on the plight of dunkirk

With the Hollywood film year about to end, Dunkirk still stays inside my head as one of the year's best (hey, definitely it will standout considering that you have watched only one of those less crappy films this year). Well, it's not a bad thing, considering its quality being comparable to some of the acclaimed films in the previous years, e.g. "A Separation", "Zero Dark Thirty", "12 Years a Slave", "Lincoln", etc.  One of the reasons is that it is different from other World War II films, and it takes a different perspective when compared to the likes of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Letters from Iwo Jima".  Will it win Best Picture at the Oscars? It has a high probability that it will get nominated, but I think its chances of winning is actually uncertain. 

One reason is that it might be labeled as one of those bland films among the Academy voters.  They might find it inglorious in the emotions department, and would rather view it as something more of a technical film; and at the end of the day, throw multiple awards in the technical department.  So if a more dramatic and more emotionally satisfying film pops up at the end of the year, its chances of winning will be significantly lowered.  Another reason is that it doesn't actually have a well developed "personal" viewpoint in it that will help the voters find the perspective of the characters compelling.  So if a more personal and also substantially technical film comes up at the end of the year, it's then a no-win for Dunkirk.  Does it really matter? I think not.  Whether with an Academy win, intrinsically, I think Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is still a film to beat in many years to come.

So how about the animated film department? Sure, "The LEGO Batman Movie" is a fun movie, and a really good one as well.  However compared to last year's very competitive year for animated movies, in which many films in the lineup deserve to be considered as top animated film, it seems that it may not be as competitive this year.  The upcoming "Coco" film from Disney/Pixar - with Lee Unkrich from "Toy Story 3" around - is potentially a film to beat.  Otherwise, "Ferdinand" might also sneak in, together with other foreign animated films like "The Breadwinner", which has a weighty synopsis, and probably, Hiromasa Yonebayashi's "Mary and the Witch's Flower" under Studio Ponoc, which consists of almost everyone who previously worked at Studio Ghibli.

the coldest in the middle of summer

Photo Credit : Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (flickr; license; no edits)  Yakutsk, Russia

As the latitude gets higher, meaning as we go more northerly, the climate is getting colder until we reach Santa's factory outlet.  So, does this mean that the North Pole is the coldest place on Earth or in the Northern Hemisphere?  The answer, however, is a "no".  Although the daily mean from January to March, hovers around -31° to -32°C, and the average low hovers around -33°C to -35°C, these figures are handily beaten by at least three inhabited places 20+ degrees latitude below the North Pole.

Is it still in Canada or in the US state of Alaska? ...Nope. Although the average low in Eureka, Nunavut (in Canada) during February is competitive at -41°C, with a record low of -55°C; the figures, however, are not even considered close.  Snag, Yukon (in Canada) holds the lowest verified recorded temperature in continental North America at -62.8°C [1], while Prospect Creek, Alaska (in US) holds the title as the coldest place in the US when it registered -62.1°C [8].  These figures are close, but the thing is that these places are no longer inhabited.

Let's imagine how cold are these places in terms of the Canadian wind chill index [2]:
-48 to -54 translates into freezing of exposed skin in 2 to 5 minutes, while -55 and colder translates into freezing of exposed skin in less than 2 minutes and was marked as "DANGER!".

And to think that these are indices that consider the wind factor on top of the base air temperature (note the absence of the degree (°) symbol).  How much more if the base temperature is -60°C and below.  In this case, it would mean that the effect of the wind chill index, hovering around in the -70's, -80's or even -100's, would be unthinkable.  (Just saw these -60+°C figures as outside air temperature while traveling on a plane.)

Now, let's meet three of the coldest inhabited places on Earth with a very cold greeting.  If it's not found in Canada or in the US, then we shouldn't forget the rival during the Cold War (although not related to air temperature): Russia.

As many of us might already know, Russia is famous for its bitter winters, particularly the geographic region of Siberia (note the difference with the political region called "Siberian Federal District").  Getting more specific within the Siberian region will lead us to Sakha Republic and three of its human settlements: Yakutsk, Oymyakon, and Verkhoyansk.  Their temperature records are as follows (mean annual temperature figures are taken from 1930-2014 data at their respective meteorological stations [3]):

Yakutsk:
     -9.6°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -42.5°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -64.4°C (record low) [5]
Verkhoyansk:
     -14.9°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -47.7°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -67.6°C (record low) [1][6][8]
Oymyakon:
     -16.0°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -47.6°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -67.7°C (record low) [1][7][8]

Extraordinary.  Even more extraordinary is that these places are inhabited in contrast to the American record holders.  Oymyakon has around 500 inhabitants in 2011; Verkhoyansk has around 1,300 (2010 census); and the amazing major city, Yakutsk, has around 270,000 inhabitants (2010 census).  This makes Yakutsk the coldest city on Earth, while Oymyakon and Verkhoyansk vie for the coldest settlement/village on Earth.  Officially speaking, however, Oymyakon currently holds this title [9] given its record low temperature, but it only beat Verkhoyansk by a mere 0.1°C difference on the records. The figures for the record low temperature were actually questioned and a paper by N. Stepanova in 1958 [1] was published to identify the more reliable figures.  If the record-low figures, set in the years before 1950, still hold until now, then the figures are very close; and one thing for sure we know that these two towns are the coldest inhabited places on Earth, and literally, danger zones during winter.

Humans are indeed hardy species, and it seems that the Russians take the top spot in terms of enduring the extremely cold climate.  Now, what is the reliably recorded coldest place on Earth, regardless of whether it is a permanent human settlement?  In this case, we shouldn't forget a place in Antarctica called the "Vostok Station", around 1,300km away from the South Pole.  Yeah, there goes the Russians again!  At a record low of -89.2°C, it handily beats the Northern Hemisphere records, and it seems that there is an anomaly between our polar regions.  North Pole registered "only" a record low of -50.6°C [8], whereas the South Pole through the US "Amundsen-Scott Station" registered a record low of -82.8°C [8].  There is a 30+ degree difference between the two poles, and the reason behind this is that the stations involved are located at a land mass and in high elevations.  Vostok Station is around 3,488m above sea level, while Amundsen-Scott Pole station is at 2,835m above sea level.  North Pole, on the other hand, is on the Arctic Ocean, and temperatures are recorded through drifting stations of polar expeditions.

So, who gets to visit Santa more often in terms of ship expeditions?  Is it the Canadians? US Americans?  Just get the pattern, and that would lead us to the Russians!  And guess what, the Russian flag was even placed on the ocean floor, where the North Pole is exactly located.  (The thing is that they might have searched for Santa under the ocean as well.)

We have been talking about the coldest inhabited places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this leads us to a question about the coldest uninhabited place in the northern half of the Earth as well, that has regular meteorological observations.  In that case, it is held by the short-lived British "North Ice" research station in Greenland, where the record low is -66°C [8].  If it has been in operation for a long time, then it might have recorded temperatures lower than that, given the elevation of 2,341m above sea level.  If somebody is interested in putting up research stations at the mountains of Alaska and the Yukon territory in Canada, then they are also good candidates for the coldest uninhabited place in the Northern Hemisphere, officially speaking.

Going back to Siberia, how does a below -50°C temperature feel like?  An account from BBC [10] tells us that at -53°C, with just a few minutes outside, pain can be felt on exposed skin, damp surfaces freeze, and the extremities can turn uncomfortably cold very quickly even if covered with layers of thick garments.  It is highly probable that running is necessary from one place to another in order to get to the nearest store.  A visitor will probably get used to that extremely frigid temperature after several days, and will soon find that -20°C is balmy.  So how about -80°C? Did anybody from the Vostok Station tried roaming around? For sure, any exposed skin would mean losing that portion of your body.  In that case, that would be a really good reason to wear an astronaut suit.

Some references:
[1] N. Stepanova, "On the Lowest Temperatures on Earth", 1958.
[2] http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=5FBF816A-1#table1
[3] R. Desyatkin, A. Fedorov, A. Desyatkin, and P. Konstantinov, "Air Temperature Changes and their Impact on Permafrost Ecosystems in Eastern Siberia", Thermal Science Vol. 19, Suppl. 2, 2015.
[4] J. Kolbek, M. Srutek, and E. Box, "Forest Vegetation of Northeast Asia", 2003.
[5] http://time.com/3798383/yakutsk-the-coldest-city-on-earth/
[6] https://www.britannica.com/place/Verkhoyansk
[7] http://cn.worldheritage.org/articles/Siberia
[8] http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2012/alm12feb.htm
[9] http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/lowest-temperature-inhabited
[10] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11875131

even colder stuff : north and seriously north

Many years ago there's a big chunk of Canadian territory up north, called the Northwest Territories.  It comprises of the northern continental Canada and the Arctic archipelago.  As time went on, the region was divided, and the territory called "Nunavut" was formed.  It's an odd name coming from a country with both English and French as their official languages.  Only later did I know that this was actually  a landmark change in the political map of Canada.  The reason is that it is a territory formed for the country's Inuit people. Thus, making it a notable historical development globally, especially involving the world's indigenous people.

Photo Credit: Mark Beauregard (no edits; license)

Much of the Arctic archipelago is incorporated within Nunavut, and as an archipelago, the islands look huge on the map, speaking of Mercator projection. Regardless of that, however, many islands are actually big.  The top 5 islands in terms of area (in sq. km.) are:

• Baffin - 507,451
• Victoria Island - 217,291
• Ellesmere - 196,236
• Banks Island - 70,028
• Devon Island - 55,247

Photo Credit : Derrick Midwinter (no changes; license)

The top three are bigger than Luzon, the largest island in the Philippines at 109,965 sq. km. So, one may wonder if they are also densely populated as well.  You bet, no.  In the warmest community of the region, Kugluktuk, the temperature during winter ranges from -15°C to -40°C, and then there's extensive permafrost, meaning perpetually frozen ground, which prevents vertical growth of trees and other plants.  Imagine a large region having this type of climate.  From above, it will look like a vast barren landscape, interrupted by hills and mountains, cut by rivers, and in continental Canada, splattered with numerous lakes.

Photo Credit : Steve Stayles (no edits; license)

Taking a look at the top 5 largest communities - or refered to as municipalities - in Nunavut as of 2016, it would really take a long time, hypothetically, before we could see a sprawling metropolis in the Arctic:

Iqaluit - 7,086

Rankin Inlet - 2,441

Arviat - 2,318

Baker Lake - 1,872

Cambridge Bay - 1,619

Nunavut as a territory covers 1,936,113 sq. km. of land, but the population as of 2016 is only 35,944.   This gives us a density of 0.0186 person per square kilometer; or, if they divide the land among themselves, each person would own 53.9 sq. km. of land, which is the size of a small city.

Photo Credit: Fiona Hunt                             Iqaluit, NU                            (license; no edits)

Photo Credit: Michael Swan          Rankin Inlet, NU        (license; no edits)

Given this vast land, relatively very small population, and extreme climate, it is indeed impractical to build extensive road networks.  Thus, each of these municipalities has an airport that would connect them to the rest of Canada.  Currently, Nunavut has 25 municipalities; only one is considered a city, which is Iqaluit, and the rest are categorized as hamlets.  It is interesting, however, that they have other categories called "village" and "town".  You may guess it right that these are the previous designations of Iqaluit on its way to being categorized as a "city".

Photo Credit : Mark Beauregard       Arviat, NU               (license; no edits)

The land faces below freezing average temperatures for at least 8 months of the year.  Most of the municipalities experience a mild form of summer from mid-Jun to mid-September, with monthly average high temperatures just hovering between 10°C - 20°C and mostly below 15°C.  On the other hand, the monthly average low is just hovering around 4°C - 7°C for the months of July and August, while it is 0°C - 3°C for the months of June and September.  

From a tropical country perspective, it is at least cold the whole year round.  So are these places within the radar of the worldwide dispersion of fellow countrymen? The answer was actually a suprise yes for me, the first time I knew about it.  So there are Filipinos out there enduring the mostly tundra climate together with the indigenous inhabitants.  They are mostly found in Iqaluit in which they account for around 1% of the city's population.

Photo Credit: Northern Pix           Baker Lake, NU          (license; no edits)

So, what do we have in store at Nunavut? Well, if you love wilderness in its pristine form, then you have more than a million of square kilometers of untouched land by any human alteration.  The area contains numerous admirable little plants, which endured the extreme cold and desert-like condition due to low precipitation.  It is actually amazing that Nunavut has around 200 species of plants with extraordinary ability of adaptation.  Other than that, thick layers of mosses (considered as flowerless plants) and lichens (well, these are not plants) cover the soil above the permafrost, which allow taller plants to grow. 

Photo Credit : Alan Sim         Cambridge Bay, NU         (license; no edits)

How do these plants survive? Well, apart from genetics - which helped them survive the mostly acidic soil, very low nitrogen content, and of course, the extreme climate - the plants have actually a unique behavior of crowding together to form microclimates that allow photosynthesis to take place.  To name a few, Nunavut has Arctic cotton, Arctic willow (a tree in a tundra region?!), Labrador tea, blueberry, and cranberry.

How about the animals? To name a few, we have the polar bear, seal, walrus, muskox, and we shouldn't forget Santa's animal of mobility, but bigger version than what we saw in the usual renditions: the caribou.  If we include the caribou in the census, then Nunavut can come up with a figure close to 1 million inhabitants, and surely, the film "The Polar Express" isn't exaggerating anything when it comes to their number.

Photo Credit : Derrick Midwinter                    Arctic Cotton                     (license; no edits)

Photo Credit : Amanda Graham                  Arctic Willow                         (license; no edits)

Photo Credit : Derrick Midwinter                   Caribou                             (license; no edits)

Looking for something extraordinary?  Then, look further and seriously north, to Nunavut; and hunt for the Northern Lights as well.  However, the world needs to take care of these lands because when a permafrost melts, it looks extraordinarily disastrous as well.

Photo Credit : UBC Micrometeorology (license; no edits) -- Permafrost Melting

cold stuff for the warmer days of the year

Photo Credit : Olof Sundström & Martin Letzter    License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

Puncak Jaya

In February of this year, the Philippines experienced near record-low temperatures that the country has experienced in many years.  With the benchmark city being Baguio, the city's temperature dropped just one degree higher than its coldest morning ever, recorded on January 18, 1961 (6.3°C).  At 7.3°C on Feb. 15, 2017, it is the fourth coldest in the city's history [1].

In some areas, certain locals have even erroneously reported a below zero air temperature. One notable news is the one from Atok, Benguet, which was said to have registered -2°C. However, this was officially debunked by the weather bureau [2].

(Yeah, I understand the explanation too; you don't have to tell me..  They are talking about atmospheric temperature and not some soil or any plant surface temperature. And double yeah, frost on the ground can even form if the air temperature is above 0°C, and the range can be as high as 5°C so that you can see icy surfaces even if it is 5°C or 42°F. [3])

I think these types of news pop up every year, and for a generally hot and humid country, that's understandable.  There are times when we want some extraordinary news, and of course, some literally cool area to visit.  And think about snow too.  Snow in a tropical country would be really something extraordinary.

The thing is that there's something in our neighboring tropical country that certain cold-weather loving Filipinos will be envious of.  Well, it's not a well-known fact that there's *snow* (?!) in Indonesia, and an even "worse" fact is that there's *glacier* (?!!) in Indonesia as well.  (Huh, let me clarify something.  Indonesia is sliced by the equator, and then there's this so-called global warming.  Philippines is above Indonesia, and above the Philippines is Taiwan.  Taiwan is more acceptable, but Indonesia, I don't think so.)

Another neighboring country with snow is of course Taiwan, which is a more well-known fact.  So, certain freezer loving Filipinos are getting more convinced that this little country between Taiwan and Indonesia is so unlucky.  Ouch.  Well, let's just imagine that Mount Pulag did have that much coveted snow centuries ago, and we are quite sure of this given Indonesia's story.  Indonesia does have snow in their tallest mountain; in fact, not just snow, but tropical glacier as well.  This glacier story is relevant to the point that the world climate is undergoing some change; and let's face it, the world is getting at least a bit warmer.

Photo Credit : Olof Sundström & Martin Letzte 
Puncak Jaya / Carstensz Pyramid Snow Peak
License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

Puncak Jaya.  Have you heard about this mountain before? The Philippines has Mount Apo, while Indonesia has Puncak Jaya a.k.a. Carstensz Pyramid.  Sorry guys; it's not a very accurate analogy because there is *snow* and *glacier* in Puncak Jaya. (Yeah, right; but let me tell you as well that the great *Philippine eagle* resides in Mount Apo; while in Carstensz Pyramid, they only have pharaohs, right?)

Rising at 4,884 m (16,023 ft.) above sea level in the island of New Guinea, no doubt that its peak will catch cold and cough up some snow.  Think about Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, and of course, the tropical portion of the Andes mountain range in South America.  In terms of glaciers, the Tropical Andes accounts for more than 99% share of the world's tropical glacier [4].  (Not really share, isn't it?) At least somebody threw some minuscule portions to East Africa and the Papua province of Indonesia. (But no one shared something to any part of the Philippines, and that's not very generous.)

In Puncak Jaya, that minuscule share has shrunk dramatically within just one century.  And it is very telling in NASA images, comparing 1989 and 2009 glaciated area, how the glaciers have shrunk rapidly within a 20-year period.  If the rate is the same, within the next 20 years, e.g. by 2029, it is estimated that all glaciers in Puncak Jaya will be gone [5].  Now, we shouldn't be really envious; we should rather sympathize for that projected loss. (And then lament, for the growing impossibility that there will be a "share-a-glacier" event in the Philippines.)

Photo Credit : NASA
Puncak Jaya Glaciers - 1989

Photo Credit : NASA

Puncak Jaya Glaciers - 2009

So how's tourism going on in Carstensz Pyramid? Well, there are mountain climbers the whole year round, but then there are only few days of good weather and it usually rains (or *snows* at its peak) for several hours during the day.  (That's not really a hospitable mountain, isn't it?) In some portions of the mountain, air temperature can rise rapidly during the day, e.g. from 12°C to 37°C, and night time temperature at the Base Camp (at 4,300 m above sea level) can fall to as low as – not just -2°C nor -4°C as some highly probable erroneous news from Northern Luzon in the Philippines claimed during the cooler times of the year – but rather a relatively very cold -8°C air temperature for a tropical country [6].

So how about the peak?  At 4,884 m above sea level, the temperature can plunge to as low as below -10°C [7], which is already considered cold even at a country that has frigid winters with temperatures falling below -20°C.  Those climate data exceed expectations for a tropical country like Indonesia, and even the Dutch explorer Jan Carstenszoon in 1623 was ridiculed in Europe for claiming that he spotted snow in a tropical country near the equator.

(So, there are still lots of instances that the temperature in that mountain is below 0°C then, so why do those so-called glaciers still disappear?  I've read somewhere that the factor is not just temperature, but it also includes other factors such as humidity as well.  So it's not really climate change, buster, it's just that those stupid glaciers are simply overreacting.)

[1] http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/02/15/Baguio-2017-coldest-day-new-record.html
[2] http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/earth-space/161800-negative-temperature-atok-benguet-debunked-pagasa
[3] https://www.weather.gov/arx/why_frost
[4] G. Kaser, "A review of the modern fluctuations of tropical glaciers" (1999)
[5] "Ice Loss on Puncak Jaya : Image of the Day - NASA Earth Observatory".  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79084
[6] https://www.livescience.com/41314-carstensz-pyramid.html
[7] http://www.carstenszpapua.com/climate_and_weather.html

wal'art

Some walls are boring; that's why some people put something on them, and then, you may or may not like what they did put on them.  Take a look at these (boring) walls...

WAL'ART                                                 gertics11

They must be boring so that it has become to be what it is right now, and some may call these as works of art.  But why?  They are just upgraded versions of our doodling during childhood; and what the heck, I can do better by just drawing a single line on a white paper using a pencil; and then call my work a sketch using charcoal.  Also when one gets mad, one can even come up with a unique abstract work that no artist can replicate (and that includes oneself).  Then, another argument comes up to refute the work, and there we go, we have a full-blown debate that might soon deteriorate to a fight.

So, what is art? Is it something that we should rationalize?  At some point, yes, but I think as we go along, we might realize that what weighs more is the unique experience that we have after we had met the artist halfway.  This is also about our subjective connection towards the work; and in this case, it would be actually foolish, especially on the more abstract renditions, if we insist on our understanding and criticism of the work over those held by another.  If I'm the kind of a person that tend to rationalize everything, then art would be something useless; definitely, because it is something that I cannot understand or fully rationalize.  Art leans more on the subjective side, so in this case, we can say that every human being is artistic.  So next time around, say to your frustrated friend, "Everything will be all right, pal. Every person has artistic ability, and soon you will find your proper audience."  (And then, both of you ended up on a tour of different mental institutions.)

Though art tells something about how the artist sees the world at a certain point in time, it is indeed something that we don't really understand.  In this case, if we don't understand one another, at least we can give a compliment; well, depending on the degree of misunderstanding, e.g. "You are such a (great) piece of artwork."

Art has something to do with personal connection, e.g. between the artist and the prospective viewers.  In this case, whether the artist recognizes it or not, there is responsibility involved, especially when presented to a wider audience.  (What if the whole world finds the work offensive? You bet, the outer space is the place to be.)  Now, this is where the responsible and the not-so-responsible artwork enters, and then the boring and the not-so-boring.  Would it be great if we have the not-so-boring and at the same time responsible art pieces scattered around? (But hey, aren't the responsible ones considered *boring* these days?)

Let's face it; there are mediocre art pieces and then the excellent ones. (You gotta be kidding me; those stereotypes are subjective too!).  In the case of the so-called excellent ones - well, like diamonds - they are kind of rare and endured the test of time.  They are considered interesting pieces of work.  Hmm, define interesting?  Interesting means that the work gives greater possibilities for interpretation. (Now, I'm getting more convinced that a piece of dirt on a white paper is one of the most interesting pieces of art ever.)

Think about the Bible.  As the time went on, it has become more and more interesting, and then it endured the test of time, and even more.  From a religious perspective, it has a divine origin; so in that respect, it is a special kind of "art work".  Although it did not dramatically fall from the sky in its current whole form to attest its divine origin, it came from a chorus of several inspired "artists", all of them fallible entities of nature.  By taking the religious perspective, they are fallible entities that came up with extraordinary harmony of gist (you bet; that's the divine part).  Since it is by nature a religious piece of "art work", we should meet the "artists" of the Bible halfway first, meaning it is best to talk to all of them if ever any of them is still alive. (Oh, sorry; I think there's none. So the unbroken lineage of descendants should work.)  And then if one has done that, then it would be apt to find that subjective connection to the work as a whole.

Now going back to those walls that we have here, we should ask the artists first why the walls are so boring, and why draw a big mess on top of them.  Then, we form that subjective connection to the walls, oh sorry, to the big mess on top of them; oh sorry again, I mean, to the art work drawn on them. (Kidding aside, I find these graffiti works cool.)

tree nation and tree world

Tell a story in silence                                (gertics11-01)

Looks like this little corner of the web is having an advocacy run for trees.  So wrapping this up, we should appreciate how they create wonders around us in whatever way they can.  Observe what we have below:

It can be trapped; I got it!                           (gertics11-02)

Somebody caught the bright speck in the sky, and then everybody else is trying to say that it is such an awesome feat, while the others are on the move to steal it (not so much as an evidence for crab mentality though).

Many people are actually fascinated with trees that certain theoretical concepts were named after them.  In order to reflect how wonderful they can be, people have also created weird names with the likes of "B+ Trees", "AVL Trees", "Dancing Trees", "Red-black Trees", "Scapegoat Trees", etc.

People have also attributed complicated stuff to them with the likes of "O(log n)". This one can be a nice ode to a tree: "Oh, log of the N!", where N stands for "north". You can even use "s", e.g. "O(log s)"; just define what "s" means so that you can say "Oh, log of the South!".  This one looks even more intimidating: "O(log e)", and how about "O(log w)" or "O(log w³)"?

Some people even wanted to apologize for cutting trees such that they also invented stuff like "Ω(log log n)", read as "big Omega of log log n", to campaign the end of unnecessary wood chopping.

Some even went as far as making them look smart by giving names like "self-balancing binary search trees", "binomial trees", and "weight-balanced trees".  Well-rounded trees with weight management, anyone? O come on!

Regardless of the regard for trees, it's not bad if they swarm into urban areas, right?  Let's flood our towns and cities with greens (just forgive them when they lose the green property sometimes).

Swarm and coexist                                (gertics11-03)

ode to good ol' wall...

Photo Credit: gertics11

enough said...

but the best wall goes to:

Photo Credit: gertics11

the one adored by the best tree of the season, which attempted to hide in front of it and made us believe that it bore an extraordinarily out-of-the-season fruit entrusted to a lamp post.

paint the earth with trees

Photo Credit: gertics11

well, trees are interesting, and sometimes they do get quirky...

some of them will brush the sky with gloom;
and when they can't get enough of a really good day,
catching a falling glittering speck, they will try, when it gets on their way.

also dream they will, for a change, of swimming near the quay;
oh, the light blue one will do,
for the deep blue one's salt will surely embitter them away.

so how will the others fare?
oh, the boring ordinary trees, you say?
well, look at them they have come up with something too;
nothing new, nothing new though,
'coz that's the old colorful pitch that they usually show off, I swear.