soft more alive ring area
and the hard ring is the winter very slow growing.

The Redwoods would grow a foot or more on every rain or heavy fog.
After a fair rain, you could stand outside and hear the wood swell.

We had one near the house that was maybe a 30" sapling (diameter) and
as it grew upward the trunk rotated. The lower limbs were trimmed off
the deck only to have new ones sweep inward towards the house. Not all
did that and I think the wood might be beautiful if cut, but have no
idea on strength with twisted grain.

Martin

On 1/9/2016 9:18 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 7:17 AM, Bill wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
>>>>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
>>>>>> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
>>>>>> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
>>>>>> essentially zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> would not consider sequoia to be common
>>>>> it is the only hexaploid tree
>>>>> it is the tallest tree
>>>>>
>>>>> much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
>>>>> rec.woodworking
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>>>
>>> Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
>>> "decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
>>> tree in any temperate climate.
>>>
>>> --
>> From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
>> compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
>> part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
>> go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
>> trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
>> eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.
> ...
>
> The dispute here is that I don't believe the claim that a single growth
> ring can take "decades" to form is based on anything but I'd be most
> interested to see how that could be if it were indeed, really so.
>
> As noted in all recent literature, the term "annual rings" is considered
> to be less than accurate owing to its reliance on temperate zone with
> regular seasons to be so; the tropics of course being the extreme the
> other direction. I was simply noting that owing to aberrations in
> normal weather it's possible for there to be the occasional extra or
> even a missed growth cycle in a given year even in normally very regular
> seasonal areas and one could postulate severe climatic events that could
> cause, perhaps, even more than a single year duration of such albeit
> more and more unlikely as the time frame expands. To think there would
> be such that lasted for a ten year span is simply expecting too much; or
> if so, as noted above I'd surely like to see the specimen in which it
> was found.
>
> --

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>
>>http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>
>Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>seasons?

You might want to rethink that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2905/es2905page01.cfm

On 1/13/2016 1:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <plonk>
>
> this is good sign
> if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search
>
> but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part
>

Actually not being able to find something that does not exist is not a
failure.

Failure to produce proof what you think you have seen is a failure.

On 1/10/2016 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 10:01 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>>
>> people like to believe what they want
>> i would not play the spoiler
> ...
>
> Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise
> admit you're just "making it up".
>
> --
>

He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
> and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
> it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

A hard wood and a hardwood are not the same. Balsa is a hardwood but it
is not a hard wood.

> Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.

Yes, it does.

> Just like the
> mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

??? What does decaying have to do with biological taxonomy? And if you
know of a source of non-torrefied poplar that holds up to the elements
better than white oak then please share it.

> And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
> pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
> a refinishing and resealing.

So what?

> I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
> deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
> these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
> had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

Unless it's redwood.

> We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
> 100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.
>
> http://www.calredwood.org/

> Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard
because
> the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
> It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
> structure.

So? It's still a softwood.

You seem to think that "hardwood" vs "softwood" is some kind of value
judgment. It isn't.

> On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
> >> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
> >> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
> >> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
> >> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
> >> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
> >>
> >> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
> >> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
> >
> > Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
> > variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?
> >
> >>>

On 1/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
> and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
> it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.
>
> Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. Just like the
> mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.
>
> And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
> pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
> a refinishing and resealing.
>
> I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
> deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
> these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
> had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.
>
> We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
> 100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.
>
> http://www.calredwood.org/
>
> Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
> the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
> It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
> structure.

Whether the wood is actually hard or soft, it does not matter to be
technically called one or the other. As I believe it has been pointed
out it is mostly determined by the leaves and or fruit.


Balsa is considered a hardwood, the wood is not. SYP is considered to
be a softwood, the wood is not.







>
> Martin
>
> On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
>>> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
>>> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
>>> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
>>> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
>>> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>>>
>>> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
>>> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
>>
>> Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
>> variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?
>>
>>>>

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
>Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
>shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
>the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
>diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
>redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>
>All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
>acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

>>

On 1/6/2016 12:57 AM, OFWW wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:24:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2016 8:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>>>> seasons?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>>>> climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>>>
>>> I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
>>> those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
>>> rings in it. Which some people would discount, but also a friend of
>>> mine who was studying ice "rings" or layers that geologists used for
>>> the age of ice discovered that it actually bore record of rain or
>>> snowfall, which is why some rings were close and some wider in
>>> patterns. I'll look it up tonight.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ;~) Well the Arc, is a super natural object and all that goes with
>> that... ;~) But I would be interested in what you find.
>
> As the story goes, before the flood there was no rain. No rainy
> season, no rings, or very few?
>
>
> Anyhow, here are a few page links, and basically the growth, or rainy
> season and the end of it determines the rings. So in area's that have
> a regular rainy season you will get a growth ring. In a severe drought
> it can be difficult to tell if there is a growth ring or not. I have
> included the areas of tropical forests to show that there can be
> multiple growth rings per year, and that basically a tree is a tree is
> a tree.
>
> Here in the west I can remember seeing large trees with growth ring
> anomalies shown in the local museums of national parks where
> uncertainty prevailed in the reading of rings due to weather patterns.
>
> Bottom line? Tree's don't have birthday's. :)

And yet they are called "Annual" Growth rings. That still sounds like a
new ring each year.

And from your link,

Each year, the tree forms new cells, arranged in concentric circles
called annual rings or annual growth rings. These annual rings show the
amount of wood produced during one growing season.


>
>
> https://www.theforestacademy.com/tree-knowledge/annual-growth-rings/#.VoyxRI9FyUk

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:54:17 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 01/06/2016 4:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>...
>
>> The last couple years here we have had two growth seasons each year,
>> literally, played havoc with the veggies, but the tree's seemed to
>> handle it fine. It would be nice to core the tree and then core it
>> again just to see or verify what the tree did for those years. It
>> isn't common, but it is not unusual.
>...
>
>I'd venture _most_ didn't actually go through two fully dormant cycles
>and wouldn't show up a second ring therefore but it would be interesting
>to do a core sample, indeed...

Normally I wouldn't have thought so either, but we had a short hot
winter followed by some quick freezes, all the trees that were budding
and growing fruit, lost all their fruit an some leaves, then a mild
winter for a couple weeks, and then a repeat of the cycle. I was
thinking that the poor trees and plants must be getting confused
because or the strange weather sequences.

I had a great laugh through it all as the weather men and new people
were really hamming up the heat wave, and talking about the
seriousness of GW, and after a couple weeks of that going on the temp
dropped to below freezing then hovered down low and made them all look
a bit skittish for a while.

does the pore size and shape indicate by cone or not ?


On 1/11/2016 5:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
>> and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
>> it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.
>
> A hard wood and a hardwood are not the same. Balsa is a hardwood but it
> is not a hard wood.
>
>> Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>> Just like the
>> mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.
>
> ??? What does decaying have to do with biological taxonomy? And if you
> know of a source of non-torrefied poplar that holds up to the elements
> better than white oak then please share it.
>
>> And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
>> pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
>> a refinishing and resealing.
>
> So what?
>
>> I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
>> deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
>> these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
>> had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.
>
> Unless it's redwood.
>
>> We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
>> 100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.
>>
>> http://www.calredwood.org/
>
>> Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard
> because
>> the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
>> It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
>> structure.
>
> So? It's still a softwood.
>
> You seem to think that "hardwood" vs "softwood" is some kind of value
> judgment. It isn't.
>
>> On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
>>>> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
>>>> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
>>>> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
>>>> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
>>>> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>>>>
>>>> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
>>>> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
>>>
>>> Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
>>> variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?
>>>
>>>>>
>
>

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:06:24 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 1/6/2016 12:57 AM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:24:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/2016 8:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>>>>> seasons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>>>>> climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>>>>
>>>> I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
>>>> those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
>>>> rings in it. Which some people would discount, but also a friend of
>>>> mine who was studying ice "rings" or layers that geologists used for
>>>> the age of ice discovered that it actually bore record of rain or
>>>> snowfall, which is why some rings were close and some wider in
>>>> patterns. I'll look it up tonight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ;~) Well the Arc, is a super natural object and all that goes with
>>> that... ;~) But I would be interested in what you find.
>>
>> As the story goes, before the flood there was no rain. No rainy
>> season, no rings, or very few?
>>
>>
>> Anyhow, here are a few page links, and basically the growth, or rainy
>> season and the end of it determines the rings. So in area's that have
>> a regular rainy season you will get a growth ring. In a severe drought
>> it can be difficult to tell if there is a growth ring or not. I have
>> included the areas of tropical forests to show that there can be
>> multiple growth rings per year, and that basically a tree is a tree is
>> a tree.
>>
>> Here in the west I can remember seeing large trees with growth ring
>> anomalies shown in the local museums of national parks where
>> uncertainty prevailed in the reading of rings due to weather patterns.
>>
>> Bottom line? Tree's don't have birthday's. :)
>
>And yet they are called "Annual" Growth rings. That still sounds like a
>new ring each year.
>
>And from your link,
>
>Each year, the tree forms new cells, arranged in concentric circles
>called annual rings or annual growth rings. These annual rings show the
>amount of wood produced during one growing season.
>
ROTFL, Annual growth rings the term fits to everyone's satisfaction.
But that only works in areas with one growth cycle per year.

The last couple years here we have had two growth seasons each year,
literally, played havoc with the veggies, but the tree's seemed to
handle it fine. It would be nice to core the tree and then core it
again just to see or verify what the tree did for those years. It
isn't common, but it is not unusual.

Bottom line I guess we all see what we want.

And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here. ;)
>
>>
>>
>> https://www.theforestacademy.com/tree-knowledge/annual-growth-rings/#.VoyxRI9FyUk

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 20:14:57 -0500, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>
>>
>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here. ;)
>
>That's an old wives tale. Everyone knows they don't flush their toilets
>in Australia...

ROTFLOL!! You owe me a new keyboard, just spit out my coffee.

On 1/7/2016 9:34 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 8:52 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:54:17 -0600, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2016 4:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The last couple years here we have had two growth seasons each year,
>>>> literally, played havoc with the veggies, but the tree's seemed to
>>>> handle it fine. It would be nice to core the tree and then core it
>>>> again just to see or verify what the tree did for those years. It
>>>> isn't common, but it is not unusual.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I'd venture _most_ didn't actually go through two fully dormant cycles
>>> and wouldn't show up a second ring therefore but it would be interesting
>>> to do a core sample, indeed...
>>
>> Normally I wouldn't have thought so either, but we had a short hot
>> winter followed by some quick freezes, all the trees that were budding
>> and growing fruit, lost all their fruit an some leaves, then a mild
>> winter for a couple weeks, and then a repeat of the cycle. I was
>> thinking that the poor trees and plants must be getting confused
>> because or the strange weather sequences.
>>
>> I had a great laugh through it all as the weather men and new people
>> were really hamming up the heat wave, and talking about the
>> seriousness of GW, and after a couple weeks of that going on the temp
>> dropped to below freezing then hovered down low and made them all look
>> a bit skittish for a while.
>
> That's an el Nino cycle for ya'...
>
> We've been thru the 5-6 years of severe (Cat IV on national drought
> monitor like CA that you hear about; nobody much cares about "flyover
> country") until the worm turned suddenly about first of June and have
> been (by our standards, anyways, wet since). Included w/ the pattern is
> the jet stream pattern that includes blocking the extreme Canadian cold
> from the northern midwest/northeast...
>
> They've been touting how this year is the "strongest since the '80s!!!!"
> not bothering to mention they've only had tracking data from roughly
> that time which is only 30 years; absolutely nothing in terms of overall
> climate. Meanwhile, there are records that the Peruvian fishermen knew
> of it in early 17th century and undoubtedly actually much earlier than
> that so it's certainly nothing new; we just now are beginning to
> understand how it affects global weather patterns.
>
> There's a NOAA fella' in the Dodge City office finishing up his doctoral
> dissertation who works the night shift and on occasion will write in
> some depth on his work in the area in the "behind the scene" internal
> discussion distributed as part of the workings behind the daily
> forecast. Quite interesting how it's all so intertwined.
>
> My hypothesis is that if one had the data one could show that in fact
> the "Dirty 30's" dustbowl was tied in with a strong La Nina (the
> opposite of the El Nino) which is associated with the strong jet stream
> buckle to the north which shunts all the rain-producing t-storm
> producing systems to the east of the western High Plains leaving us with
> the similar situation we've just been through. IOW, imo there's
> "nothing new under the sun"; we're just not a long-lived enough species
> to be able to see the big picture in short term patterns and have fallen
> into the trap of thinking we're more important than we are.
>
> --
Exactly! Concerning not enough data to make a reasonable assumption
about the long term weather patterns.

This we do know, the weather is unpredictable and has been changing for
centuries.

Now that computers are every where every one is an expert on the weather
using the vast amount of data that has only recently become available to
everyone. I highly suspect that in 200 years future generations will
look at the global warming crisis somewhat like the Salem Witch trials.

Had we had access to computers and weather data 60 years ago like we
have in the last 30 or so years I'm certain that we would be looking at
the weather much differently. Thank goodness we did what we did to curb
global cooling in the 70's and 80's so that we would not all freeze.
There simply is not enough data to make anything close to accurate
assumptions about recent history weather patterns.

I find it ironic that in general we did not have these global weather
problems until we felt compelled to do something about them. Here is
where you should follow the money to see how conclusions have been
propped up.

There is just way too much to take into consideration to make any
assumption that anything we change can change the weather.

Is the weather getting warmer, probably. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps
the earth's weather is adjusting naturally to provide more or longer
growing seasons to supply food for the growing population. If we were
actually able to cool things down and shorten the growing seasons, would
we be able to grow enough food to feed the planet?

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>
>http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>
Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
seasons?

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>>On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>>
>>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>>
>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>> seasons?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>>climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?
>
>I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
>those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
>rings in it.

Are ~those people~ the same ones who believe our square
planet is only 6000 years old and the baby Jesus put all
those dinosaur fossils here ~just to test our faith~ ?


--
Religion was invented when the first
con-man met the first fool. ~ Mark Twain

On 01/05/2016 6:17 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>
>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>
>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>> seasons?
>>
>
>
> I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
> climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?

The US FPL Wood Handbook --
<http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/several_pubs.php?grouping_id=100>

See chap 3 for botany lessons. Short version is, in temperate climates
such as most of the US, there is an annual growth and dormant season and
so the growth rings can be associated with that yearly cycle. How
prevalent they are is basically determined by the variety of the tree
itself, spacing is related to environmental and local conditions. But
it makes note that this is a temperate-zone characteristic and so to
refer them as "annual rings" isn't necessarily accurate; use the term
"growth rings" or "growth increment" instead.

OTOH, in many tropical woods it's essentially impossible to visually
detect growth rings altho I note in the 2010 edition it includes the
following: "... continuing research in this area has uncovered several
characteristics whereby growth rings can be correlated with seasonality
changes in some tropical species (Worbes 1995, 1999; Callado and others
2001)."

Shorter version is R. B. Hoadley's Understanding Wood, Taunton
Press...although I don't believe it's been revised; there's certainly
little to fault for a US audience and domestic woods on the subject
albeit it's not a botany textbook, either (nor, of course, is the
Handbook, but it is in more depth than Hoadley).

--

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:15:26 -0800
OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:

> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
> seasons?

it is not that simple
some can be decades and longer
as always it depends on many factors

dendrochronology is the study of the rings

there are photos of giant sequoia cross sections marked with historic
events that are fun to see

On 01/06/2016 9:34 AM, dpb wrote:
...

> The US FPL Wood Handbook --
> <http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/several_pubs.php?grouping_id=100>
>
>
> See chap 3 for botany lessons. Short version is, in temperate climates
> such as most of the US, there is an annual growth and dormant season and
> so the growth rings can be associated with that yearly cycle. How
> prevalent they are is basically determined by the variety of the tree
> itself, spacing is related to environmental and local conditions. But it
> makes note that this is a temperate-zone characteristic and so to refer
> them as "annual rings" isn't necessarily accurate; use the term "growth
> rings" or "growth increment" instead.
>
> OTOH, in many tropical woods it's essentially impossible to visually
> detect growth rings altho I note in the 2010 edition it includes the
> following: "... continuing research in this area has uncovered several
> characteristics whereby growth rings can be correlated with seasonality
> changes in some tropical species (Worbes 1995, 1999; Callado and others
> 2001)."
...

First sentence 2nd paragraph is garbled -- I changed horses in
midsentence on what was planning on writing and didn't get all the first
outta' there that shoulda' been --

What was intended to say was impossible had to to with associating
growth rings with a necessarily annual cycle in tropical regions, not
that the growth increments are not visible.

--

On 01/06/2016 9:55 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:15:26 -0800
> OFWW<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>> seasons?
>
> it is not that simple
> some can be decades and longer

An individual growth increment? I'm certainly not aware of anything
that shows such a pattern. Reference????

> as always it depends on many factors
...

Spacing, yes. Actual ring structure itself is simply a characteristic
of the individual species. Now, yes, while there are lots of species,
there are a (relatively few) characteristics into which individual trees
fall.

--

On 01/06/2016 10:22 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 9:55 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:15:26 -0800
>> OFWW<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>>> seasons?
>>
>> it is not that simple
>> some can be decades and longer
>
> An individual growth increment? I'm certainly not aware of anything that
> shows such a pattern. Reference????
...

Or perhaps are you simply referring to a period of time such as a
prolonged drought or the like that can bring a period of growth to near
standstill for as long as the particular event lasts and sometimes for
sometime thereafter before the specimen really fully recovers (presuming
it survives and does do so eventually, of course)?

That sort of thing certainly happens for any number of reasons, weather
patterns being the most notable for a given specimen. Over a longer
period of time over a number of generations one may see other more
longer-term trends although one may have to have some additional help in
that the forest was uprooted in a devastating event such a a flood,
buried in an anerobic environment and became fossilized or otherwise
preserved in order for us to find rings to count and ponder over their
meaning...a few thousand years for individual trees is their lifetime, a
mere blink of the eye in geologic time.

The bristlecone pine is, afaik, the longest-lived single tree, reaching
into the 5-6,000 yr neighborhood. The giant sequoias are mere
youngsters in comparison in the 3-4,000 range.

What's really unusual is that the Pando quaking aspen grove is the
oldest overall by a wide margin (80,000 to to perhaps as much as
1,000,000 by some estimates) but it's not the part you see; it (they? :)
) is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen. Individual stems
are more like only 100-130 years in age but they come up from the
underground root system, not by flowering/seed production. The whole
grove of some 100 acres and 40-50,000 "stems" are identical clones
genetically.

--

On 01/06/2016 2:06 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2016 12:57 AM, OFWW wrote:
...

>> Anyhow, here are a few page links, and basically the growth, or rainy
>> season and the end of it determines the rings. So in areas that have
>> a regular rainy season you will get a growth ring. In a severe drought
>> it can be difficult to tell if there is a growth ring or not. I have
>> included the areas of tropical forests to show that there can be
>> multiple growth rings per year, and that basically a tree is a tree is
>> a tree.
...
>> Bottom line? Tree's don't have birthday's. :)
>
> And yet they are called "Annual" Growth rings. That still sounds like a
> new ring each year.

As noted earlier, that's fine for temperate-zone regions but "not so
much" in tropical areas. US FPL points out that that is poor terminology...

> And from your link,
>
> Each year, the tree forms new cells, arranged in concentric circles
> called annual rings or annual growth rings. These annual rings show the
> amount of wood produced during one growing season.

And, from just a little farther down in the same link--

"Trees in Tropical Countries

Annual rings generally exist in trees where the climate halts growth at
some point during the year. In our country, winter causes this shutdown.
In other countries, it is the dry season. Growth begins again in the
spring or rainy season.

But what happens to trees growing in countries where there is no
alternation between growth and rest periods?

For example, a country where it rains all year long! Remember that all
trees grow by adding successive rings. So in such an area, the beginning
and end of the growth period may occur any time during the year,
depending on the local conditions.

Some trees in tropical forests, like the okoumé (Gaboon), manage to
create several dozen very thin rings in a year, and never the same
number from one year to the next. It is often difficult, even
impossible, to distinguish them with the naked eye. In such cases, it is
extremely hard to determine the age of the tree."

--

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:22:43 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> An individual growth increment? I'm certainly not aware of anything
> that shows such a pattern. Reference????

look at the sequoias

there are some great pics around with markings of historic events
over the life of the tree

the sequoias are special for sure and the annual ring does not apply
as yo noted it is the growth ring and it can span decades

trees are incredible
the blue gum and sequoias are more so due to their size

On 01/06/2016 4:22 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
...

> the sequoias are special for sure and the annual ring does not apply
> as yo noted it is the growth ring and it can span decades
...

A _given_ growth ring for a sequoia (or any other tree in the temperate
climatic zone) will absolutely _NOT_ span "decades". It'll be in accord
with the growing seasons which are, and have been for the life of these
trees, annual cycles.

It takes a place without these cycles for there to not be any
correlation; that ain't where the redwoods are.

--

On 01/06/2016 4:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
...

> The last couple years here we have had two growth seasons each year,
> literally, played havoc with the veggies, but the tree's seemed to
> handle it fine. It would be nice to core the tree and then core it
> again just to see or verify what the tree did for those years. It
> isn't common, but it is not unusual.
...

I'd venture _most_ didn't actually go through two fully dormant cycles
and wouldn't show up a second ring therefore but it would be interesting
to do a core sample, indeed...

--

On 01/06/2016 4:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:19:08 -0600, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
...

>> What's really unusual is that the Pando quaking aspen grove is the
>> oldest overall by a wide margin (80,000 to to perhaps as much as
>> 1,000,000 by some estimates) but it's not the part you see; it (they? :)
>> ) is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen. Individual stems
>> are more like only 100-130 years in age but they come up from the
>> underground root system, not by flowering/seed production. The whole
>> grove of some 100 acres and 40-50,000 "stems" are identical clones
>> genetically.
>
> There are tree's like that in La Jolla, Calif. To the naked eye people
> mistake them for scrub pine due to their small stature, but some wise
> person recognized them for what they are not too awful long ago, and
> now they are protected. The only spot, I think, in NA

I'd like to know what those are; the quaking aspen are certainly NA,
Pando is in south-central UT, not far from Fishlake NF...

--

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:45:44 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> A _given_ growth ring for a sequoia (or any other tree in the
> temperate climatic zone) will absolutely _NOT_ span "decades". It'll
> be in accord with the growing seasons which are, and have been for
> the life of these trees, annual cycles.

fyi you are disagreeing with what dendrochronologists have determined by
careful analysis

On 01/06/2016 6:40 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:45:44 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A _given_ growth ring for a sequoia (or any other tree in the
>> temperate climatic zone) will absolutely _NOT_ span "decades". It'll
>> be in accord with the growing seasons which are, and have been for
>> the life of these trees, annual cycles.
>
> fyi you are disagreeing with what dendrochronologists have determined by
> careful analysis

Show me the research that says that.

--

On 01/06/2016 8:52 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:54:17 -0600, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2016 4:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> The last couple years here we have had two growth seasons each year,
>>> literally, played havoc with the veggies, but the tree's seemed to
>>> handle it fine. It would be nice to core the tree and then core it
>>> again just to see or verify what the tree did for those years. It
>>> isn't common, but it is not unusual.
>> ...
>>
>> I'd venture _most_ didn't actually go through two fully dormant cycles
>> and wouldn't show up a second ring therefore but it would be interesting
>> to do a core sample, indeed...
>
> Normally I wouldn't have thought so either, but we had a short hot
> winter followed by some quick freezes, all the trees that were budding
> and growing fruit, lost all their fruit an some leaves, then a mild
> winter for a couple weeks, and then a repeat of the cycle. I was
> thinking that the poor trees and plants must be getting confused
> because or the strange weather sequences.
>
> I had a great laugh through it all as the weather men and new people
> were really hamming up the heat wave, and talking about the
> seriousness of GW, and after a couple weeks of that going on the temp
> dropped to below freezing then hovered down low and made them all look
> a bit skittish for a while.

That's an el Nino cycle for ya'...

We've been thru the 5-6 years of severe (Cat IV on national drought
monitor like CA that you hear about; nobody much cares about "flyover
country") until the worm turned suddenly about first of June and have
been (by our standards, anyways, wet since). Included w/ the pattern is
the jet stream pattern that includes blocking the extreme Canadian cold
from the northern midwest/northeast...

They've been touting how this year is the "strongest since the '80s!!!!"
not bothering to mention they've only had tracking data from roughly
that time which is only 30 years; absolutely nothing in terms of overall
climate. Meanwhile, there are records that the Peruvian fishermen knew
of it in early 17th century and undoubtedly actually much earlier than
that so it's certainly nothing new; we just now are beginning to
understand how it affects global weather patterns.

There's a NOAA fella' in the Dodge City office finishing up his doctoral
dissertation who works the night shift and on occasion will write in
some depth on his work in the area in the "behind the scene" internal
discussion distributed as part of the workings behind the daily
forecast. Quite interesting how it's all so intertwined.

My hypothesis is that if one had the data one could show that in fact
the "Dirty 30's" dustbowl was tied in with a strong La Nina (the
opposite of the El Nino) which is associated with the strong jet stream
buckle to the north which shunts all the rain-producing t-storm
producing systems to the east of the western High Plains leaving us with
the similar situation we've just been through. IOW, imo there's
"nothing new under the sun"; we're just not a long-lived enough species
to be able to see the big picture in short term patterns and have fallen
into the trap of thinking we're more important than we are.

--

On 01/06/2016 6:40 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:45:44 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A _given_ growth ring for a sequoia (or any other tree in the
>> temperate climatic zone) will absolutely _NOT_ span "decades". It'll
>> be in accord with the growing seasons which are, and have been for
>> the life of these trees, annual cycles.
>
> fyi you are disagreeing with what dendrochronologists have determined by
> careful analysis

In reality, _IN TEMPERATE ZONES_, the likelihood is that there may be an
additional ring or two now and then as OFWW notes may have occurred in
his region owing to an indication or dormancy and renewed growth again
more than once during the calendar year from an aberration from normal
weather patterns of sufficient magnitude and duration as to actually
cause the growth pattern to mimic another year. Similarly, particularly
in drier climates it's possible that a period of dormancy is caused by
drought that if relieved during the normal growing season may cause
another growth ring to be present that might otherwise not be.

It's also possible for there to have been an extended dormancy giving
rise to a missing ring for a given year; I'd posit that for such to have
been true for a period of decades is just not likely to be so albeit
there's a possibility that like in tropical regions the size of the ring
may be so small as to be essentially indetectable. I'd expect that few
specimens will survive such an instance if it were to have occurred at
which point it's pretty clear the next ring will span infinity.

Actual dating is done via statistical averaging of many samples and
normalized against alternative references to become absolute. There are
several established series internationally recognized that a given
specimen from an area can be compared against for such dating.

But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings of
any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know existed
and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is essentially zero.

--

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
> essentially zero.

would not consider sequoia to be common
it is the only hexaploid tree
it is the tallest tree

much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
rec.woodworking

On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)

The water goes ... UP???

On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
>> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
>> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
>> essentially zero.
>
> would not consider sequoia to be common
> it is the only hexaploid tree
> it is the tallest tree
>
> much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
> rec.woodworking
...

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in their
range.

--

On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
...

> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>
> As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in their
> range.

And, they're (coastal redwood) the only hexaploid _conifer_, _NOT_ the
only hexaploid tree. While most hexaploid plants are grasses, etc.,
rather than woody plants, there are some deciduous trees which are
hexaploid as well.

--

On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
>>> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
>>> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
>>> essentially zero.
>>
>> would not consider sequoia to be common
>> it is the only hexaploid tree
>> it is the tallest tree
>>
>> much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
>> rec.woodworking
> ...
>
> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
"decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any tree
in any temperate climate.

--

dpb wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
>>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
>>>> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
>>>> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
>>>> essentially zero.
>>>
>>> would not consider sequoia to be common
>>> it is the only hexaploid tree
>>> it is the tallest tree
>>>
>>> much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
>>> rec.woodworking
>> ...
>>
>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>
> Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
> "decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
> tree in any temperate climate.
>
> --
From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.

Bill

On 01/09/2016 7:17 AM, Bill wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
>>>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
>>>>> of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
>>>>> existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
>>>>> essentially zero.
>>>>
>>>> would not consider sequoia to be common
>>>> it is the only hexaploid tree
>>>> it is the tallest tree
>>>>
>>>> much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
>>>> rec.woodworking
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>>
>> Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
>> "decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
>> tree in any temperate climate.
>>
>> --
> From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
> compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
> part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
> go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
> trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
> eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.
...

The dispute here is that I don't believe the claim that a single growth
ring can take "decades" to form is based on anything but I'd be most
interested to see how that could be if it were indeed, really so.

As noted in all recent literature, the term "annual rings" is considered
to be less than accurate owing to its reliance on temperate zone with
regular seasons to be so; the tropics of course being the extreme the
other direction. I was simply noting that owing to aberrations in
normal weather it's possible for there to be the occasional extra or
even a missed growth cycle in a given year even in normally very regular
seasonal areas and one could postulate severe climatic events that could
cause, perhaps, even more than a single year duration of such albeit
more and more unlikely as the time frame expands. To think there would
be such that lasted for a ten year span is simply expecting too much; or
if so, as noted above I'd surely like to see the specimen in which it
was found.

--

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

people like to believe what they want
i would not play the spoiler

> As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in
> their range.

sure thing

On 01/09/2016 10:01 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>
> people like to believe what they want
> i would not play the spoiler
...

Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise
admit you're just "making it up".

--

On 01/10/2016 9:53 AM, Leon wrote:
...

> He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
> of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
> information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.

Yes, Leon, I shouldn't let myself get riled, but I do hate for actual
misinformation to be unchallenged in rec.woodworking simply for
posterity if nothing else (and, if there were really something to the
claim it'd be nice to know what it _really_ was that tried to report;
often it is so that a research conclusion is badly misstated as to what
that conclusion really was).

--

On 01/09/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>
> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
...

Don't confuse a hard (really in this usage "strong" is probably more
appropriate than "hard") wood with a "hardwood" vs "softwood" species.

"Despite what one might think based on the names, not all softwoods have
soft, lightweight wood, nor do all hardwoods have hard, heavy wood. To
define them botanically, softwoods are those woods that come from
gymnosperms (mostly conifers), and hardwoods are woods that come from
angiosperms (flowering plants). In the temperate portion of the
northern hemisphere, softwoods are generally needle-leaved evergreen
trees such as pine (Pinus) and spruce (Picea), whereas hardwoods are
typically broadleaf, deciduous trees such as maple (Acer), birch
(Betula), and oak (Quercus). ..."

US FPL Wood Handbook, Chap 3, p 2

<http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/specific_pub.php?posting_id=17963&header_id=p>

is link to online-viewable pdf by chapter. It's a great resource for
most anything wood related...

--

On 01/10/2016 10:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/10/2016 9:53 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
>> of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
>> information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.
>
> Yes, Leon, I shouldn't let myself get riled, but I do hate for actual
> misinformation to be unchallenged in rec.woodworking simply for
> posterity if nothing else (and, if there were really something to the
> claim it'd be nice to know what it _really_ was that tried to report;
> often it is so that a research conclusion is badly misstated as to what
> that conclusion really was).

And, of course, even if it were true (which I truly doubt), I'm not
going to start proclaiming it based on the above assertions without
evidence of what it is that is actually being proclaimed...otoh, if that
were to be made manifest, then I'd be more than happy to have been
educated on the specific point and glad to proselytize it where it were
to be significant and in consonance with the then-current discussion. :)

--

On 01/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
...

> Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. ...

Ah, there is confusion. Being a "softwood" doesn't (necessarily) make
it a "soft" wood. There's a distinct difference between the two; the
former is a noun describing the broad taxonomic classification to which
a given species belongs whereas the other is a combination of adjective
applied to the noun describing the property of the particular species.

Again I refer you to the FPL tome, this time Chapters 2 and 5--

Classification of primary species by the broad taxonomy to which they
belong--

Table 2–1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region

Western Northern and Appalachian Southern

Hardwoods
Alder, red Ash Ash
Ash, Oregon Aspen Basswood
Aspen Basswood Beech
Birch, paper Beech Butternut
Cottonwood Birch Cottonwood
Maple, bigleaf Buckeye Elm
Oak, California black Butternut Hackberry
Oak, Oregon white Cherry Hickory
Tanoak Cottonwood Honeylocust
Elm Locust, black
Hackberry Magnolia
Hickory Maple, soft
Honeylocust Oak, red and white
Locust, black Sassafras
Maple, hard Sweetgum
Maple, soft Sycamore
Oak, red and white Tupelo
Sycamore Walnut
Walnut Willow
Yellow-poplar Yellow-poplar

Softwoods
Douglas-fir Cedar, northern white Baldcypress
Fir, western Fir, balsam Cedar, Atlantic white
Hemlock, western Hemlock, eastern Fir, Fraser
and mountain Pine, eastern white Pine, southern
Incense-cedar Pine, Jack Redcedar, eastern
Larch, western Pine, red
Pine, lodgepole Redcedar, eastern
Pine, ponderosa Spruce, eastern
Pine, sugar Tamarack
Pine, western white
Port-Orford-cedar
Redcedar, western
Redwood
Spruce, Engelmann
Spruce, Sitka
Yellow-cedar

Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison.
Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is
measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444")
diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.

Table 5–3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods
grown in the United States

Static bending

Modulus
of Side
Common species Moisture Specific elasticity hardness
names content gravity (xE6lbf in–2) (lbf)

Hardwoods

Ash
Black Green 0.45 1.04 520
12% 0.49 1.60 850
White Green 0.55 1.44 960
12% 0.60 1.74 1320
Aspen
Quaking Green 0.35 0.86 300
12% 0.38 1.18 350
Beech, American Green 0.56 1.38 859
12% 0.64 1.72 1300
Cherry, black Green 0.47 1.31 600
12% 0.50 1.49 950
Locust, black
Green 0.66 1.85 1570
12% 0.69 2.05 1700
Yellow-poplar Green 0.40 1.22 440
12% 0.42 1.58 540

Softwoods
Cedar
Eastern red Green 0.44 0.65 650
12% 0.47 0.88 —
Western red Green 0.31 0.94 260
12% 0.32 1.11 350
Douglas-fir
Coast Green 0.45 1.56 500
12% 0.48 1.95 710
Interior South Green 0.43 1.16 360
12% 0.46 1.49 510
Pine
Eastern white Green 0.34 0.99 290
12% 0.35 1.24 380
Longleaf Green 0.54 1.59 590
12% 0.59 1.98 870
Ponderosa Green 0.38 1.00 320
12% 0.40 1.29 460
Redwood
Old-growth Green 0.38 1.18 410
12% 0.40 1.34 480
Young-growth Green 0.34 0.96 350
12% 0.35 1.10 420

I've picked a few of various well-known and used species from each
category with an eye to illustrating characteristics. As can be seen,
in general it's certainly true the "hardwoods" are harder than the
"softwoods" which is clearly the reason the generic classification came
to be. Much like the "annual ring" vis a vis "growth ring"
nomenclature, it's common idiomatic and not really entirely accurate but
it's so established it's what is used for commercial classification and
hence is the convention even amongst research organizations such as US
FPL to retain it for that general use.

Interestingly, one can note that while old-growth redwood is a wonderful
wood for many of its properties (not the least of which is, of course,
that there's so much clear grain owing to the size of the log), it
really isn't _that_ hard in comparison with the other structural pines
and is in fact quite soft compared to the typical SYP (of which I chose
Longleaf as representative of the classification which is again a
trade/commercial grading of several closely related species that are
essentially indistinguishable, not any single species). In comparison
to an Eastern white pine or cedar it is quite a lot harder, yes.

So, upshot is, don't take the designation of redwood as a "softwood" as
any denigration of the wood itself; it's merely the classification in
which it falls by its taxonomy and commercial classification.

--

On 01/11/2016 11:22 AM, dpb wrote:

Try reformatting the tables -- use a fixed font and should be moderately
legible now w/o tab spacing--

Table 2–1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region

Western Northern and Appalachian Southern

Hardwoods
Alder, red Ash Ash
Ash, Oregon Aspen Basswood
Aspen Basswood Beech
Birch, paper Beech Butternut
Cottonwood Birch Cottonwood
Maple, bigleaf Buckeye Elm
Oak, California black Butternut Hackberry
Oak, Oregon white Cherry Hickory
Tanoak Cottonwood Honeylocust
Elm Locust, black
Hackberry Magnolia
Hickory Maple, soft
Honeylocust Oak, red
and white
Locust, black Sassafras
Maple, hard Sweetgum
Maple, soft Sycamore
Oak, red and white Tupelo
Sycamore Walnut
Walnut Willow
Yellow-poplar Yellow-poplar

Softwoods
Douglas-fir Cedar, northern white Baldcypress
Fir, western Fir, balsam Cedar,
Atlantic white
Hemlock, western Hemlock, eastern Fir, Fraser
and mountain Pine, eastern white Pine,
southern
Incense-cedar Pine, Jack Redcedar,
eastern
Larch, western Pine, red
Pine, lodgepole Redcedar, eastern
Pine, ponderosa Spruce, eastern
Pine, sugar Tamarack
Pine, western white
Port-Orford-cedar
Redcedar, western
Redwood
Spruce, Engelmann
Spruce, Sitka
Yellow-cedar

Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison.
Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is
measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444")
diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.

Table 5–3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods
grown in the United States

Modulus of
Common species Moisture Specific Side Elasticity Hardness
names content gravity (xE6lbf in–2) (lbf)

Hardwoods
Ash
Black Green 0.45 1.04 520
12% 0.49 1.60 850
White Green 0.55 1.44 960
12% 0.60 1.74 1320
Aspen
Quaking Green 0.35 0.86 300
12% 0.38 1.18 350
Beech, American Green 0.56 1.38 859
12% 0.64 1.72 1300
Cherry, black Green 0.47 1.31 600
12% 0.50 1.49 950
Locust, black Green 0.66 1.85 1570
12% 0.69 2.05 1700
Yellow-poplar Green 0.40 1.22 440
12% 0.42 1.58 540

Softwoods
Cedar
Eastern red Green 0.44 0.65 650
12% 0.47 0.88 —
Western red Green 0.31 0.94 260
12% 0.32 1.11 350
Douglas-fir
Coast Green 0.45 1.56 500
12% 0.48 1.95 710
Interior South Green 0.43 1.16 360
12% 0.46 1.49 510
Pine
Eastern white Green 0.34 0.99 290
12% 0.35 1.24 380
Longleaf Green 0.54 1.59 590
12% 0.59 1.98 870
Ponderosa Green 0.38 1.00 320
12% 0.40 1.29 460
Redwood
Old-growth Green 0.38 1.18 410
12% 0.40 1.34 480
Young-growth Green 0.34 0.96 350
12% 0.35 1.10 420

On 01/09/2016 10:05 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> I'd say growing seasons is the soft more alive ring area
> and the hard ring is the winter very slow growing.

Generally true altho specifics again vary by species.

I can't suggest strongly enough to actually go read Hoadley or Chapter 3
of FPL Handbook or the like but from the latter--

"In temperate portions of the world and anywhere else with distinct,
regular seasonality, trees form their wood in annual growth increments;
that is, all the wood produced in one growing season is organized
together into a recognizable, functional entity that many sources refer
to as annual rings. Such terminology reflects this temperate bias, so a
preferred term is growth increment, or growth ring (IAWA 1989). ...
Woods that form distinct growth rings, and this includes most woods that
are likely to be used as engineering materials in North America, show
three fundamental patterns within a growth ring: no change in cell
pattern across the ring; a gradual reduction of the inner diameter of
conducting elements from the earlywood to the latewood; and a sudden and
distinct change in the inner diameter of the conducting elements across
the ring (Fig. 3–5). These patterns appear in both softwoods and
hardwoods but differ in each because of the distinct anatomical
differences between the two.

Non-porous woods (or softwoods, woods without vessels) can exhibit any
of these three general patterns. Some softwoods such as Western
red-cedar (Thuja plicata), northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis),
and species of spruce (Picea) and true fir (Abies) have growth
increments that undergo a gradual transition from the thin-walled
wide-lumined earlywood cells to the thicker-walled, narrower-lumined
latewood cells (Fig. 3–5B). Other woods undergo an abrupt transition
from earlywood to latewood, such as southern yellow pine (Pinus), larch
(Larix), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), baldcypress (Taxodium
disticum), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (Fig. 3–5C). Because most
softwoods are native to the north temperate regions, growth rings are
clearly evident. Only in species such as araucaria (Araucaria) and some
podocarps (Podocarpus) does one find no transition within the growth
ring (Fig. 3–5A). Some authors report this state as growth rings being
absent or only barely evident (Phillips 1948, Kukachka 1960).
Porous woods (or hardwoods, woods with vessels) have two main types of
growth rings and one intermediate form. In diffuse-porous woods, vessels
either do not markedly differ in size and distribution from the
earlywood to the latewood, or the change in size and distribution is
gradual and no clear distinction between earlywood and latewood can be
found (Fig. 3–5D). Maple (Acer), birch (Betula), aspen/cottonwood
(Populus), and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are examples of
diffuse porous species.

This pattern is in contrast to ring-porous woods wherein the transition
from earlywood to latewood is abrupt, with vessel diameters decreasing
substantially (often by an order or magnitude or more); this change in
vessel size is often accompanied by a change in the pattern of vessel
distribution as well. This creates a ring pattern of large earlywood
vessels around the inner portion of the growth increment, and then
denser, more fibrous tissue in the latewood, as is found in hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), white ash (Fraxinus americana), shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (Fig. 3–5F).
Sometimes the vessel size and distribution pattern falls more or less
between these two definitions, and this condition is referred to as
semi-ring-porous (Fig. 3–5E). Black walnut (Juglans nigra) is a
temperate-zone semi-ring-porous wood. Most tropical hardwoods are
diffuse-porous; the best-known commercial exceptions to this are the
Spanish-cedars (Cedrela spp.) and teak (Tectona grandis), which are
generally semi-ring-porous and ring-porous, respectively.

Few distinctly ring-porous species grow in the tropics and comparatively
few grow in the southern hemisphere. In genera that span temperate and
tropical zones, it is common to have ring-porous species in the
temperate zone and diffuse-porous species in the tropics. The oaks
(Quercus), ashes (Fraxinus), and hackberries (Celtis) native to the
tropics are diffuse-porous, whereas their temperate congeners are
ring-porous. Numerous detailed texts provide more information on growth
increments in wood, a few of which are of particular note (Panshin and
deZeeuw 1980, Dickison 2000, Carlquist 2001).


> The Redwoods would grow a foot or more on every rain or heavy fog.
> After a fair rain, you could stand outside and hear the wood swell.
>
> We had one near the house that was maybe a 30" sapling (diameter) and
> as it grew upward the trunk rotated. The lower limbs were trimmed off
> the deck only to have new ones sweep inward towards the house. Not all
> did that and I think the wood might be beautiful if cut, but have no
> idea on strength with twisted grain.
...
Botanically, softwoods are gymnosperms or conifers; their seeds are not
enclosed in the ovary of the flower. Anatomically, softwoods are
nonporous (they do not contain vessels). Softwoods are usually
cone-bearing plants with needle- or scale-like evergreen leaves. Some
softwoods, such as larches and baldcypress, lose their needles during
autumn or winter.


One can see/hear similar phenomenon in cornfield in hot weather if have
adequate moisture; one can almost see it actually grow. If it takes a
redwood 2000 yr more or less to get 300 ft, though, that's only an
average of under 2" per year. Reminds me of what Mark Twain said of the
length of the Mississippi River if one took the claims of it's
lengthening on an annual basis to their logical conclusion! :)

I've visited the redwoods both coastal and the giants numerous times but
haven't had the opportunity to spend a full day or more at a given spot...

--

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:45:38 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise

do some searching that is how i found it
you could hire someone I guess too

On 01/13/2016 12:47 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:45:38 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise
>
> do some searching that is how i found it
> you could hire someone I guess too

If you did, you could certainly post the result.

I did do some searching and found _nothing_ even close to the specific
claim.

So, again, if you want to make a convert, provide the material. As
said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.

--

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:53:01 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.

just keep trying that is the best thing to do

or be content to believe what you want

On 01/13/2016 1:06 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:53:01 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.
>
> just keep trying that is the best thing to do

Nonsense. You're just blowin' smoke 'cuz you know it ain't so but can't
admit it.

<plonk>

--

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> <plonk>

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search

but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part

On 01/13/2016 1:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <plonk>
>
> this is good sign
> if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search
...

OK, I'll wait for just one more attempt. No insult intended, just
perception of fact that you have no real information to impart.

_IF_ you did such a search successfully it should take you less time to
reenter the string for which you found the desired info and post a
result or _at_a_minimum_ post the winning search string that uncovered
the elusive tidbit than you've taken otherwise to respond with nothing.

Or, even failing that, provide in your own words the physiology of
botanic growth that can produce this phenomenon of a single growth ring
taking "decades" to form such that it supposedly is a tenet of
dendrochronology but somehow isn't mentioned in any summary of tenets or
limitations of the field I can find.

I've outlined my understanding of how there could possibly be an
_additional_ one here and there owing to climatic variation inducing an
additional growth/dormant cycle in a given calendar year and have
hypothesized the narrowness or even absence of one now and again but I
really can not see how there could be such a case as to take ten years
or more for a given growth cycle to have occurred frequently enough it
would be a regular feature to be accounted for in the field.

If you can fill me in on what I'm missing, I'm all ears (or eyes :) )...

--

On 01/14/2016 10:51 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> does the pore size and shape indicate by cone or not ?

Not at all certain what you're asking but if there's a correlation of
the size and shape of the cone to the wood characteristics, "not
really"; there are different characteristics and the cone styles seem to
have evolved relatively independently from the actual wood. Again,

"Non-porous woods (or softwoods, woods without vessels) can exhibit any
of these three general patterns. Some softwoods such as Western
red-cedar (Thuja plicata), northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis),
and species of spruce (Picea) and true fir (Abies) have growth
increments that undergo a gradual transition from the thin-walled
wide-lumined earlywood cells to the thicker-walled, narrower-lumined
latewood cells (Fig. 3–5B). Other woods undergo an abrupt transition
from earlywood to latewood, such as southern yellow pine (Pinus), larch
(Larix), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), baldcypress (Taxodium
disticum), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (Fig. 3–5C). Because most
softwoods are native to the north temperate regions, growth rings are
clearly evident."

There's much more at

<http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/specific_pub.php?posting_id=17963&header_id=p>

Chapters 2 & 3 early on and if want even more in the botanical vein
there are gazillion references within...

--

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:17:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 1/5/2016 6:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:00:09 -0800, Electric Comet
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> interesting shot showing the fires during the life of the tree
>>>
>>> http://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/20963_web.jpg
>>>
>> Did you know that tree rings do not show years, but show rainy
>> seasons?
>>
>
>
>I always understood rings represent years, size of rings represent the
>climate for that year. Do you have a reference by any chance?

I'll have to look for it, The reason it stuck in my mind was that
those people looking for the ark could tell by lumber with the lack of
rings in it. Which some people would discount, but also a friend of
mine who was studying ice "rings" or layers that geologists used for
the age of ice discovered that it actually bore record of rain or
snowfall, which is why some rings were close and some wider in
patterns. I'll look it up tonight.

On 1/10/2016 10:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
> and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
> it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.
>
> Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.
yes it does. Just like balsa is considered a hardwood. Technically
speaking, deciduous = hardwood, conifer=softwood.
That has nothing to do with it's actual hardness since balsa is one of
the softest woods.


Just like the
> mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.
>
> And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
> pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
> a refinishing and resealing.
>
> I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
> deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
> these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
> had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.
>
> We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
> 100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.
>
> http://www.calredwood.org/
>
> Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
> the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
> It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
> structure.
>
> Martin
>
> On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
>>> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
>>> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
>>> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
>>> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
>>> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>>>
>>> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
>>> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
>>
>> Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
>> variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?
>>
>>>>


--
Jeff

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
>> the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.;)
>
>The water goes ... UP???

Relatively, yes. ;-)

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:00:03 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 01/06/2016 4:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:19:08 -0600, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>
>>> What's really unusual is that the Pando quaking aspen grove is the
>>> oldest overall by a wide margin (80,000 to to perhaps as much as
>>> 1,000,000 by some estimates) but it's not the part you see; it (they? :)
>>> ) is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen. Individual stems
>>> are more like only 100-130 years in age but they come up from the
>>> underground root system, not by flowering/seed production. The whole
>>> grove of some 100 acres and 40-50,000 "stems" are identical clones
>>> genetically.
>>
>> There are tree's like that in La Jolla, Calif. To the naked eye people
>> mistake them for scrub pine due to their small stature, but some wise
>> person recognized them for what they are not too awful long ago, and
>> now they are protected. The only spot, I think, in NA
>
>I'd like to know what those are; the quaking aspen are certainly NA,
>Pando is in south-central UT, not far from Fishlake NF...


http://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html

Not the ones I was thinking of in Torrey Pines, Calif.
http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/3450/

Now I know I read some articles about the find and as I recall the
small tree, which was like a natural Japanese trained stunted tree,
that grew from ancient root systems not seeds.

Can't seem to find any info on it at the moment. grrrrr.

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
San Francisco was rebuilt after the great fire in 1907.

I owned a number of acres of species of sempervirens up to 10 years ago.
We lived on the property and tended the trees. They are the biggest
weed in the world. Weed you say ? The seeds shower like snow after
a rain and the cones are about ripe. The trees force the cones open and
shower the area. Now you have trees growing in cracks and anything that
sits still. Forget gutters - they get filled. AND NO I DIDN'T CUT THEM
DOWN. I could have retired there If I cut one every few years or so.
I had three, maybe 4 subspecies of Coastals on my place. Some color and
some structure of the sub limbs on the long limbs.

I have seed from the Sempervirens I'm going to try to grow in my
greenhouse. They don't really need fog, just water. The fog is dropped
to the roots off the tree as rain. I have a few Dawn seeds I'll try one
at a time...

And the range of the Costals and Giants were to the Mississippi river
before the mountains in the western part of the US rose and cut off the
water. The giant stones and logs in the petrified forest in Arizona are
Sempervirens. They have been around since the Jurassic period.

Currently the range is in France, I got a small grove going there near
Bordeaux. And there is a large stand in northern Scotland. The attempt
was to spread the species in case of a unique issue in the life of the
earth destroyed the stands in California. Chemical or imported bug has
shown itself to destroy the Chestnut groves and pine tree (on going).
With silicon valley and petrochemical plants in the area anything could
happen.

Martin


On 1/8/2016 2:13 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>> Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
>>
>> As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in their
>> range.
>
> And, they're (coastal redwood) the only hexaploid _conifer_, _NOT_ the
> only hexaploid tree. While most hexaploid plants are grasses, etc.,
> rather than woody plants, there are some deciduous trees which are
> hexaploid as well.
>
> --
>
>

Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

Martin

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
>> Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
>> shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
>> the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
>> diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
>> redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
>>
>> All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
>> acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
>
> Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
> variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?
>
>>>