faq now added
treeman
--
Check out the nursery online: www.dialatree.co.nz
Clean the Air: by planting a forest. See
http://www.dialatree.co.nz/oxygenforest.html
Davo
I would like to visit your nursery in person to see your wonderful
organization. Please send me an address.
Why am I not holding my breath?
Quilljar
have been there several times.
www.dialatree.co.nz
--
Yours Quilly,
http://quilljar.users.btopenworld.com/
symplastless
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
www.treedictionary.com
and
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.
"treeman" <st...@home.today> wrote in message
news:g3lm9s$6ui$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
treeman
--
Have a look at the online catalogue at www.dialatree.co.nz
Clean the Air: by planting a forest. See
http://www.dialatree.co.nz/oxygenforest.html
"symplastless" <sympla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8ISdnV_dK8LHySLV...@comcast.com...
Larry Caldwell
says...
> Nice distinction.
Artificial and misleading. It is certainly possible to plant a forest,
it just takes a while to grow.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
symplastless
"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2341e920c...@news.peaksky.com...
> In article <gb158r$9g$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, st...@home.today (treeman)
> says...
>
>> Nice distinction.
>
> Artificial and misleading. It is certainly possible to plant a forest,
> it just takes a while to grow.
>
Yeah right. Please define what you mean when you say forest.
D. Staples
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2341e920c...@news.peaksky.com...
>> In article <gb158r$9g$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, st...@home.today (treeman)
>> says...
>>
>>> Nice distinction.
>> Artificial and misleading. It is certainly possible to plant a forest,
>> it just takes a while to grow.
>>
>
> Yeah right. Please define what you mean when you say forest.
>
>
symplastless
"D. Staples" <fores...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:us2dnVuRxczQ_XbV...@posted.telecomsupplyinc...
> http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm
In reality Don Staples claims to be a "consulting forester" while he refuses
to define specifically what that is at his website at:
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/forestry/staples.htm
PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU ARE. "CONSULTING FORESTER" YOUR LINK IS DEAD.
@ http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/forestry/staples.htm
Ok, then, Don Staples. Please provide data specific to Texas that states
that your salvage and restoration work increases the health of a forest
rather
than what I state, that your practice is deforestation. Please
provide the page and paragraph number where your data can be found stating
that you increase forest health by your salvage and restoration work. You
claim I am a fraud while all along you promote deforestation claiming sound
treatment for landowners investment. You claim to be a consulting forester.
Please consult and provide the data for your practice.
Joe
You can't show any college degree, right? No more needs to be said.
Which is not to say that I don't agree with you that many foresters with
much college education are scumballs- they rip off land owners, and rape
their forests. But all professions have assholes and thieves. Nevertheless,
a college education in a profession is better proof of qualification than
anything you can show for your time spent with Alex Shigo, as much as I have
immense respect for Shigo. I saw him at an event in the Green Mts. of
Vermont where he cut down a tree and sliced it up in many ways to show us
"discoloration and decay".
John, you really have no right to oversell yourself. You are NOT any sort of
biologist which calls for a bare minimum of a BS degree in biology, more
likely advanced degrees. It's fine that you have a good basic knowledge of
some aspects of tree care- stick to that and don't push your luck.
Joe Zorzin
Mass. Licensed Forester
"symplastless" <sympla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yZ-dnY-qFIFcZXbV...@comcast.com...
D. Staples
you have in your claim to being a biologist. YOU, sir, are a liar,
fraud, and a simpleton.
symplastless
symplastless
Education and training. You are not paying attention.
symplastless
>
> Joe Zorzin
> Mass. Licensed Forester
Joe
How do you define a forest?
The practicing forester defines it as a single, group or stand of trees
under one or more ownership. Which relieves them of responsibility in
forest health.
A researcher often defines a forest as a highly ordered arrangement of
organisms living, in, on and around trees in such a highly ordered fashion
it assurers high quality survival for all parties involved.
What a practicing forester refers to as forest health is based on board
feet. If I dug two young trees and placed them on a piece of plywood and
pushed it out in a pond, then as they define it, its a forest. Silly but
true. A researcher or someone who understands a forest refers to forest
health as connections, successions, buildup, break down and based on an
understanding of tree biology. The problem is the researchers do not
communicate well with practicing foresters.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/ntb102/index.html
D. Staples
"sympladstless" <sympla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T4Odnf5w27fE0nDV...@comcast.com...
>
Yard boy, you are a fraud, a liar, a simpleton.
D. Staples
Yard boy, you are a fraud, a liar, and a simpleton.
Larry Caldwell
sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2341e920c...@news.peaksky.com...
> > In article <gb158r$9g$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, st...@home.today (treeman)
> > says...
> >
> >> Nice distinction.
> >
> > Artificial and misleading. It is certainly possible to plant a forest,
> > it just takes a while to grow.
> >
>
> Yeah right. Please define what you mean when you say forest.
You are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
knowledge.
symplastless
"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message > You
> been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
> knowledge.
>
you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
D. Staples
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message > You
> are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
>> been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
>> knowledge.
>>
> Actually I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist. But back to what
> you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
>
>
>
Larry Caldwell
sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message > You
> are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
> > been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
> > knowledge.
> >
> Actually I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist. But back to what
> you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
Why would you even want to try? If you need a completely open ended
definition, why have a definition at all?
You just want to verify your logic by tinkering with your assumptions.
That is intellectually dishonest, and leads to faulty conclusions.
symplastless
> In article <Yt6dnaV9YuYfsXPV...@comcast.com>,
> sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>>
>> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message >
>> You
>> are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
>> > been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
>> > knowledge.
>> >
>> Actually I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist. But back to what
>> you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
>
> Why would you even want to try? If you need a completely open ended
> definition, why have a definition at all?
>
> You just want to verify your logic by tinkering with your assumptions.
> That is intellectually dishonest, and leads to faulty conclusions.
>
No, really, what do you mean when you say forest? Your definition.
If you cannot define what you mean when you say forest then you should not
use the word.
D. Staples
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23587615e...@news.peaksky.com...
>> In article <Yt6dnaV9YuYfsXPV...@comcast.com>,
>> sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>>> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message >
>>> You
>>> are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
>>>> been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
>>>> knowledge.
>>>>
>>> Actually I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist. But back to what
>>> you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
>> Why would you even want to try? If you need a completely open ended
>> definition, why have a definition at all?
>>
>> You just want to verify your logic by tinkering with your assumptions.
>> That is intellectually dishonest, and leads to faulty conclusions.
>>
>
>
> No, really, what do you mean when you say forest? Your definition.
>
> If you cannot define what you mean when you say forest then you should not
> use the word.
>
>
Larry Caldwell
>
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23587615e...@news.peaksky.com...
> > In article <Yt6dnaV9YuYfsXPV...@comcast.com>,
> > sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
> >>
> >> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message >
> >> You
> >> are obviously a creationist. If you believe forests have always
> >> > been like they are, I can't help you. An attitude like that precludes
> >> > knowledge.
> >> >
> >> Actually I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist. But back to what
> >> you are trying to say. How do you define a forest?
> >
> > Why would you even want to try? If you need a completely open ended
> > definition, why have a definition at all?
> >
> > You just want to verify your logic by tinkering with your assumptions.
> > That is intellectually dishonest, and leads to faulty conclusions.
> >
>
>
> No, really, what do you mean when you say forest? Your definition.
>
> If you cannot define what you mean when you say forest then you should not
> use the word.
If you think you can generate a definition for forest, you know nothing
about the subject. You should stick to symplasts.
mhagen
Sort of reminds me of the character Dustin Hoffman played in Rainman.
Must be hard to get jobs.
Speaking of change in forests, I found a very interesting book on post
ice age climate, vegetation and wildlife ranges by E.C. Pielou "After
the Ice Age" (1991). She wrote this before the global warming concept
became established. She's quite sure we're in an interglacial period and
well after the peak warmth.
symplastless
I rest my case.
D. Staples
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23590006f...@news.peaksky.com...
>> In article <U8WdnfSe_qdPcnPV...@comcast.com>,
>> sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>>> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.23587615e...@news.peaksky.com...
>>>> In article <Yt6dnaV9YuYfsXPV...@comcast.com>,
>>>> sympla...@comcast.net (symplastless) says...
>>>>> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message >
>
> I rest my case.
>
You have no case, yard man, you are a fraud, a liar, and a simpleton.
Joe
"symplastless" <sympla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Yt6dnaV9YuYfsXPV...@comcast.com...
Larry Caldwell
mha...@nospamolympus.net (mhagen) says...
Yep. Old Anaplasmoid has already stated that you can't plant a forest,
and now he wants me to define a forest so he can say that's not a forest
because it was planted. If we could hook circular logic like that to an
auger, we could drill a lot of seedling holes.
> Speaking of change in forests, I found a very interesting book on post
> ice age climate, vegetation and wildlife ranges by E.C. Pielou "After
> the Ice Age" (1991). She wrote this before the global warming concept
> became established. She's quite sure we're in an interglacial period and
> well after the peak warmth.
The climate entered a cold phase about 5000 years ago. If I thought
global warming would lead us back to the Holocene climatic optimum, I
would be all for it. The Sahara was hardwood savanna, and the Gobi was
a land of 10,000 lakes. Unfortunately, it's not clear how much of that
was due to fossil water left over from the glaciers. The American
Southwest and most of Australia seem to have always been deserts. Even
in historic times, the desertification of the earth has proceeded as the
planet cooled. Alexander's armies were bogged down in the mud for a
month in the Mohenjo-Daro, one of the most arid areas on the planet
today. The Middle East has turned from garden to desert in the last
3000 years.
Things sometimes get better. I have spent quite a bit of time in the
Tillamook Burn. Yes, Virginia, you CAN plant a forest. I also watched
with good humor as the greenies defended a patch of BLM single age,
monoculture D. fir "old growth" in Southern Oregon. It was right along
the railroad right-of-way, and burned to stumps in the 1880s, then was
logged during WWII. They were defending third growth, absolutely
outraged that the BLM was conducting a helicopter thinning operation.
symplastless
"Joe" <xxz...@xxyyzzqztrg.com> wrote in message
news:gcqr9c$ebr$1...@aioe.org...
> And exactly how do you manage to be both a creationist and an
> evolutionist?
>
>
Really rather simple.
symplastless
> and now he wants me to define a forest so he can say that's not a forest
> because it was planted. If we could hook circular logic like that to an
> auger, we could drill a lot of seedling holes.
You claim to be a forester.
How do you define forest?
Joe
than now- the Great Salt Lake was many times bigger and many of the dry
basins in the SW had huge lakes- and conifer forests were on the hillsides.
All that water in the Sahara and Gobi occurred during the peak of the ice
age when the weather patterns were pushed south. As soon as the glaciers
retreated, those areas dried up.
When Alexander was bogged down in the mud near Mohenjo-Daro (which had been
abandoned long before Alexander)- it would only take a rare rain storm to
cause that problem as the soil is all flood plain- the Indus River was once
right next to that city, when the river moved, the city dried up- but the
soil was flood plain deposits - a rare half inch of rain would turn it into
soup.
Regarding the Middle East- it too was much wetter at the peak of the Ice
Age- but it too began to dry up 10,000 years ago- but until human
populations got large, it was still a fertile semi- arid area with forests
on the hillsides- but all those people ruined the area by cutting all the
forests and with their hoofed maggots (sheep)- the same happened in North
Africa and parts of southern Europe.
Joe
"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.235ab56d...@news.peaksky.com...
Joe
>
> "Joe" <xxz...@xxyyzzqztrg.com> wrote in message
> news:gcqr9c$ebr$1...@aioe.org...
>> And exactly how do you manage to be both a creationist and an
>> evolutionist?
>>
>>
> Its just the way I am. Things have evolved as well as being created.
> Really rather simple.
That's nonsense. There's nothing simple about the origin and development of
life on Earth.
D. Staples
> "Joe" <xxz...@xxyyzzqztrg.com> wrote in message
> news:gcqr9c$ebr$1...@aioe.org...
>> And exactly how do you manage to be both a creationist and an
>> evolutionist?
>>
>>
> Its just the way I am. Things have evolved as well as being created.
> Really rather simple.
>
>
mhagen
I found the references to recent warming tucked into the epilogue, which
makes sense in that the book is laid out in chronological order. She's
a paleoecologist, which would seem to be a very useful trade at the
moment. The post-glacial era lakes - and accompanying floods- were
amazing. Have you guys ever seen the Columbia river scab lands?
Joe
years old- the author had his own plane and flew all over the country taking
pictures to illustrate the book. He had a lot to say about the scab lands
and the giant flood that caused them- the glacier lake that covered much of
Montana- which all blew out at once wrecking havoc in the scab lands.
Then again, maybe it just appears that way- actually the Earth may have been
formed 4,000 years ago and God just wanted it to look that way to fool us
into temptation. <G>
Joe
"mhagen" <mha...@nospamolympus.net> wrote in message
news:QeydnamlXJNAtG_V...@posted.olypeninternet...
Larry Caldwell
says...
> I believe in my geology reading, the American Southwest had much more rain
> than now- the Great Salt Lake was many times bigger and many of the dry
> basins in the SW had huge lakes- and conifer forests were on the hillsides.
> All that water in the Sahara and Gobi occurred during the peak of the ice
> age when the weather patterns were pushed south. As soon as the glaciers
> retreated, those areas dried up.
I was referring to a very narrow stretch of time between 9000 years ago
and 5000 years ago, when northern hemisphere temperatures became much
more uniform. In the Arctic, temperatures were as much as 7 degrees C.
warmer than today. The Arctic Ocean was open sea, and forests grew all
the way to the northern shoreline, in areas that are open tundra today.
During this period, the American Southwest was as dry as it is today,
and the Midwest underwent a period of prolonged and severe droughts.
Northern Europe and NW America were dryer than today, with more open
vegetation. The temperate rain forest expanded out of the coastal zones
when the northern climate cooled about 5000 years ago. Rainfall all
over the northern hemisphere underwent an extreme shift when the climate
cooled. Between 8000-5500 years ago, Arabia had extensive swamps. The
lack of Arabian dust storms meant no dust to seed the monsoon clouds, so
much reduced monsoons in eastern India, while Hippos lived in the
Sahara. About 5500 years ago, the temperature of Northern Africa
suddenly jumped 6 degrees C. and it quit raining. After 5000 years of
stability, the shift from lakes to desert happened in just a few
decades.
I think the Gobi was mostly just fossil water, but they say it didn't
finally dry out until 2800 years ago. It finally got so dry the trees
died, but there are still remnants of the Gobi forest at high
elevations.
mhagen
east. To be fair, that would be a different time line for each major
religion. A big flood about 4000 years ago may have been an outlier.
What was the title of that book , Larry?
Larry Caldwell
mha...@nospamolympus.net (mhagen) says...
> Lake Montana emptied and refilled repeatedly. At times it flowed to the
> east. To be fair, that would be a different time line for each major
> religion. A big flood about 4000 years ago may have been an outlier.
You may be thinking of Lake Athabasca, which was on the east side of the
Rockies, and covered much of the Canadian Shield. When Lake Athabasca
drained, it dumped so much fresh water into the North Atlantic that it
shut down the thermohaline cycle the threw Europe back into a short ice
age. Lake Athabasca was many times larger than Lake Missoula, which was
on the west side of the Rockies and drained through the Columbia.
> What was the title of that book , Larry?
No book, just a collection of papers. Check your local library for
access to articles in subscription journals.
mhagen
directions as it melted back to Hudson Bay, which is where the bulk of
the continental glacier sat. It does look like a big cirque too. It
seems that all the post glacial lakes drained in whichever direction was
not blocked by the remaining glacier massif and while lands were still
depressed. Land rebounded over several thousand years, often completely
reversing drainages. Montana was backed up against the Rockies on one
side and several major prongs of the ice on the other. As it got larger
from meltwater it floated the glacial plug barring valleys on the far
west side-- and drained violently through the panhandle of Idaho. Did
it repeatedly too. The phenomenon happens regularly in Iceland today.
I read this stuff where ever I find it. Thanks, Larry.