Woodsman, it is ok and even welcome to stand by your beliefs. If you do, by engaging in discussion (dialectic?) with others of different beliefs, you can grow more affirmed in your position by discovering reasons why you do. There's really no point in arguing if you're willing to believe whatever is being said, so your stance on this issue can really help move this issue forward in a constructive way.

There's a thread running concurrently, started by (none other than) Inkognito entitled "Accessorising." (It can be found here). It seems to be quite pertinent to this discussion, as it addresses the concept of ornamentation/details/accessories in the landscape. The main point I want to bring out from that is the following: Designing is NOT decorating. As I mentioned in that post, I believe (personally) that good design should address "How?" things should be accomplished, rather than "What?" should be put in to accomplish.

After a design class, a fellow student noted that people seem too quick in passing over conceptual diagramming - i.e. trying to show/create functional areas and relationships with one another. He observed that some students still start designs by thinking of what to put in to fill up space, when they should rather be thinking of how the spaces should be used, how they should relate to one another. (Of course, "What?" forms an important part of the program for the space, which is essentially "What should be included?"). As such, sometimes the unity of the space suffers tremendously as there are a bunch of unrelated elements inside.

How does this relate to this discussion? Designers are not decorators. It's important to make this distinction and to understand that this really isn't a job title in which the attitude or approach taken by the professional is directly related to what they call themselves - pretty anyone can call themselves a "designer" or a "decorator." But a certified LA has some guarantee behind it. (Even just thinking about the liscencing makes me dizzy. Check out the Landscape Architect Registration Examination on the American Society of Landscape Architects website). And as with any other professional, there are plenty of ethical issues that one is faced with which include environmental conservatism/stewardship. That is an issue that our professors constantly remind us of, that, given our credibility as LAs, we need to take a strong moral stance.

Now, you may see aspiring designers just "prettying things up," and because "The homeowner liked it!" they feel accomplished. Now, if you were to gauge the response of professional LDs and LAs, I think you'd feel right at home. If you were stay a while longer and to watch the activity of the forum, you'd realize that there are plenty of people who are very much against the "I'm gonna make it prettier" mentality. That's why you often see people urging homeowners needing design, rather than just decoration, to go to a professional to help guide them.

-Audric

"One of the quotations suggests that human beings can be categorised by occupation so that a naturalist is guaranteed to be 100 per cent environmentally favourable and a landscaper a "self-interested shyster" "indifferent to the greater damage they may be causing" which simply is not true. "

Audric .. Ink makes a very good point .. ponder it for the rest of your career ..

There is no paradox ...

It is not manipulation it is the application of principles found in the world we live.

Landscaping or architecture ( whatever you wish to call it ) is the inverse of ecology. In ecology we attempt to elucidate realtionships between the biological world and the abiotic one .. in landscaping we try to implement those relationships. There is no paradox.

An urban forest is not the joining of two opposites or battling entities but the application of a universal set of principles to a place.

"Walk away from the job, or hang on and always, ever so patiently, trying to get the developer/city/government/client to see the merits in environmental stewardship? "

A pro never walks away .. thats reality .. architecture is all about problem solving .. perhaps you should avoid falling into the trap of "right way" thinking a common rant these days at landscape seminars .. it's is more useful to seek "optimization". When one walks away .. What is achieved ?? What was gained ?? Who really was helped ?? .. and by the way you don't get paid.

Good Day ..

Audric ..

When we graduate college we feel like we are on the top of a large mountain in fact we are only on top of a small hill in front of a large mountain.

Morals ?? Now you bring morals into it. I think you are too full of university.. LOL It happens in the college years ... stay unattached to "ideas" they are just tools NOT truths. Let your ideas serve you .. not the other way around.

Let the professor worry about morals .. just get the job done on time. The city , the client , the developer are no different then the grade of the land .. the climate .. it would be silly to consider the climate an adversary .. as it would be to do battle with the client or developer .. wage not war in your work but oneness and be complete.

Good Day ...

No one develops land (or degrades it) because landscape designers, or architects, or pavement contractors, or environmental activists somehow make them. They do it to serve another purpose. It might be to make a hospital to save lives. It might be to add an extra bedroom for the mother in law. It might be to build a factory for more energy efficient cars, or to house the millions of people who cross our borders every year. When they make those decisions they often hire people to make these efforts functional and possibly to blend these activities with environmental values and cultural values as well. When some of these design type folks get involved, they will only be part of the process as long as the goals of the project are being addressed. Once they weigh in too heavily toward preservation or some other value that threatens the goal of the project, they will be discarded from the project and replaced with someone working toward the goal of the project. An extreme point of view would be that they throw all ethics and values aside and go to work for "the man".

Reality is much different. "The man" is seldom a blind profit driven tyrant with no other values in life, for one. And designer types seldom defy all values and destroy all that is sacred by joining "the man". What usually happens is that these designer types are hired specifically to bring in the very values that some in the preservationist community believe "the man" is against. The project does not get abandoned, but its impact gets mitigated both on the environmental side and on the cultural side by the designer folks who are willing to work with them. The alternative would not be that the project would be a native ecosystem, but rather a sterile harsh forced development with no redeeming qualities but those of brute function.

You can picket, scream obsenities, lay down if front of dozers and the needs of society will make the development happen without your participation. Or, you can work with the people that address these needs in a manner that molifies the impact of such projects on the environment and human psyche. The first thing that you will find out is that "the man" is your sister, your brother, your mother, and your father and he is you.

There are definitely some folks that will rape and pilage the countryside to make a buck, but they are in the extreme minority. There are also people who are at one with nature, but we are down to about six people in the world filling those leather sandals fashioned from an animal that died of natural causes. None of those folks have computers that use electricity from fossil fuels and were shipped from half a world away from a factory built in a clear cut of a Chinese rainforest by native villagers who are now buying gas burning mopeds to get to work at said factory where the landscape designers were left out of blending the aforementioned factory into that eroding clearcut.

To influence the way things are done, you have to be part of what gets things done. When you get things done, you have influence. When that influence does not kill a project and adds to environmental and cultural values it is very well received by the community and "the man". People who make money tend to be very driven. People with drive tend to apply that drive in many directions once they are successful. Many have large egos and want respect in everyway possible. Being known as a hacker and degrader of the environment are not usually what they want to pad their resumes with. When you look around at some of the biggest restoration and preservation projects around that are privately funded you usually don't find a some guy who lives in a lean to as the person who funded it, put together the management team, and facilitated it. It is usually someone who has either facilitated a lot of development or is a developer himself.

Does anyone look at the statistics of how much farmland the US has lost in the last century vs. how much more it produces? Do you think of it as being lost because it takes less acreage to produce more (reality) or do you listen to the rhetoric of how developers are stealing it away? Do you see dense development as leaving more open space elsewhere or just destruction?

Is the nywoodsman having a greater negative impact on the environment if he has intruded into nature by having a home on 40 acres upstate, or by having an apartment in Manhattan? Does he hurt the environment more because he eats organic foods that need more acreage to produce, or if he eats densely grown chemically fertilized and weed controlled genetically engineered veggies?

I don't know. But I do know that the answers are never as simple after you really look at things.

Wow Andrew, thank you for that post. It might be the best one I've read on Gardenweb. If your goal by posting here was to become a better writer (you said that once), you are there man!

All I could think of when I saw Woody's pictures was: the hipocrisy of the rightous. Lot's to think about, eh.

What we do can't be an all-or-nothing proposition.

I take the approach that if I design a new tract home's landscaping in such a way that I've reintroduced some of the habitat that was once there, I've started towards the best compromise I can. Furthermore, if I can design it in such a way that the clients actually do use it as an extension of their living space, and they are excited and care for and add to the plants, I've done even better. And if I've done my job so well that their friends or family see what I've done and say "I want that" and "that" uses less water and chemicals than what they have, that's even better.

It's a minute percentage of the population that is willing to go live off the grid and keep the smallest footprint possible. For everyone else, the best we can do as "experts" is lead them as close as possible to the intersection of beauty and sustainability.

I like to think I do that well- even if some see me as a shyster. (bonus points for the origin of that word)

"Shyster" is your basic racial slur from "Shylock."

It comes from the German word for someone who defecates...
(which is a pretty descriptive term for someone who is dishonest)

In all of this, no one has mentioned economics. Often decisions, however shortsighted, are made because of simple dollars and cents (pick any worldwide currency youd like). Often, available funds or the need to make a profit dictates what can or cannot be achieved. Often, sustainable landscapes that are appropriate to their environment cost more.

Sustainability in the landscape is a hot topic right now. It is the Greening of the Green Industry if you will, but sustainable practices wont flourish if there is a perception that it will cut into immediate and short term profits.

P.S. I think Urban Forest isn't a paradox, it's an oxymoron.

You're right. If, by "forest" one means a wild, untended space with trees, understory plants home to assorted local wildlife, and "urban" refers to the modifications human beings impose on an area they live/work/shop in, then sadly, I have the impression Urban Forest accurately translates to "Under Contract; just finishing up the financing".

Real forests don't last in urban areas. Maybe, if the locals are lucky, a corner of that neighborhood "green space" will prove to be to difficult (expensive) to develop and eventually become a miniature park, but more than likely, every square foot be plowed under and developed. :^\

It is interesting the way people worry about what's going to cost them money *right now*, and don't consider what it will cost them later. Bulldozing a lot clear of all vegetation initially saves costs on building the house, but the increased cost over a lifetime of air conditioning and heating (after removing the trees that shaded and provided a windbreak) isn't given a second thought.

Where is it written that landscape designers cannot also be naturalists? Many of us are.

Embarrassingly, vocal zealots of most any cause take great liberties with the truth. Their 'arguments' often sound valid within a vacuum of information. The selective information which supports their point of view is accentuated or even exaggerated. Any facts which run counter to the chosen agenda are conveniently ignored. True to form, there is typically a menagerie of vocal activists lambasting "the man" with hyperbole while a lot of good people (See Nandina's posting above.) have been quietly been performing the difficult ground work; actually making a difference while the Johnny-come-latelys have only begun tooting their horn.

Lost in the emotions of blind conviction is the truth. Distortions and outright lies get repeated so often that, sadly, they eventually become accepted as truth.

Fact: There are currently more trees growing in the United States than when this country was first settled. This is especially true in prairie states like Iowa and Oklahoma, LittleDog. I guess that truly, "returning to nature", means that we should be firing up the chainsaws and starting wildfires.

I grow weary of the doom & gloomers. Everything is not terrible! Sure, much work remains to be done. However, much good work has already been done and much is continuing as we speak. Things are getting better. I see more wildlife on my Dad's farm now than when I was a boy -- and I hear the same kind of things from friends. I NEVER saw a bald eagle when I was a boy. However, I watched one soaring over my head -- in the open farm country, no less -- on my way to work, yesterday. And this is no longer an uncommon experience.

Question: What percentage of Africa is wilderness?
Answer: 28%

Question: What percentage of the United States is wilderness?
Answer: 38%

And by the way... When we start talking about invasive alien plants, (although the original intentions were good) over 80% of them were actually purposely introduced by the very "naturalists" the poorly informed hold in high esteem. Can you say: Kudzu, Crownvetch, Lespedeza, Multiflora Rose, etc... ?

IronBelly

Where forests are the ecosystem even what we do within that zone is part of the ecosystem. Clear away a skyscraper and at least some native trees and animals will eventually appear on the site, unless just too degraded or isolated. "Urban Forest" is not too much of a stretch.

Urban forest is a reality .. where I work there are thousands of trees within the city ... thousands ... it is indeed a forest and must be managed as a forest.

I thought innovations such as compactable soil mixes were a great idea .. trees can do well in a concrete environment and not struggle survive and then be chain sawed and thrown in the trash.

The openning post on this thread put all kinds of ideas up for grabs .. hard to zero in on anything ... but if your new to architecture and your in the "university" world ponder this in your formative years ...

Nature is NOT a place .. it's a set of principles that need to be applied .. a "Way" to be followed either by clear insight or feeling.

The chap that makes the great judo throw knows nature .. as the chemist that makes a new molecule and the gardener that lives in the garden but does not visit it.

The surface of Mars does not appear on any National Park map ( Not yet anyway ) .. this does not mean it is unatural.

Nature is not a place.

Good Day ...

My comment was written in response to miss rumphius' correct observation that "Urban Forest" is an oxymoron. Though I can't say the same for yours, I see nothing exaggerated in either post; certainly no mention about "returning to nature".

"There are currently more trees growing in the United States than when this country was first settled."

I'm sorry IB, but that dog won't hunt. The tired claim that there are "more trees" growing in the United States means little if you are talking about forests. A forest is more than trees; it includes understory shrubs, seedlings, saplings, groundcovers, and wildlife. A monoculture timber plantation is not a forest. Lining every single street within city limits with insipid Bradford Pear trees is not a forest. Planting a Red Maple, a Dogwood, a Buddleia and a Hydrangea in the backyard is not a forest. A park, no matter how lovely and well designed it may be, is not a forest. The neglected scrub growth alongside the highway on ramp is not a forest. And no, the last unsold wooded lot in a housing development is not a forest.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that some people *do* plant trees and shrubs specifically to offset heating and cooling costs and attract wildlife, but I don't kid myself that they are creating an "Urban Forest."

Never having been to Iowa, I'm curious; how many forests (not just a weedy, isolated clump of trees, but real forests) would one find within the city limits of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Souix City or Dubuque? How many are currently boxed in on three or more sides by development, and how many do you think will last another 10 years? How about 10 months?

BTW, only parts of Oklahoma could be considered "prairie". The state is actually a crazy quilt of open and forested land, with the eastern half MOL known as "the Cross Timbers" precisely because of the way the forested mountains of the Ozarks gradualy changes over to the rolling grasslands of the prairie.

A shyster is a con man, a bullsh*tter, the word is close to the German word for sh*t and has a yiddish spin. I like to think that this forum is 'a public meeting place for open discussion' which means that shysters are exposed when what they say is proved to have no substance. I say this recognising the anonimous nature of the internet and that what people actually do may differ from what they say here.

We all have our own perspectives .. I work in the oxymoron or paradox we call an urban forest ... have been for several decades ... we have trees .. shrubs .. herbaceous perennials .. even plants we did not invite .. there are insects .. good .. bad and indifferent ... we have soils with a soil biota .. and one can easily see all all kinds of ecological relationships in the urban forest ... not the least the many birds that depend on various trees .. even rabbits that eat our turf and drink from drip systems. Not to mention the flow of energy and the cycling or movement of materials into and out of the system.

All forest look different .. a tropical rain forest .. a temperate rain forest .. an urban forest.

To say it's an oxymoron is more a lack of insight into what makes an ecosystem and the workings of a landscape.

Good Day ...

Yes, if the original ecosystem of a place where a city is built is a forest then it's still a forest even if there are no trees or specific other original components present in parts of it. Similarly, it doesn't stop becoming a forest if there is a huge fire or it's all clearcut. Let's not fail to see the forest for the trees - or dearth of them. Only if the original ecosystem were completely replaced by another type, such as shrub steppe or grassland would it no longer be a forest.

The term urban forest simply implies that the science of ecology can be applied to better understand the landscape.

There are major evironmental problems today that can be better understood and controled in part or whole by better urban forest design. Air quality .. water quality .. water availability issues are all affected by the design of the urban forest or in general any landscape.

I don't imply that an urban forest is a replacement for any forest but that they can be better understood and managed using and implementing the priciples of ecological science.

There was no forest in the valley where I live before man entered the region but we have indeed created an urban forest as any helicopter flight over the valley will make clear .. it's design makes it more or less liveable ...

Good Day ...

After a fire, what started out as a forest becomes a meadow with grasses and wildflowers colonizing the area. Wonderful wildflowers have evolved for just such an occurance; the seeds lie dormant for years, waiting for the heat from a fire to trigger their growth. As the dead trees rot and fall, more sunlight loving grasses take over the area. If the area is kept mowed, plowed, extensively grazed (by wild or domestic animals), or paved, it will stay that way indefinately. If none of the above happen, then seedling trees and shrubs begin to grow, and those trees that still have live roots send up shoots; the area becomes scrub land. It's still not a forest, but it's working on it. As the scrub trees mature, they shade out the grasses and you'll see more and more of the old forest plants growing (along with a return of the species that depend on the more mature trees to thrive), and one day, if left to it's own devices it will be a forest again.

As for building a city over forest land, one may have created a "forest" of concrete and steel, but there is no longer a forest ecology. I'm afraid a parking lot is not a forest, no matter how many trees are planted in the little islands or how nicely the entrance is landscaped, even if Thumper is coming up to drink from the sprinkler.
Planting trees, shrubs, and grass in the middle of a desert valley where they would not ordinarilly grow is what I would call large scale gardening. It is not creating a sustainable forest. Anyway, how's your xeriscaping?

Full disclosure: I raise livestock, so my main interest in all of the above lies in holding back the encroachment of the forest surrounding us into our pastures. Not all, but enough that we can work toward a goal of small scale, sustainable agriculture for this property. That doesn't make me a "back to nature" freak, and I certainly don't think landscaping is bad; on the contrary, I think well planned landscaping is very good or I wouldn't be reading this forum.

I'm not real sure what hunting dogs have to do with trees. Data from original land surveys (when states were first being settled) clearly show there has been a marked increase in tree populations when compared to recent tree census data. There might be a few "weed trees" included in the count. I can't say... But, I sure do remember my Dad making me chop all of them out of our fence rows every year out on the farm.

I like the recently coined term, "urban forest". Yes, it indeed exists and claiming it is an oxymoron does seem to be rather stodgy.

If you are using the term, "forest", absent the prefacing modifier, a case might be made. In spite of resistance by some to the term's use, it seems to communicate quite well what we are talking about -- something distinctly different from the traditional concept of a forest. Isn't that what language is supposed to do?

As to the question of: "How many (trees) do you think will last another 10 years? Due to largely to actions of the bunny-huggers, many of Iowa's woodland areas have been in decline for a couple of decades. Particularly, there is concern that the understory shrubs and spring ephemerals may never recover in some areas due to overpopulation of deer (200+ per sq. mile in some areas). From ground level to as high as deer can stand on their hind legs, many woodlands remain stripped baren. If you are lucky, they don't strip the bark off of the larger trees as well. Fortunately, the simple-mindedness of eco-hysteria is finally beginning to be looked at for what it is ... largely emotional pap. I hope it is not too late. The damage done to the environment of this state by the eco-nazis has been enormous. We need sound, reasoned management practices not warm & fuzzy memories of an old Disney movie.

As to the life expectancy of an urban tree: I am told that, nationally, the average life expectancy of a an urban tree is only 5 to 7 years. Most suffer an early demise due to: "mower blight", over/under watering, "string trimmer blight" and planting too deeply.

IronBelly

Ironbelly, I'm curious to know where you found your facts?

The confusion here is that trees present = forest and trees absent = something else. You can go to a pristine area and find natural absence of trees in spots. That does not make the ecosystem within which these treeless patches occur not a forest.

I wasn't asking how long an indivual tree might live, but that, assuming there is a forest (as an ecological entity) in any of the cities I asked about, how long you might expect it to last before the land it's sitting on is worth too much *not* to develop. That's just the nature of urban areas.

As an aside, the Bald Eagle has seen a dramatic increase in it's numbers in the lower 48 states in the past 30 years. Still, I don't know that I'd credit any "urban forests" as having much impact on their recovery, as you don't hear of them adapting to concrete jungles like pigeon hunting Falcons. No matter the reason, it's nice they're making a comeback.

"that dog won't hunt" just means you'll have to come up with something better, as that argument isn't convincing. Another way of putting it might be to say it "had holes so big you could throw a dog through 'em."
Just a little doggerel to keep it lighthearted
;^)

My impression of the problem is that some people seem to think "any trees present = forest". A forest is not just trees, or even shurbs and trees with songbirds dropping by the bird feeder. It is more than landscape, which BTW, would be the more precise word for anything connected with the word "urban", as in "Urban Landscape". Pointing out that the term urban forest is an oxymoron is not stodgy, it's being realistic.

A forest is essentially a living entity. It is constantly growing, dying, and rebuilding itself. An urban area is similiar to a forest, in that parts of it are always growing, dying and being replaced, but urban areas are artificially designed and maintained. Closest thing you can call a forest in an urban area would be an overgrown park, but then, the park and it's boundries is only another artificialy maintained part of the urban whole.

A "treeless patch"? I would hardly call a city, a subdivision, a shopping mall or a parking lot built on a clear cut area "a treeless patch". A treeless patch in a living forest corrects itself; it will one day have trees again. A clear cut "treeless patch" that just became a 16 theatre metroplex and 80 new single family residences is gone. It can be landscaped, and hopefully, it will be landscaped well. It can become a garden, but as long as the development stands, never again a forest.

Just 2¢ from someone who spends their time trying to hold back the forest. (and the trees)

Since this is turning into a brawl, let's clear up the oxymoron issue. My point was that the two words don't fit together as a descriptive term naturally.

The funny part of this is that Urban Forestry came out of the environmental movement. It is the art and science of managing trees and other natural systems in the urban setting. It has nothing to do with pristine old growth forests. The term Urban Forest probably developed after the term Urban Forestry to describe what urban foresters work with.

It might be easier to accept the definition of forestry and then to accept that forestry practices occur in urban areas. Once that is understood, the term urban forestry should be easily accepted. Once that is accepted, it should not be too difficult to understand how the urban forest got its name.

The thing that has me laughing is that this is a very big tangible result of the environmental movement. It is a place where the rubber meets the road and real differences have been made. This is where environmental minded people have physically improved developed and developing environments.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread. The people who are making a real difference are the people who get involved in the development. You have to understand that undeveloped land is unchanged until it is developed. There certainly is a reason to try to protect undeveloped land, but you have to understand that you can't protect it all from development.

You can hope to make it a winner take all battle. That is either land gets developed, or the land is protected completely. Its black or white.

Or you can understand that the battle is multifaceted. You prioritise what you want protect and devote the most resources in protecting the highest priorities. You get involved in Planning to identify where development is likely to take place and try to stear it away from areas you want to protect by having alternate areas available that make sense to those that want to develop. You get involved in setting design standards that reduce negative impacts on the environment. And you get involved in design to see that the project gets finished off as nicely as it can despite what it is.

Now who is getting more done to protect the environment? Is it the guys who cable himself to the trees in Oregon, the ones who destroy Hummers in the midwest? Or is it us who do all the other things that I mentioned?

Ask yourself what have you have personally and directly physically achieved in saving the environment today.

This thread has me very uplifted and feeling good about myself as someone who is making a difference in bigger ways than I realized.

Thanks.

BINGO !!! ... Laag has nailed it. I'm going to plant some trees Monday .. take up some of that green house gas !!

Good Day ...

Where I live, in Vancouver, there is indeed an "urban forest": at least in the sense that 1,000 acres of what has now become forest has been left undisturbed in the center of the city for the past 75 years.
A few months ago, some wild windstorms blew down anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 trees in the park, depending on who you listen to.
A local television station held a telethon to raise money for replanting.
Some people pointed out that cycles of destruction are predictable in nature (global warming, anyone?) and that if we're lucky, the park will outlast us all.
Others shed more tears for the trees than they do for our shocking homeless population.
Human beings are funny -- but I'm with the previous posters, sad about the ongoing loss of natural land to urban encroachment.

Has anyone heard of the Little Climatic Optimum? It was a period of warming of about 300 years sometime including the year 1000. It is an interesting subject related to global warming. Google will find articles pretty easily.

It might take a little fear off of global warming ... for some people.

We seem to have gotten past some of the sparring in this thread and I dont really want to back-peddle, but this statement from Ironbelly is counter-intuitive to me:

"Data from original land surveys (when states were first being settled) clearly show there has been a marked increase in tree populations when compared to recent tree census data."

Id really like to see a reference for studies based on these data, IB, because I think this issue bears some scrutiny. I dont like to put people on the spot, but I also want to be sure that this statement doesnt stand unless it is true. littledog and nwnatural have also asked, what are your sources, IB? Are these studies for specific locations, or have they tried to extrapolate to the entire US?

ironbelly,it takes alot of chutzpa to slander someone you knowingly had banned from the discussion as it is only the intellectual coward that shields his ideas from critical scrutiny.But this is the censorious gardenweb,so welcome to Amerika!

Honest question:

Does anyone know where to find out when the melting of the glaciers of the ice age stopped? I keep trying to find out, but can't.

Of course you know that the glaciers have been melting for a long time. It's the accelerated rate that has experts alarmed.

600 out of 600 scientists agree! Everyone should rent a copy of the Inconvenient truth, packed full of facts with plenty of references.

They have had their ups and downs since the big melt 13,000 years ago it seems. The hard thing to find is information outside of the 20th century. Almost everything put out by many mamy publications and websites is a repeat of the same information from what I can find. Most concentrate on the total change from the begining of the century to the end and leave out the part about how the first 40 years rose at as fast a rate as the end of the century and the part about the cooling that took place for 20 years in the middle of the century. I found some sites that went as far as having a list of answers to give to people who use this data to question whether global warming is related to the use of fossil fuels (tell them mount pinatubo caused the cooling was the answer to that one).

I'm not saying that global warming is not happening and I'm not saying, if it is, that it is not caused by fossil fuels. I just keep getting this feeling that there is a big industry that has grown around this that seems to want to shout down anyone who questions it. What makes me question it even more is that it is often tied to other agendas.

None ever bring up the mini ice ages between 1450 and 1700. None bring up the subject of what was being farmed in northern Europe in the eleventh and twelfth century that can't grow there now because of colder climate.

It just seems that if the information supports global warming it is everywhere. If it doesn't no one can talk about it. If it supports global warming, but the cause is not emmissions, it does not get talked about (lots out there about solar activity?).

I just wish there were more information that shows a longer time line with details all of the way. Maybe some records of volcanic eruptions and big events that might be other sources than co2. I'd like to know how much co2 has fluctuated in nature without fossil fuels. Does a massive volcanic eruption compare to a certain amount of fossil fuel emmissions?

All I see and hear is a short timeline of evidence and an assumption that it is from co2 concentrations. Just how much co2 was in the atmosphere before industry and how much is there now?

When evidence supports it, the followers say it is good science. When evidence is against it, they say the scientist has an agenda (what, big grants and popularity is not an agenda?).

I certainly don't think of this as "brawling", surely disagreement at this forum isn't automatically considered picking a fight?

What I have attempted to make clear (and have apparently failed at) is that I'm specifically referring to a forest as a natural entity, rather than an artifice such as a park. In that sense, the thing that strikes me as a complete oxymoron is the use of the word "forest" to describe the collection of one tree here, one shrub there, with a nifty city park twenty blocks over, everything neatly divided by 6 foot privacy fences and paved roads, that would be the average urban landscape. If you happen to have a couple hundred, completly wild arces smack dab in the middle of *your* city, then obviously, the term "Urban Forest" is an accurate description of that area. But, to my completely non professional eye, the typical urban lanscape is no more a forest than a skyscaper is a redwood. I'm just not understanding how one could apply the concept of "forest" into describing anything other than a wild area that happens to be within the city limits, (or projected growth area) of an existing urban area. While they're all fascinating topics in their own right, I haven't said anything about "pristine, old growth" forests, or global warming, or melting glaciers.

"The funny part of this is that Urban Forestry came out of the environmental movement. It is the art and science of managing trees and other natural systems in the urban setting."

So is "Urban Forester" is the new, PC term for arborist? Or tree surgeon? Or naturalist? Or some combination of all three?

I suppose the concept I'm not following is the idea of referring to all the seperate units of "green space" that comprise an urban area as one "forest". Other than the USDA along with certain State Dept of Ag regulations, one doesn't manage the trees all over an urban area as one entity. (The exception I'm thinking of would be akin to the the right of the State to come onto your property and rip out all your pet orange trees as a means of controlling Citrus Canker.)

Let me put it this way; if you have 40 acres of former pastureland that has been divided into 160 homesites, you could refer to the indivuals who plant and maintain their landscapes as "Urban Gardeners" (though I would simply call them "Gardeners"), but would you still refer to ALL the land encompased by ALL the different homeowners on that original 40 acres as an "Urban Pasture" because some of the people are growing grass?

OK, I'll try to explain this in very specific terms. My in-laws live in Staten Island, which is part of NYC. This is unquestionably urban. Behind their house is an area owned by two old, established non-profit entities. I don't know how large this area is, but it's probably at least ten acres. The only maintenance it gets is trail clearing. It has fairly large, established trees, established undergrowth, and an established wildlife population. In what way is this not an 'urban forest'? Then there are the forests owned by the Parks Department. There is a lot of 'urban forest' in Fairmount Park in Philadelphia. It's not that unusual in an ecosystem that automatically turns land into forest. If you want to treat the Meadowlands as a different entity because it isn't an arboreal ecosystem, understand it is still quite wild.

I don't have much time to respond, but a city forester from the city of Toronto visited Guelph and gave a speech on the Urban Forest. The city itself has an Urban Forestry Service department which manages practically all the trees in the city. The website is attached to the bottom. It may be interesting to see out what is being presented as "Urban Forestry" as opposed to hypothetical situations.

- Audric

mad gallicia,
The area you're describing is not a tree plantation, it is not a suburban backyard, (or even several suburban backyards), nor it is not a island planting in the center median of a four lane roadway, or a parking lot. At ten acres, it might be something most people would refer to simply as "woods" or perhaps even a "woodlot", rather than a forest, because the lack of size limits the ecological diversity it can support. But, for the area it's in, and considering the fact that it's not been manicured half to death (like most city parks), I'd say it sounds at least like a micro forest.

OTOH, you aren't trying to claim that having trees planted along the street somehow becomes a forest simply because there were no trees there before.

Here's another example of what is being stated as an urban forest:

"An urban forest refers to the tree biomass of a community, which is a living resource with tangible environmental, social and economic benefits" (From the National Capital Commission homepage).

I think that what should realized is that there are many, if not hundreds, of different definitions of a forest, not to mention divisions into different forest types. The definition can range from a large area having high density of trees (The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, 3rd Edition), to a more ecological view inclusive of all flora, fauna, and micro-organisms (WWF, website).

The WWF acknowledges our current debate about what the definition of a forest is: "At the present time, conservationists are still arguing about a 'technical' definition of a forest. According to The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), a forest does not stop being a forest just because the trees are gone. While that may be so, it is important to understand how the disappearing green cover and the resultant threat to habitats and to human life fits into the bigger picture of life on the planet." (See the source here)

However, I think that, in the purpose of forwarding this discussion we need to agree to disagree in order (on our personal def. of "Forest) to discuss how the "Urban Forest" (even if you do not agree that is a forest) is to be improved. It is not just in newly-developed areas (which may have been forest before development) and not just the planting of trees in backyards, but the introduction of trees in previously inhospitable and essentially "dead" spaces and the garnering of their associated benefits.

This is not a question simply of conservation and protection. It would be nearly impossible to put a stop to ALL further development, but it is possible to plan things wisely: to minimize the footprint of infrastructure and buildings and to maximize the benefits of the landscape which surrounds them.

-Audric

laag if you can get your hands on New Scientist magazine from the UK, issue 2580 from Nov 2006, you might find the article about the little ice age interesting. Also, the issue 2582 from December 2006 about the cooling period from about 1940 to the 1970s might interest you. At the end of that period, some scientists were predicting a new ice age was about to occur. Those scientists are now of the belief that global warming is the real danger. Personally, my feeling is why are we (in the global sense) wasting time arguing about the issue? Whether human-related CO2 emissions are the primary factor in climate change or not, they are pollution that we could do without. A rapid climate change in whatever direction is likely to affect the world drastically in so many ways that it seems foolhardy to do nothing and hope for the best. My personal philosophy in life is to prepare for the worst but hope for the best - and I think that is an attitude that would be wise to adopt on the climate issue!

Woody, I'll look at those aricles. One thing that bothers a lot of people about the global warming hype is how it sometimes seems to be more of a tool to promote other agendas.

In the end it seems that you are more interested in curbing emissions than whether or not it causes global warming. I think there are a lot of people who agree, but find it disingenuous when hype and fright of global warming is used as the tool. I think it is especially true when kids are lead to believe that it is fact in the schools when it has a long way to go before proving that global warming is occurring in a way in which it has not before, let alone that it is because Dad drives a pickup truck.

Are you suggesting that whether or not global warming is caused by emmissions, you would still use the notion to promote the agenda of curbing them since it has gotten so much attention?

The recent deliberations in Paris concluded that indeed we do add to global warming. I recently sat through a very boring monologue on the hockey stick theory which I was in no position to question but it did sound like denial. The agenda that I see pushed comes from those who stand to lose from admitting that reliance on fossil fuels creates an environmental problem.

I am a proud member of my city's Shade Tree Commission. We are a Tree City USA member for over 25 years. What this means is we passed an ordinance to plant, maintain all the trees that are owned by the city, and do other things to keep our status as a Tree City. This includes all the trees in the park and all the trees in the curb strips. This is considered the urban forest, and the Ohio Depratment of Natural Resourss has Urban Foresters that help us do this. Taking care of trees in an urban landscapes is different from taking care of trees in "True " Forest.

On the planet warming, I like the theory that the earthquake that caused the Tsunami in the Pacific was so big that it chaanged the tilt of the earth so we are now at a different angle to the sun. This was of course stated in a much more scientific manner in the article I read. Which I don't remember where.

Thanks laag, that was really, really cute! To think that someone would give any weight to Thomas Gale Moore who has a PhD in economics, or that the Hoover Institution, funded by ExxonMobil, has anyone but special interest groups in-mind while collecting "global warming facts." You have a good sense of humor! Next your going to direct me to an article on global warming myths authored by Rush Limbaugh.

Seriously, check out An Inconvenient Truth, the mini ice age is covered in detail.

laag I think arguing about whether global warming is real/ man-made, or not is a stall. Odds are that emission CO2 pollution is not a good thing and neither is a heavy reliance on finite fossil fuels. Taking some concrete steps e.g. getting a functional carbon trading system going and probably carbon taxes - is likely a smart thing to do. Things like that will give a kick-start/incentive to ingenuity to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and, not incidentally, reduce CO2 emissions. It seems to me we (in the global sense again) have everything to gain by going that route and little to lose, so why not just get on with it? I think that the future belongs to whoever can find an economical source of renewable, clean energy and it worries me that so much effort is being spent on defending the status quo rather than really looking for an innovative future. How would the world change if Middle-East oil became irrelevant because it was not necessary to satisfy Western energy needs? Its not likely to happen in my lifetime but it might happen faster if there was a real incentive to look harder. Global warming or the fear of it could be that incentive if we approach it intelligently and stop going around in useless circles! My money would be on a biological/biochemical source for renewable, clean energy. When I look at flora and fauna, I cant help but see some amazing energy systems and wonder whether were overlooking - or not understanding - something that will, to some future generation, seem dead obvious! (And corn-based bio-ethanol is not what Im thinking of!! :- )

Much like my friend from Oklahoma, I see no brawl either just some folks sharing their differing opinions and that is a good thing. I have to admit that I was hoping that some of the "Green Party" folks would eventually show up. Fulfilling my wishes, they did.

A couple earnest people have questioned the facts that I selectively chose from "right-leaning sources". Of course, true to form, they selected only "facts" from "left-leaning sources". To really add muster to the point I am attempting to make, we even got to witness an element from the whacko-fringe, who only registered on this forum that very day to spew his "facts" and brand me a coward. I have always felt this element continues (sadly) to inflict harmful impact to the credibility of the ecology movement as a whole.

Facts what exactly are facts? I am not really sure that I can say with any amount of certitude. Both sides of almost any issue can banter back and forth all day long, citing sources that deduce quantities of data into diametrically opposed conclusions. As the old joke goes, told in my first session of a statistical analysis class in 1969 at Iowa State University:
Question: What do the statistics say?
Answer: What do you want them to say?

Any more, I am very dubious about forming an opinion based upon "facts" until I know the agenda of the one promoting that selective set of "facts". One of our participants has now encouraged us to view a movie with a collection of "facts" provided by a politician who at one time claimed to personally invent the Internet. This guy has lived a life filled with agendas. Facts? Hmmm Not having even done so, I could probably go to a right-leaning source (say, perhaps Rush Limbaughs website) that would present another collection of facts to refute everything the movie contends.

Unfortunately, ecology awareness (choose your own preferred term) has become hopelessly ensnarled in politics. It seems like every word used is defined differently, depending upon who is doing the using. Bill Clinton illustrated this technique well when he famously said: "It depends upon what the definition of "is", is."

If you take the example of my "fact" about there being more trees today than when the country first began. Firstly, the numbers are extrapolated estimates from both dates. If you pay careful attention to the typical phrasing of the data (Can any estimate truly be considered data?), the left likes to use the term, "cover". More in: "Statistics clearly show that there was X percentage more forest cover in the 1700s than at present." On the other hand, the right seems to prefer the term, "number of trees". How exactly do the terms, "forest cover" and "number of trees" directly equate? Do they really mean the same thing or, are both sides trying to promote their chosen agenda? I suspect BOTH sides are fudging a bit. However, I dont think either side is using words that are not technically truthful.

More to the point: Lets say you and I have a 1 acre pot of land side by side. On your ground, you have a huge, 100 year-old bur oak tree growing on a savanna. On my identical plot, I have just planted 200 oak saplings. Without question, it would be a true statement that your single tree provides many, many times more cover than my saplings. However, it is equally true that I have 200 times as many trees on my ground than you do on yours. Does it make sense that we now begin arguing over who is more environmentally conscious than the other?

I have grown weary of the exaggerations of both sides. I have grown weary of the name calling. I have grown weary of the smarmy politics. I have grown weary of activists (on both sides) telling me what I should either do and/or believe. I have grown weary of being told "the sky is falling" when I can look around and see the many improvements that have happened in my lifetime. (Yes, there is still a lot left to do.) I have grown weary seeing the good, hard work by dedicated, environmentally concerned folks suffering serious, repetitive setbacks to their cause at the hands (or mouth) of a few whackos.

What I would now most like this thread to do is move beyond the politics and return to discussing what precipitated this thread at the onset: People like our friend, NYwoodsman, who feels landscape design has nothing to offer him and further believes landscaping issues fail to adequately embrace nature. His arguments are not totally without merit for a certain segment of society. Personally, I think it is possible to do both. I even suggested one example for him with an enhanced incorporation of spring ephemerals into his woodland.

In an essentially treeless paradigm of the prairie, I see far too much opportunity squandered by both "the green crowd" and landscape professionals. It seems to me that by an unconsciously self-imposed sequestration, both "sides" remain blind to the opportunity afforded by mutual cooperation.

Is anyone else interested in exploring this?

IronBelly

"More to the point: Lets say you and I have a 1 acre pot of land side by side. On your ground, you have a huge, 100 year-old bur oak tree growing on a savanna. On my identical plot, I have just planted 200 oak saplings. Without question, it would be a true statement that your single tree provides many, many times more cover than my saplings. However, it is equally true that I have 200 times as many trees on my ground than you do on yours. Does it make sense that we now begin arguing over who is more environmentally conscious than the other?"

Of course not. There are so many additional questions that would have to be answered before you could even begin to decide which was the more "eco-friendly" acre. Are those 200 trees all the same species? Are you using herbicides or fences to keep down competition from weeds and animals? Are you planning to let them mature and die naturally, or are they going to be harvested for timber within the next quarter century? How healthy is that single oak? Is it surrounded by anything other than grass; are you allowing any shrubs or even a replacement tree to grow nearby? Is your main goal to support a diversity of wildlife right now, or to help control greenhouse gasses ten years in the future?

No one said all landscapers are bad - all naturalists are good; well, someone seemed to be hinting that, but I don't think even they believed it. Personally, it's my view that we should think of the ideal not as how many indivual trees, or how much wildlife, but how can you best combine the two when one, or increasingly, both of those acres are also home to humans living in (gasp!) buildings? That's where the real value of intelligent design in landscaping comes in.

Can you have it all? Well, no, but with a little planning you can have a pretty good sized piece of it. ;^)

Natural,

I believe that the earth is warming. I believe that it is possible that co2 has something to do with it. But I also believe that there are many other variables that may be the cause. I also believe that a lot of people seem to be hiding the history of earth temperatures and showing only pieces that illustrate extremes. I am not an anti global warming theorist. I am just not ready to blindly follow.

I posted that article not knowing these people. It was the first one that presented anything other than the "oh my god, the temerature has risen in the last century" perspective after skimming about twenty. Of those twenty that I skimmed, many were cut and pastes of the same text. You might say that because of that 20:1 ratio I should understand which position is correct - kind of a bit like Ironbelly's tree illustration. But just as easily there may have been some pesticide use in those twenty and some old growth qualities in the single one. My guess is that just like in Ironbelly's example there is some validity in each.

You did the thing that many who sit on the fence are wary of. You discredited the messenger rather than the content. When a politician falls from a high perch and needs to rebuild himself and uses a hot button emotional issue to get back in the lime light you embrace the messenger because he supports your view. Is that blind faith? Have you been brain washed by someone who "educated the public"?

When you get down to it, what are you going to do today to change the situation in a larger way than telling everyone about it? I'm going to be designing a cluster development in rare species habitat (eastern box turtle). This land is being developed, that is for sure. Now am I a bad guy because I'm working on it, or a good guy because I'm lessening the impact by changing the plan from sprawling 17 houses over 30 acres to keeping it 60% open space with 17 houses forced into a small portion of it? Either way, I am actually doing something besides talking about it.

In the context of what the users of this forum do, arguing global warming and other world wide agendas does not make the rubber hit the road. It just flings words around about things that we as individuals can impact very little. Yet, in one hour we can design such things as a rain garden or grassed swale instead of letting water drain directly into a stream. Many don't know that and would like the opportunity to learn about it. When they do one of these or something else physically being built, they do so much more than crusaders with all the right goals with no way to implement them but to sream at others to implement them.

Have fun talking about it, writing about it, educating people about it, and everything else to get other people to get it done. Maybe turn down your thermostat and ride your bike. I have some turtles that need me today and some nutrients to suck up before they cause some eutrophication. Gotta go.

Laag, that is so right on.

Also, in your 'cut and paste' statement, you have just described my 'reporter syndrome' only more clearly. Thanks! Everyone needs to be aware of this in all media.