Redwoods: The Tallest Trees

Photographer Nick Nichols spent a year planning the nearly impossible: a top-to-bottom photograph of a 300-foot-tall redwood tree, now the centerpiece of the October issue of National Geographic Magazine.

Watch Nick in "Explorer: Climbing Redwood Giants" on the National Geographic Channel, September 29 at 10 PM.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• national
• geographic
• natgeo
• nick
• nichols
• climbing
• redwood
• giants
• transect
• picture
• portrait
• october
• magazine
• photograph
• tallest
• tree:
• yt:quality=high
• national geographic

[RedwoodExplorer]

If you enjoyed this, find the 44 minute version Nat Geo put on Youtube May 2010. This segment is included. And a lot more excellent photography. Search here for Climbing the Redwood Giants.

[RedwoodExplorer]

@fcbmartinso The weight? This redwood has over 35,000 cubic feet of wood. but lets round it to that 35K. Wet redwood is about 50 lbs. / cubic foot. So 35,000 x 50 = 1,750,000 pounds.

That is more or less the trunk and major limbs. The entire redwood with branches and foliage and other stuff on it, should be close to 2,000,000 (2 million) pounds. You might find the pages online about REDWOOD DIMENSIONS to be worth Googling and of interest.

[XitzpatX]

what was the total resolution of the complete image

[Gnilres]

This is not Invader ZIM!

[MattTheBrain]

0:06.

[rephaim23]

No one really knows the exact percentage of how much old growth Douglas fir, Redwood, and Euclayptus has been burnt and logged in the past 150 years. Estimates range from 70 to as much as 99% depending on the region and species.

With those kinds of numbers, this makes old reports even more valuable than ever before. And any first hand measurements are extremely important for big tree researchers.

[rephaim23]

As with the reports of giant Douglas fir, and Redwoods exceeding 400 feet in height, we must decide whether the trained foresters and lumbermen where incompetent at math, or we have to consider the real possibility such giant trees existed.

Measurements made by certified surveyors and foresters should not be laughed at and relegated to myth, especially when they are FIRST HAND accounts.

And besides, measuring a fallen tree is far more accurate than trying to measure a standing tree.

[rephaim23]

@abbeykroeter

Ferguson continues, "...At 5 ft. from tho ground it measures 18 ft. in diameter, and at the extreme end where it has broken in its fall, it is 3 ft. in diameter. This tree has been much burnt by fire, and I fully believe that before it fell it must have been more than 500 ft. high. As it now lies it forms a complete bridge acioss a deep ravine."

[rephaim23]

@abbeykroeter

William Ferguson, Inspector of State Forests. Melbourne Botanic Garden, 21 February, 1872.

TO CLEMENT HODGKINSON, ESQ., ASSISTANT-C0MMISSI0NER OF LANDS AND SURVEY.

..."Many of the trees that have fallen through decay and by bush fires measure 350 ft. in length, and with girth in proportion. In one instance I measured with the tape line one huge specimen that lay prostrate across a tributary of the Watts, and found it to be 435 ft. from its roots to the top of the trunk."

[abbeykroeter]

@rephaim23 There was a tree in Australia bigger than that back in the 1800's

[jrzy49]

I love huge wood.