Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Grants Pass, OR
10 posts, read 16,565 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden View Post
A tiny handful of us in the "inner circle" put exploring into overdrive the past couple years, and as GOT and FRs emerged, we isolated new best discoveries to about 5 of us. Whether volume, height and extremely unusual. Old records are all I will talk about on my redwood pages now. New extremes will not be shown or explained. We may mention that a discovery was made, but not what.
I was pondering the other day if when I go out that I want to search for champions or not... and I realized I am planning on just searching for massive trees to the naked eye. Maybe my intentions will change down the line, or I may take a simple tape in the pack... As sweet as the champions are, when it comes to crunching numbers, I just want to see find some beasts I haven't discovered before out in the brush.

Any reason I should have a different approach? I am interested in just experiencing the forest, but if there is some good that can come out of seeking out the beasts I am open to put in that effort... I am down there every weekend and I just got a compass! Saving for a GPS tracker to be a little safer as well.

 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:57 PM
 
56 posts, read 88,253 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden View Post
They can only guess on old published articles and stuff.
If it ain't published, it never happened. Does Sillett consider himself a retired scientist since he's stopped publishing research papers for peer review?
 
Old 02-09-2016, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,457 posts, read 6,008,469 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer View Post
If it ain't published, it never happened. Does Sillett consider himself a retired scientist since he's stopped publishing research papers for peer review?
If we found it, that's the only standard for whether it happened.

The parks rangers never found any major discoveries. Nat Geo didn't find them. Save the Redwoods didn't find them. American Forests can't measure and would have to rely on Taylor or us anyway. Since the 1990s, the only real authority on discoveries has been the discoverers. Whatever they (we) found has been found, and whatever we say is "law".

No research has to go public. I learned that applying and receiving my scientific permits. We can choose to hold-back from the park's scientist. But we have the option to isolate findings with the one scientist. Regarding peers, no publishing is required for peer review. And honestly, we don't need peer review to do measurements. But we can add peers to the permit and they sign-off agreeing not to release the information anywhere. As for canopy scientists, they have a small entourage of scientists they can privately send information to for peer review, including over in Japan and western state universities.


So your question is ignorant and flawed, lacking both the right information or the right experience. And accurate measurement of redwoods is not overly "obsequious" like trying to fine-tune a thesis for a Phd in computer science or something technologically evolving.

We could just sweep your comment under the rug, but I elaborate for other readers so they can actually get some insight.

Last edited by mdvaden; 02-09-2016 at 02:38 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2016, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,457 posts, read 6,008,469 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvolson40 View Post
I was pondering the other day if when I go out that I want to search for champions or not... and I realized I am planning on just searching for massive trees to the naked eye. Maybe my intentions will change down the line, or I may take a simple tape in the pack... As sweet as the champions are, when it comes to crunching numbers, I just want to see find some beasts I haven't discovered before out in the brush.

Any reason I should have a different approach? I am interested in just experiencing the forest, but if there is some good that can come out of seeking out the beasts I am open to put in that effort... I am down there every weekend and I just got a compass! Saving for a GPS tracker to be a little safer as well.
You could start simple searching for "beasts". New discoveries (the huge) were in an entirely different league from Taylor's older discoveries that were a bit more where one might expect to look, or in a semi-gimme location. The new perimeter or reach pushed much deeper. So you may be finding what's found except when you dart off an some angle which hasn't been done yet. But either way you would be finding some beasts.

For now enjoy taking photos. My tip is don't post the park or in conjunction with photos that tie-in where you were at.

Later, you may enjoy learning how the volume can be measured from the ground. Not with Hildebrant's accuracy, but a solid estimate. Montague may be someone to connect with this next year if you feel the interest to learn about measuring.

Not sure what these cost used:

Relascope

But that's a method Montague and Moore and Taylor understand.
 
Old 02-09-2016, 02:32 PM
 
56 posts, read 88,253 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden View Post
Whatever they (we) found has been found, and whatever we say is "law".
Gosh, how egotistical of them (youse/yinz/y'all). It's a good thing that so much information has been released that come summer dozens of new tree hunters will descend on the parks and break your monopoly on supposed discoveries.
 
Old 02-09-2016, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,457 posts, read 6,008,469 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer View Post
Gosh, how egotistical of them (youse/yinz/y'all). It's a good thing that so much information has been released that come summer dozens of new tree hunters will descend on the parks and break your monopoly on supposed discoveries.
Ego? Sure, ego is not a bad thing. Guess someone has to earn it. You haven't.

And you can talk about dozens, but it ain't happened, and they won't be looking for what they can't see. At best they would be people who can't find a champion without a photo in their hand, tablet or phone. Maybe you know that very well.

Nobody can break the monopoly, because everyone else is always so far behind, they are always seeking old news. Your idea of tree hunters is more like "tree paleontologist" looking for old news. Sort of how police are sometimes called "historians" because they tend to arrive so long after the action happens. But I call them "coin collectors", but their coin book will be very outdated, with quite a few missing blanks anyway.

Actually, this may be more fun than expected. I was never part of any "secret tree society" before because there never was one except in imaginations. But from 2014, it looks like there really is one. A tree club of "elite" discoverers that can indeed "hog" the finds.

Feels good ...

https://youtu.be/U5TqIdff_DQ

Last edited by mdvaden; 02-09-2016 at 03:08 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2016, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Trona, California
225 posts, read 467,479 times
Reputation: 45
Mr. Vaden that is good that you and the elite group of discoverers are now keeping all the new finds to yourselves. I've only heard whispers of what has been found lately through the grapevine, but I've heard there have been several tremendous discoveries during 2015 and early 2016. There has been some HUGE news related to large, tall and unique redwoods and I'm fine not knowing exactly what it is because I see the definite need for secrecy with the leaks by FR aka totallyawesometroll.

FR aka totallyawesometroll is a zero. A nobody. Zero discoveries to their resume.
 
Old 02-09-2016, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,457 posts, read 6,008,469 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldManWinter View Post
Mr. Vaden that is good that you and the elite group of discoverers are now keeping all the new finds to yourselves. I've only heard whispers ...
A photo for OldManWinter ...

Blessings on your redwood adventure ...

 
Old 02-09-2016, 09:43 PM
 
87 posts, read 163,673 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer View Post
Gosh, how egotistical of them (youse/yinz/y'all). It's a good thing that so much information has been released that come summer dozens of new tree hunters will descend on the parks and break your monopoly on supposed discoveries.
Awesome I think it is fine if there are more tree hunters. The trees are out there, no fences, no gates. If someone finds a really big redwood there is no rule they have to share that with the world. If there are five or so guys who do this a lot and have formed a kind of core group who just want to share among themselves, that is fine as well.

I doubt if there are any even top 100 tallest redwoods to discover, but who knows. Michael Taylor and Chris Atkins, along with Steve Sillett and earlier searchers such as GF Beranek, Paul Zahl, and Paul Zinke identified almost all the top two hundred or so then LiDAR caught a few they missed. I do see a fellow named John Montague has found a few new 350 foot or so tall redwoods.

But for large redwoods there seem to be new discoveries being made all the time. Aerial LiDAR cannot be used for tree volume, then the volume measurement itself is of course more complex than the height measurement. Overall a perfect cone is a decent estimate for redwood volume, so if the trunk has a typical taper and crown structure and the height and diameter are known the volume can be estimated plus or minus fifteen percent. Of course it gets a lot more complicated than that for precise measurements.

Always remember to pick your steps carefully, do your best to leave no trace. And be careful with the slopes, logs, branches, and streams.

So have at it and good luck!

Mark
 
Old 02-09-2016, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Oregon
1,457 posts, read 6,008,469 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGraham View Post
But for large redwoods there seem to be new discoveries being made all the time. Aerial LiDAR cannot be used for tree volume, then the volume measurement itself is of course more complex than the height measurement. Overall a perfect cone is a decent estimate for redwood volume, so if the trunk has a typical taper and crown structure and the height and diameter are known the volume can be estimated plus or minus fifteen percent. Of course it gets a lot more complicated than that for precise measurements.

Mark
It's almost always complicated to measure volume. Quite a few are slightly elliptical. And for some the direction of the ellipse twists and changes 90 degrees. So the trunk width has to be measured from both the front and the side for diameter, at 5 ft. to maybe 20 ft. intervals. There are also zero-taper and reverse-taper trunks in addition to those that taper. Soaring trunks also give an illusion that makes the taper unknown unless they are measured.

In the past few years, Montague and Moore are practically the only two people who learned how to measure volume. Hildebrant is one of the "old hands" at it, and probably the most accurate. He spends about 1 to 2 weeks working the math for a single redwood. He goes a step further than just a relascope.

Oh, and a photo for Mark ..

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top