Talk:Prometheus (tree)

[Untitled]

Wow, another example of the level of disrespect that humans have towards other living things.

LIA

I was asked, is it at all plausible that the LIA could have been thought to be 2000 BC? Definitely not now; I can't see how, ever, since it comes after the MWP. I don't know when the LIA first was thought about; it was definitely 1300-1800 by the time of Lamb, 1969. William M. Connolley 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I wonder how Currey could claim it as beginning 2000 BC in his Ecology article? Jeeb 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh!!

I can simply not believe what I just read! What the heck was the guy thinking!?!?!

I hope they keep Methuselah's location a secret. I fear the day of hearing of vandals doing the unthinkable. --Kjmoran 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You could make the worlds most expensive sets of dice out of it and auction them off like faberge eggs. Man, the Chinese would bury you in cash for some of that ancient juju.

Right??? What an asshole.

---

More info

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV.

Note the possible confusion over the specimen number due to phrasing there. I'd like a published journal reference that dates and identifies both these trees correctly. This should be available as there is a dendrochronology based on the Bristlecone Pine and all previous borings and cut samples would be valuable information.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/grba/Bristlecone%20Pines/bristleconepineprometheus.htm

Counting revealed that Prometheus contained about 4,900 growth rings. This made it the oldest known tree. Currently the oldest known living tree, about 4,600 years old, is in the White Mountains of California. Chances are good that there are other, older, bristlecones that have not been dated.

I trust this site a little more than the other one as it is from the Park Service, but if they are talking about the Methusula tree it is older than 4,600 years.

Thanks paul 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Little Ice Age" is region specific

LIA as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1�C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.

Maybe add perspective to it's age?

Here are a few world events that happened just when this tree started to grow. One notable example is the beginning of the construction of Stonehenge.

Scoops22 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"see below"

i think the "(see below)" in the summery is unnecessary. no other article has this. Paganpan (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the spelling of summary as "summery" is unnecessary myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.246.15 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo before felling?

Is there a photo of what the tree looked like before it was cut down? Does anyone know if Currey took a picture of it? It would improve the article, I think. 206.47.95.159 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a presentation with several photos of the tree before and during the cutting: http://www.uta.edu/biology/arnott/classnotes/5101/Bristlecone%20V.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnungester (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the above link on archive.org. I have no affiliation with its content: https://web.archive.org/web/20140903105135/http://www.uta.edu/biology/arnott/classnotes/5101/Bristlecone%20V.pdf --Chris Murphy (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How was the age determined?

I understand he probably counted the rings, but did he really count +4500 individual rings? Is there any foto? Any validity to verify the claim? 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand he probably counted the rings, but did he really count +4500 individual rings?

It was his job. He could easily count 4500+ rings, that's at most a few hours of effort.

Is there any foto?

There's a stump and several slabs that exist. There's no reason to doubt his claim, which isn't even extraordinary now that older trees have been discovered. There are photos but they don't have enough precision to individually measure the number of rings.

Any validity to verify the claim?

Its peer reviewed and in a scientific journal. This actually has greater validity than a random photo which you might find online and assume to be proof of something in combination with a caption. I know that's the modern method of proving things on social media, and the insanity of our current society is the insanity of a society which assumes both that only photos can prove a thing and that a photo proves its caption. 2601:140:8D01:C90:D98:F9C5:6C0D:B2C0 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)