My Day After Tomorrow Review(ish) thing.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
(1) Consolidated Theaters for providing a comfy chair.
(2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
(3) Dreamer.
(4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
(5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
The best summary of the movie comes from "The Simpsons"
"It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
Details follow.
The movie is at its most stunningly accurate in its portrayal
of paleoclimatologists.
Paleoclimatologists are notoriously brave and of course
very fit. Nary a one of us would hesitate to jump a widening
crevasse - twice - while wearing arctic gear - to recover
some ice cores which would take 2-3 hours to re-drill. We're
watching out for *your* tax dollars. Score one for the movie.
Paleoclimatologists are also notoriously handsome/beautiful,
indeed, the envy and despair of other scientists (because
frostbite gives the skin such a youthful appearance). I
cannot fault the producers for failing to cast realistically
good-looking people in these roles (Dennis Quaid barely
qualifies as handsome enough) but I suspect that there
just aren't enough good looking actors in Hollywood to
populate a typical paleoclimatic working group.
Also, we think nothing of writing 50,000 lines of flawless
code in 48 hours. Unlike Jeff Goldblum we don't do it while
drunk. We could if we are allowed to, but NOAA has fallen
victim to "alcoholic correctness".
Now I'm through saying positive things.
The silliest thing in the movie is probably intentional,
and has has nothing to do with science. Our spunky group
of survivors (three high school students, a street person
and his dog, a librarian, etc) are stuck in the NY public
library, their only source of heat an old fireplace. They
have to burn something, but what? The camera pans lovingly
over long wooden tables, chairs, paneling. But what do
they burn? Books, books and only books. And it's a roaring
fire. True, they do burn the tax code first.
At one point we see them breaking up chairs, and I felt that,
perhaps, one of them had read in a book somewhere that wood
will burn, but I should have known better. Who reads fuel?
They use the backs of the chairs for snowshoes, and as far as
I can tell never bother to burn the leftover fragments.
Perhaps *this* film should have been titled "Fahrenheit 451".
Or "Fahrenheit -151". Both work.
One character does cling closely to a Gutenberg bible, lest
some pyromaniac decide it would burn real good.
After the introductory crevasse broad jump we skip to a
climate conference in Delhi - where it is snowing and,
far less likely, Dick Cheney (I forget the name of the veep
in the film, but it's Cheney, no doubt) is in attendance.
Almost the first thing Quaid's character says is (paraphrase):
"We know that North America and Eurasia are only habitable
because of the thermohaline circulation".
Now, kudos to the producers for getting the words "thermo-
haline circulation" into a movie, but even they must know
that much of North America and Eurasia was inhabited, indeed,
*during* the last ice age. By people without central heating,
for that matter. And while we all learned, incorrectly, in
school that "Europe would freeze except for the Gulf Stream",
I don't recall reading anywhere that, say, North Carolina
just doesn't get enough sun to keep warm (looks out of
window - well, it *is* cloudy).
The event Quaid is talking about, a cooling about 8000
years ago, is real. It's severity is exaggerated, but
I find that acceptable. Nobody's going to watch a movie
where it gets slightly cooler in Wisconsin and outdoor
pool sales plummet in Edmonton.
Conservation of energy? Violated. Wide swaths of the North
Atlantic cool by 13 degrees (as scientist is talking to
scientist one would assume Centigrade, but the number is
actually Fahrenheit taken, I believe, from a model study of
thermohaline collapse by Manabe and Stouffer). Where does
this vast amount of energy go? Not into the storms (mechanical
equivalent of heat is inadequate). It just goes away.
Which brings up the question of just what *is* powering the
three Arctic hypercanes which bring on the new and improved
ice age. As they spend much time on land, the ocean heat
loss can't be doing the job. They are more avenging angels
than storms. Actually, could all that fluffy white cloud
(seen from space) be intended to evoke an angel's white
robes? Which would explain why the storms stop at borders,
freezing out the evil, polluting Americans and Europeans, while
not touching Mexico or North Africa (the Atlas mountains
are snow free, Spain covered). Cyclonic avenging angels.
There are almost too many minor errors to mention: A
storm surge is *not* a tidal wave. People, particularly
if already in water up to their waists, *cannot* outrun
a tidal wave. The New York public library building will
not withstand a tidal wave. Und so weiter.
The funniest scene in the movie (and I'm sure it was
intentional) has our friends outrunning frost. As the -150
F air hits Manhattan, we see its motion by the rapid formation
of instant frost in the corridors of the NY library. Frost
moves, like most movie monsters, just slowly enough for
our heros to escape. And like other movie monsters, when
the characters are able to close a door just before being
caught, the Frost Monster does its best to get through.
The inside of the door turns white (apparently wood has
taken on the conducting properties of superfluid helium
but the air in the room is a sufficient insulator).
As to that -150 F air. The hyperhyperhyper Arctic hurricanes
draw air rapidly down from the tropopause to the surface, so
rapidly that "it doesn't have time to warm up". This is like
the old joke, "I have to write this letter fast before I run
out of ink". Descending air does not warm because it gains
heat from its surroundings, it warms because it is compressed.
And as the surface pressure in the eye of the storm doesn't
seem to cause anyone shortness of breath, I'd guess it to be
at least 700mb. So the air would be warm. As a matter of fact
tropopause air isn't at -150 F anyway. More of a balmy -90.
OK, that's a rather esoteric point for a movie, even one
that uses phrases like "thermohaline circulation". They
had to flash-freeze the Mammoths somehow.
The characters in the movie would have to be massively
deepened to be called shallow. The major conflict is
that of the Quaid character, who has missed much of his
son's upbringing owing to his penchant for jumping crevasses
on remote ice shelves. His wife's anger at this I rate at
137 MilliPeeves, where one Peeve equals the feeling you get
then the coffee shop runs out of your favourite creamer, and
you have to use your second favourite. This is understated
acting.
This guilt drives him to extreme stupidity. After telling
his son, stuck in the NY public library, to on no account
go outside he decides to make the trip, alone, from snowy
Washington to icy NY. I'm not sure why, other than so he
can die with his son (he doesn't seem to be carrying arctic
gear for the three students he knows are there), but note that
he has to make much of this trip *outside*. Nobody seems to
note that the trip is utterly unnecessary, resulting only in
the death of one of his friends, who foolishly decline to
let him go alone. In the end they are evacuated by
helicopter when the storm ends *just as he had predicted*.
Not to be outdone in heroism the wife remains behind in a
Washington hospital with a young cancer survivor who can't
be moved except via ambulance. Though the president doesn't
make it out alive, she and the kid get safely to Mexico.
Where Dick Cheney, now converted to environmentalism, says we
will treat the planet better in the future.
Nobody seems to wonder why, with much of Arizona, New
Mexico and Southern California snow free, the US government
had to set up shop in Mexico city. I'm sure Puerto Rico
felt most offended.
The son is having typical teenage trouble telling an
attractive girl that he is kinda-not-attracted to her.
There's almost some plot here when she meets a too-rich,
too-handsome too-tall preppie, but he turns out to be
a good chap (everybody is good except Cheney and a few
people we see for a second or two). She gets sick, they
find out what is wrong via a book they somehow failed to
burn, and get medicine for her in the movie's most surreal
scene (via a Russian ship that has been frozen in the ice
just in front of the library). The helpful Russians have
labeled their antibiotics in English.
In short, This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is
to heart transplant surgery.
But there's some intentional humour (most of which I have
spoiled for you now, I guess), unintentional humour, fun
pictures of disaster, destruction of the remaining part of
the "hollywoodland" sign, ice, and snow, lots of things
falling down, freezing (chills, if not thrills), and loud
noises.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Anthony Nance
<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> <wonderful review snipped>
>
Well done, Dr Hyde, and I happily pledge to buy you a beverage
of your choice should we ever cross paths.
Like many I'm sure, I have been hoping for your review, and
I thank you for doing such a wonderful job with it (and being
a good sport).
Tony
Jim Battista
news:yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
> The best summary of the movie comes from "The Simpsons"
>
> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
Well, there are "wolves," anyway. Amazingly bad CGI wolves. Because
hiring someone with a working wolf/wolf-dog/husky would have been too
easy. My little vallhund in a miniature set a la Night of the Lepus
would have been far more convincing. And cute.
The wolves are really really awful. They look sort of like crosses
between dogs and ponies. They're bad enough that I have to suspect
that the animators had never actually seen a canid, or photos
thereof, before. Naturally, what they seem to have done is described
wolves over the phone to the animators and hoped for the best.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
No 33 Secretary
news:Xns951A8C99CA29...@216.168.3.44:
> The wolves are really really awful. They look sort of like crosses
> between dogs and ponies.
So it's a dog & pony show?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Jim Battista <batt...@unt.edu> said
>wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote in
>news:yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
>
>> The best summary of the movie comes from "The Simpsons"
>>
>> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
>
>Well, there are "wolves," anyway. Amazingly bad CGI wolves.
As bad as the CGI efforts in the =first= 'Lord of the Rings' movie?
(OK, it predated CGI, so it was actually animators with felt-tips, but
what-the-heck).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
David Cowie
>
>
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
>
...
>
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
>
I would also like to thank them. If it had not been for their generosity,
I would not have seen Dr Hyde's most entertaining review ;)
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Containment Failure + 5548:38
Duke of URL
news:yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu...
>
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
> (1) Consolidated Theaters for providing a comfy chair.
> (2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
> caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
> (3) Dreamer.
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
> The best summary of the movie comes from "The Simpsons"
> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
Magnificently done, professor.
--
The One-and-only Holy MosesT
Don Greenfield
>
>
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
>
> (1) Consolidated Theaters for providing a comfy chair.
>
> (2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
> caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
>
> (3) Dreamer.
>
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
>
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
You're welcome. :-)
<snip an excellent review.>
use...@kesinger.com
: As bad as the CGI efforts in the =first= 'Lord of the Rings' movie?
: (OK, it predated CGI, so it was actually animators with felt-tips, but
: what-the-heck).
Cartoonist-Generated Imagery?
==Jake
grey...@yahoo.com
> just in front of the library). The helpful Russians have
> labeled their antibiotics in English.
>
> In short, This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is
> to heart transplant surgery.
>
> But there's some intentional humour (most of which I have
> spoiled for you now, I guess), unintentional humour, fun
> pictures of disaster, destruction of the remaining part of
> the "hollywoodland" sign, ice, and snow, lots of things
> falling down, freezing (chills, if not thrills), and loud
> noises.
>
>
Great fun, as most films, science crap. Good review..
Oh, and you can find the most unusual things on Russian freighters.
--
greymaus
Al Firan RumaiDin
97.025% of statistics are wrong
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
>
> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
>
>
> Details follow.
Well done, sir!
Personally I found this to be the most hilarious comedy I've seen
on the big screen so far this year; I literally injured myself
laughing at it (pulled a muscle in my back). Of course it was not
intended as such but I do feel I got my money's worth in entertainment.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Richard D. Latham
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
>
> (1) Consolidated Theaters for providing a comfy chair.
>
> (2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
> caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
>
> (3) Dreamer.
>
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
>
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
>
>
>
>
>
> The best summary of the movie comes from "The Simpsons"
>
> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
>
>
> Details follow.
>
< snip >
Quite well done ... the review I mean, not the movie .
You should send it off to one of the local papers.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Dreamer
"wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu" <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
>
> (3) Dreamer.
You are entirely welcome. :)
Thank you for a most Amusing review.
D
Robert Carnegie
I hope your sleep centre still works, and that it helps.
In article <yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>, wthyde@g
odzilla.acpub.duke.edu writes
>
>
> The silliest thing in the movie is probably intentional,
> and has has nothing to do with science. Our spunky group
> of survivors (three high school students, a street person
> and his dog, a librarian, etc) are stuck in the NY public
> library, their only source of heat an old fireplace. They
> have to burn something, but what? The camera pans lovingly
> over long wooden tables, chairs, paneling. But what do
> they burn? Books, books and only books. And it's a roaring
> fire. True, they do burn the tax code first.
> Perhaps *this* film should have been titled "Fahrenheit 451".
It's taken. ;-)
> The event Quaid is talking about, a cooling about 8000
> years ago, is real. It's severity is exaggerated, but
> I find that acceptable. Nobody's going to watch a movie
> where it gets slightly cooler in Wisconsin and outdoor
> pool sales plummet in Edmonton.
Well, maybe a remake of _Death of a Salesman_ where the guy
sells outdoor pools. And air conditioning.
> Conservation of energy? Violated. Wide swaths of the North
> Atlantic cool by 13 degrees (as scientist is talking to
> scientist one would assume Centigrade, but the number is
> actually Fahrenheit taken, I believe, from a model study of
> thermohaline collapse by Manabe and Stouffer). Where does
> this vast amount of energy go? Not into the storms (mechanical
> equivalent of heat is inadequate). It just goes away.
Does the undersea what-was-it hydrate turn to gas? I suppose
that'd soak up some.
But I suppose if you turn off the Sun (as in, stop the star from
transmitting heat and other energy onto Earth, which is not as
much as this story does) and expose that large body of water to
vacuum, the /surface/ will freeze (or boil, or both) straight away, but
some way down it'll stay warm. Still, ice floats... it doesn't freeze
the seas /all/ the way down, does it?
> Which brings up the question of just what *is* powering the
> three Arctic hypercanes which bring on the new and improved
> ice age. As they spend much time on land, the ocean heat
> loss can't be doing the job. They are more avenging angels
> than storms. Actually, could all that fluffy white cloud
> (seen from space) be intended to evoke an angel's white
> robes? Which would explain why the storms stop at borders,
> freezing out the evil, polluting Americans and Europeans, while
> not touching Mexico or North Africa (the Atlas mountains
> are snow free, Spain covered). Cyclonic avenging angels.
They know where all the carbon dioxide came up from. It wasn't
the Canadians. (This story evidently freezes the Canadians too,
but they're prepared.) I'm not sure what the Spanish did to
deserve this, but maybe it's a late payback for semi-accidentally
wiping out South America.
> The funniest scene in the movie (and I'm sure it was
> intentional) has our friends outrunning frost. As the -150
> F air hits Manhattan, we see its motion by the rapid formation
> of instant frost in the corridors of the NY library. Frost
> moves, like most movie monsters, just slowly enough for
> our heros to escape. And like other movie monsters, when
> the characters are able to close a door just before being
> caught, the Frost Monster does its best to get through.
> The inside of the door turns white (apparently wood has
> taken on the conducting properties of superfluid helium
> but the air in the room is a sufficient insulator).
Does it superconduct /when/ it's at -150 F? Probably not, or
superconductor researchers would be using it. Although
responsible researchers can't get mahogany any more.
> As to that -150 F air. The hyperhyperhyper Arctic hurricanes
> draw air rapidly down from the tropopause to the surface, so
> rapidly that "it doesn't have time to warm up". This is like
> the old joke, "I have to write this letter fast before I run
> out of ink". Descending air does not warm because it gains
> heat from its surroundings, it warms because it is compressed.
> And as the surface pressure in the eye of the storm doesn't
> seem to cause anyone shortness of breath, I'd guess it to be
> at least 700mb. So the air would be warm. As a matter of fact
> tropopause air isn't at -150 F anyway. More of a balmy -90.
>
> OK, that's a rather esoteric point for a movie, even one
> that uses phrases like "thermohaline circulation". They
> had to flash-freeze the Mammoths somehow.
I don't want to think about what the mammoths must have done,
then, to cause the previous climate crash. I don't want to imagine
the sound of 1,000,000,000 mammoths with runaway flatulence.
Unfortunately, I can't stop. This is going to keep me awake
tonight.
> This guilt drives him to extreme stupidity. After telling
> his son, stuck in the NY public library, to on no account
> go outside he decides to make the trip, alone, from snowy
> Washington to icy NY. I'm not sure why, other than so he
> can die with his son (he doesn't seem to be carrying arctic
> gear for the three students he knows are there), but note that
> he has to make much of this trip *outside*. Nobody seems to
> note that the trip is utterly unnecessary, resulting only in
> the death of one of his friends, who foolishly decline to
> let him go alone. In the end they are evacuated by
> helicopter when the storm ends *just as he had predicted*.
Action, check. Plot, negative.
Action of _Independence Day_, actually. U.S. military force
airborne, powerful totem. Replaced cavalry coming over the hill
around Vietnam movie era, I guess (that is to say, the present
day). Now you get helicopters.
> Not to be outdone in heroism the wife remains behind in a
> Washington hospital with a young cancer survivor who can't
> be moved except via ambulance. Though the president doesn't
> make it out alive, she and the kid get safely to Mexico.
> Where Dick Cheney, now converted to environmentalism, says we
> will treat the planet better in the future.
Aw, they always say that. End of _The Postman_, the politicans
promised the U.S. wouldn't collapse again into anarchy with
occasional warlords. For that matter, I'm pretty sure Morgan
Freeman promised no more asteroid-impact movies for us, and
look what we got.
> Nobody seems to wonder why, with much of Arizona, New
> Mexico and Southern California snow free, the US government
> had to set up shop in Mexico city. I'm sure Puerto Rico
> felt most offended.
It's one thing receiving U.S. patronage. This is /immigration./
This is /refugees./ "What have you done for us lately" kicks in
/real/ quick in the situation.
> The son is having typical teenage trouble telling an
> attractive girl that he is kinda-not-attracted to her.
> There's almost some plot here when she meets a too-rich,
> too-handsome too-tall preppie, but he turns out to be
> a good chap (everybody is good except Cheney and a few
> people we see for a second or two). She gets sick, they
> find out what is wrong via a book they somehow failed to
> burn, and get medicine for her in the movie's most surreal
> scene (via a Russian ship that has been frozen in the ice
> just in front of the library). The helpful Russians have
> labeled their antibiotics in English.
Action, check. Plot, negative. What goes wrong with you that
requires Russian pharmaceuticals to treat?
I suppose wherever the Russkies get their unlicensed AIDS
generics from, they could be labelled in English for the
international market.
Without seeing it, or intending to, I presume this is a filmic nod to
the bit in _Star Trek The Motion Picture_ where the ship is frozen
in space ice and the bridge crew decides to take a stroll on the top
side of the saucer section.
> In short, This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is
> to heart transplant surgery.
>
> But there's some intentional humour (most of which I have
> spoiled for you now, I guess), unintentional humour, fun
> pictures of disaster, destruction of the remaining part of
> the "hollywoodland" sign, ice, and snow, lots of things
> falling down, freezing (chills, if not thrills), and loud
> noises.
Is it fair to say that by suggesting that human civilisation's carbon
dioxide industry could set off climate change - compared to what
most people thought it could do - more strongly, more negatively,
more quickly, and not necessarily in the obvious direction - the
film informs the public?
I mean, a cineaste (or his easy-reading newspaper) looks into the
details of fact, he sees it's a lot less in reality (any of the
parameters I listed) than he figured it was, but it's /there/, which is
a gain on his never thinking much about it.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
John Johnson
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu says...
>
>
> First I'd like to thank the following people/entities:
>
> (1) Consolidated Theaters for providing a comfy chair.
>
> (2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
> caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
>
> (3) Dreamer.
>
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
You're welcome. :-)
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
Thanks for the review--I've been looking forward to it.
--
John Johnson
David Silberstein
>
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
>
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
>
For those just tuning in, here are the highlights of the Series of
Unfortunate Events [1] that lead up to this review:
A warning is issued, and the monetary sum is named:
http://google.com/groups?selm=yv7zhdtw...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
The challenge is accepted:
http://google.com/groups?selm=JM1vc.7061$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
Contributions are made:
http://google.com/groups?selm=m2zn7n5...@amsu.blackfedora.com
Money is pled for:
http://google.com/groups?selm=Pypvc.9347$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
http://google.com/groups?selm=c3997938.04060...@posting.google.com
http://google.com/groups?selm=BCED2C97.33CA0%dre...@dreamstrike.com
Protests are lodged, to no avail:
http://google.com/groups?selm=Hyq1C...@kithrup.com
http://google.com/groups?selm=Hz3qD...@kithrup.com
http://google.com/groups?selm=HzF4A...@kithrup.com
Monetary Goals are achieved:
http://google.com/groups?selm=H72Ac.2067$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
True Grit is shown:
http://google.com/groups?selm=yv7zekoc...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Final status before Zero Hour:
http://google.com/groups?selm=FelAc.15460$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
[ Somewhere in here, Dr. Hyde sees the movie,
and rolls a saving throw for sanity! ]
The review is posted:
http://google.com/groups?selm=yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
[1] Is Dreamer a pseudonym for Count Olaf?
anxious triffid
news:XEv+9YAO...@redjac.demon.co.uk:
> In article <yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu writes
>
>> The event Quaid is talking about, a cooling about 8000
>> years ago, is real. It's severity is exaggerated, but
>> I find that acceptable. Nobody's going to watch a movie
>> where it gets slightly cooler in Wisconsin and outdoor
>> pool sales plummet in Edmonton.
>
> Well, maybe a remake of _Death of a Salesman_ where the guy
> sells outdoor pools. And air conditioning.
>
With compulsory happy ending wherein Willy Loman realises he can convert
the pumps from the swimming pools into rudimentary heating units for in
door use and makes his fortune?
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> Thank you very, very much for stressing your brain on our behalf.
> I hope your sleep centre still works, and that it helps.
>
>
> In article <yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>, wthyde@g
> odzilla.acpub.duke.edu writes
> >
>
> > Conservation of energy? Violated. Wide swaths of the North
> > Atlantic cool by 13 degrees (as scientist is talking to
> > scientist one would assume Centigrade, but the number is
> > actually Fahrenheit taken, I believe, from a model study of
> > thermohaline collapse by Manabe and Stouffer). Where does
> > this vast amount of energy go? Not into the storms (mechanical
> > equivalent of heat is inadequate). It just goes away.
>
> Does the undersea what-was-it hydrate turn to gas? I suppose
> that'd soak up some.
I'm doing the producers the favour of assuming that only
the mixed layer (top 100 meters) is cooling that
rapidly. I think the ocean floor is untouched by
this disaster.
If the whole water column dropped by that amount the
energy output per square meter would, unless I've
dropped a decimal somewhere, be greater than that
of the sun, even if the whole process took two weeks.
How that energy leaves is another story.
> But I suppose if you turn off the Sun (as in, stop the star from
> transmitting heat and other energy onto Earth, which is not as
> much as this story does) and expose that large body of water to
> vacuum, the /surface/ will freeze (or boil, or both) straight away, but
> some way down it'll stay warm. Still, ice floats... it doesn't freeze
> the seas /all/ the way down, does it?
Ice is a reasonable insulator. I assume that if we
experienced a "pail of air" scenario geothermal heat
would keep much of the lower ocean liquid, if not
much above freezing. Is that supposed to be the
situation on Europa, or is tidal heating from Jupiter
more important?
> They know where all the carbon dioxide came up from. It wasn't
> the Canadians. (This story evidently freezes the Canadians too,
> but they're prepared.)
I'd expect a high survival rate up in Keith Morrison's
area. They never get hit by the -150 F eye of the storm.
Sure, summer turns into winter, but they have good winter
gear. Farther south in Canada things would not go so well.
Toronto is in Canada, but I understand that approximately
100,000 of the adult inhabitants don't even have a winter coat.
And those who do may still be in trouble. My winter coat is
more than I need in Toronto, about right for Montreal, nowhere
near enough for winter in Winnipeg.
A temperature of -150 might even overcome "the Nova Scotia
layer system".
We don't really know how cold it gets in areas not hit by
the eye of the three storms. We hear of fifteen feet of
snow in Europe, and summer is evidently not going to come
again, so I expect there to be something of a worldwide
food shortage and massive secondary die-off. And Australian
wines come to dominate the world.
>
> I don't want to think about what the mammoths must have done,
> then, to cause the previous climate crash. I don't want to imagine
> the sound of 1,000,000,000 mammoths with runaway flatulence.
> Unfortunately, I can't stop. This is going to keep me awake
> tonight.
I think we have a prequel here. Could Stephen Baxter
do the script?
> Action, check. Plot, negative. What goes wrong with you that
> requires Russian pharmaceuticals to treat?
In one of the more realistic aspects of the film
she gets an infected cut - she's been waist deep
in water flooding NY, after all. The ship is
the only potential source of antibiotics that
can be reached before the eye of the storm hits.
Plus they have to get the kids out there to play with
the CGI wolves.
>
> I suppose wherever the Russkies get their unlicensed AIDS
> generics from, they could be labelled in English for the
> international market.
It's penicillin. I didn't know that any bacterium other
than treponema pallidum still responded to that. It's
not utterly absurd that the label be in English. But the
kid who finds the medicine is also president of the chess
club, so they missed the chance for a geek joke (I have
more than one friend who has learned Russian so as to
read soviet chess literature).
> Without seeing it, or intending to, I presume this is a filmic nod to
> the bit in _Star Trek The Motion Picture_ where the ship is frozen
> in space ice and the bridge crew decides to take a stroll on the top
> side of the saucer section.
I actually saw that picture. But recall essentially
nothing of it.
> Is it fair to say that by suggesting that human civilisation's carbon
> dioxide industry could set off climate change - compared to what
> most people thought it could do - more strongly, more negatively,
> more quickly, and not necessarily in the obvious direction - the
> film informs the public?
In a very "yes, but..." sort of way.
The disaster in this film is so over the top that I can't
see anyone (other than those who delight in disaster
scenarios) taking it seriously. If anything, a minor
backlash may develop. Has, in fact, begun.
I mean, it *is* based on a book co-written by a man who
claims to have been kidnapped by aliens, more than once.
> I mean, a cineaste (or his easy-reading newspaper) looks into the
> details of fact, he sees it's a lot less in reality (any of the
> parameters I listed) than he figured it was, but it's /there/, which is
> a gain on his never thinking much about it.
At least one climate scientist has argued the same,
that the film is a good thing just because it makes
people aware of the possibility of abrupt climate
change. I'm doubtful.
And if I was going to live long enough, I'd bet serious
money at 100-1 that even if the THC were to weaken
in this century, no ice age would result.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7zacyi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <wonderful review snipped>
> >
>
> Well done, Dr Hyde, and I happily pledge to buy you a beverage
> of your choice should we ever cross paths.
A wiser man now, I am safe to drink with these
days. It was not always so ("You're a dangerous man,
Hyde" remains one of my favourite compliments).
>
> Like many I'm sure, I have been hoping for your review, and
> I thank you for doing such a wonderful job with it (and being
> a good sport).
You (and all the others who have written) are welcome.
Normally I hate writing for a purpose (newsgroup postings),
but not this time.
Tim McDaniel
Because they burn well.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
No 33 Secretary
news:yv7z7jti...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>
>> Without seeing it, or intending to, I presume this is a filmic nod to
>> the bit in _Star Trek The Motion Picture_ where the ship is frozen
>> in space ice and the bridge crew decides to take a stroll on the top
>> side of the saucer section.
>
> I actually saw that picture. But recall essentially
> nothing of it.
>
So you only remember the good parts?
No 33 Secretary
Robot_ when it's out?
Daniel Silevitch
No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>The question now is, how much will it cost you get you to review _I,
>Robot_ when it's out?
Yeesh, pretty soon people are going to propose locking him inside a space
station with a couple of wisecracking robots, and forcing him to watch bad
films ALL THE TIME...
Have you no shame?
-dms
No 33 Secretary
news:F1jGc.7$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
I dunno about you, but I think it would be very, very cool if Dr. Hyde
managed to significantly supplement his income from donations to induce him
to review bad movies.
I wish I could think of a reason why he'd be good for _King Arthur_.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> dms...@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel Silevitch) wrote in
> news:F1jGc.7$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
> > In article <Xns951D89068F4EFta...@216.168.3.50>,
> > No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> >>The question now is, how much will it cost you get you to review _I,
> >>Robot_ when it's out?
Much more than it would have cost before I saw the
preview. It gave me a definite urge to modify Hardin's
dictum about the use of violence.
> > Yeesh, pretty soon people are going to propose locking him inside a
> > space station with a couple of wisecracking robots, and forcing him to
> > watch bad films ALL THE TIME...
I only saw that a few times, caught it late in its run.
> >
> > Have you no shame?
> >
> I dunno about you, but I think it would be very, very cool if Dr. Hyde
> managed to significantly supplement his income from donations to induce him
> to review bad movies.
As do I.
> I wish I could think of a reason why he'd be good for _King Arthur_.
I suspect there are dozens of people on the group who
know more about the Arthur legends than I do.
Herein lies the problem. Even Hollywood can't make enough
climate-related movies to put food on my table. Guess
I'll just have to work.
Daniel Silevitch
>> >>The question now is, how much will it cost you get you to review _I,
>> >>Robot_ when it's out?
>
> Much more than it would have cost before I saw the
> preview. It gave me a definite urge to modify Hardin's
> dictum about the use of violence.
"Violence is the first refuge against the incompetent"
Only had to change two words to get something that applies to Hollywood.
-dms
No 33 Secretary
news:yv7zy8ly...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
> No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> writes:
>
>> dms...@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel Silevitch) wrote in
>> news:F1jGc.7$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>
>> > In article <Xns951D89068F4EFta...@216.168.3.50>,
>> > No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> >>The question now is, how much will it cost you get you to review
>> >>_I, Robot_ when it's out?
>
> Much more than it would have cost before I saw the
> preview. It gave me a definite urge to modify Hardin's
> dictum about the use of violence.
You seem a little skittish about naming an actual price. Though I can, I
suppose, see why.
>
>
>> > Yeesh, pretty soon people are going to propose locking him inside a
>> > space station with a couple of wisecracking robots, and forcing him
>> > to watch bad films ALL THE TIME...
>
> I only saw that a few times, caught it late in its run.
>
>> >
>> > Have you no shame?
>> >
>> I dunno about you, but I think it would be very, very cool if Dr.
>> Hyde managed to significantly supplement his income from donations to
>> induce him to review bad movies.
>
> As do I.
So, then, who's up for donations to get Dr. Hyde's review on _I, Robot_, or
_King Arthur_?
>
>> I wish I could think of a reason why he'd be good for _King Arthur_.
>
> I suspect there are dozens of people on the group who
> know more about the Arthur legends than I do.
>
> Herein lies the problem. Even Hollywood can't make enough
> climate-related movies to put food on my table. Guess
> I'll just have to work.
>
Well, I know a fair bit about the historical period, at least.
Unfortunately, a proper review of all the ways that movie sucks would
involve more obscure references that your review, I'm afraid, and that's
just on the preview.
Scott Lurndal
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> It's penicillin. I didn't know that any bacterium other
> than treponema pallidum still responded to that. It's
Pasteurella multocida is remarkably suceptible to penicillin. DAMHIKT.
Damn cat.
scott
Robert Carnegie
>wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote in
>news:yv7z7jti...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
>
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>
>>> Without seeing it, or intending to, I presume this is a filmic nod to
>>> the bit in _Star Trek The Motion Picture_ where the ship is frozen
>>> in space ice and the bridge crew decides to take a stroll on the top
>>> side of the saucer section.
>>
>> I actually saw that picture. But recall essentially
>> nothing of it.
>>
>So you only remember the good parts?
Some would say perfect recall of /that/ plot...
Robert Carnegie
0>, anxious triffid <anxious...@INFEAROFSPAMfserve.co.uk>
writes
From a Hollywood which Terry Pratchett reports as wanting to
make his _Mort_ into a movie but losing the Death angle, I guess
it would have to be.
I wonder how they're going to make the next couple Harry Potter
movies feelgood.
David Silberstein
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>I wonder how they're going to make the next couple Harry Potter
>movies feelgood.
>
Well, we know they're going to have to trim more and more in
order to get the stories told in a sane amount of time...
My bet: Anything that makes $SPOILER in book 4 a sympathetic
person will go. $SPOILER in book 5 will barely be shown at all.
Mike Simone
> (2) The makers of "I Robot" for providing a preview which
> caused me to think "however bad this is, it isn't 'I Robot'".
> (4) Those who contributed to the charity marathon.
> (5) And above all, those who did *not* contribute as above.
> "It's cold and there are wolves" - Abe.
>
<snip of an excellent review>
> William Hyde
> EOS Department
> Duke University
Thanks for taking one for the team.
Mike Simone
Christopher J. Henrich
In the XVIII century, a revision of King Lear, with a happy ending (in
the last scene, Lear presents Cordelia in marriage to
somebody-or-other) was more popular than the original. Even Dr.
Johnson, usually a tough-minded person, said he could hardly bear to
read Shakespeare's version.
--
Chris Henrich
You can always delay short-term thinking, but you can never delay long-term
thinking.
--Alan Cooper
in...@mistral.net
Give me imagery.
Robert Carnegie
aat_kith...@foilspam.invalid> writes
Um... could you e-mail or crypticise which $SPOILER you have in
mind? Thank you!
(Maybe it's just too late in the evening in this time zone.)
I'm two-thirds the way through "His Dark Materials", and it's getting
pretty dark there, too - but I don't think that's in line to be filmed as
a series.
Actually, some of it is feeling kind of padded, although maybe
because of a lot of difficult stuff that I kind of know about. But a
good amount of travelling long distances to obtain vital plot
coupons, too. When you start thinking wistfully about how Star
Trek or Doctor Who can wedge a sophisticated idea into a plot
running less than an hour, it isn't such a good sign. For that
matter, _Toy Story 2_, while obviously both SF and an existentialist
study of the human condition (well, kind'a; for toys, read parents,
who also cease to be useful at a well-defined cutoff age, unless
they have money), would have made one good episode for
Commander Data. _Toy Story 1_ is a holodeck episode,
probably.
"His Dark Materials" is also riddled with coincidence, but done so
that, at the stage I've got to, it seems to mean something.
I read part 1 way back, decided to save part 2 a while, read it now
along with part 1 again so that I'd know whether to put it on my
soon-due birthday hint list. Which I have done.
David Silberstein
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>In article <I0Gwr...@kithrup.com>, David Silberstein <davids_
>aat_kith...@foilspam.invalid> writes
>>In article <1ZMmKIBN...@redjac.demon.co.uk>,
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I wonder how they're going to make the next couple Harry Potter
>>>movies feelgood.
>>>
>>
>>Well, we know they're going to have to trim more and more in
>>order to get the stories told in a sane amount of time...
>>
>>My bet: Anything that makes $SPOILER in book 4 a sympathetic
>>person will go. $SPOILER in book 5 will barely be shown at all.
>
>Um... could you e-mail or crypticise which $SPOILER you have in
>mind? Thank you!
prqevpqvttbel in book 4, fvevhfoynpx in book 5
Since they both qvrgurqrngu, after all.
Of course, that's just a guess.
Jordan Abel
> In article <J9ApDHA4...@redjac.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>My bet: Anything that makes $SPOILER in book 4 a sympathetic
>>>person will go. $SPOILER in book 5 will barely be shown at all.
>
>
> Since they both qvrgurqrngu, after all.
>
> Of course, that's just a guess.
>
what about qbyberfhzoevqtr? (who i thought you meant originally)
gubhtuvfhccbfrfurvfnovgcybgvzcbegnag.
David Silberstein
Why shouldn't qbyberfhzoevqtr be shown? Gives the audience someone
to loathe and hope for an appropriate comeupance, which occurs.
One could argue that that comeupance wasn't bad *enough*, perhaps.
>gubhtuvfhccbfrfurvfnovgcybgvzcbegnag.
Well, exactly.
Robert Carnegie
t_kithr...@foilspam.invalid> writes
>In article <cckm68$la3$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>Jordan Abel <jmabel...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>David Silberstein wrote:
>>> In article <J9ApDHA4...@redjac.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>My bet: Anything that makes $SPOILER in book 4 a sympathetic
>>>>>person will go. $SPOILER in book 5 will barely be shown at all.
>>>
>>> prqevpqvttbel in book 4, fvevhfoynpx in book 5
>>>
>>> Since they both qvrgurqrngu, after all.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's just a guess.
Seriously: there'd be an outcry from readers. Or there should be.
And the films surely are mainly selling to, and through, readers?
Each of the characters and their personas (I didn't realise you
meant two different people) are fundamentally necessary to the
emotional force of the outcomes of the respective books, and,
evidentlly, later books.
What they /might/ do in the films, I suppose, is abg xvyy gurz -
although that tends to set up problems later on.
>>what about qbyberfhzoevqtr? (who i thought you meant originally)
>
>Why shouldn't qbyberfhzoevqtr be shown? Gives the audience someone
>to loathe and hope for an appropriate comeupance, which occurs.
>One could argue that that comeupance wasn't bad *enough*, perhaps.
>
>>gubhtuvfhccbfrfurvfnovgcybgvzcbegnag.
>
>Well, exactly.
Let's see... fur'f pneevrq bss vagb gur sberfg ol guvf tnat bs
sernxvfu perngherf jvgu rkgen-ynetr qvpxf naq ab cnagf, naq fur
pbzrf onpx va n fgngr bs pngngbavp ulfgrevpny cnenylfvf naq fur
syvapurf jura fbzrbar fnlf "Pyvc-pybc, pyvc-pybc".
Nope, nothing disturbing there...
Robert Carnegie
Christopher J. Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> writes
I can see where he's coming from. The Shakespeare Lear is a
serious bummer of an experience.
Elsewhere in history - Charles Lamb, I think? - the argument is
put that Shakespeare is best appreciated on the printed page, not
on the stage. Actually, it hasn't been four hundred years of
unqualified love for him from English-speaking critics and
audiences; like the British Parliament's Gothic architecture and
strange traditions, and Scottish tartans, it's a question of more
recent advocacy and revival.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:15:49 +0100:
> In article <070720041243237277%chen...@monmouth.com>,
> Christopher J. Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> writes
>>the last scene, Lear presents Cordelia in marriage to
>>somebody-or-other) was more popular than the original. Even Dr.
>>Johnson, usually a tough-minded person, said he could hardly bear to
>>read Shakespeare's version.
> I can see where he's coming from. The Shakespeare Lear is a
> serious bummer of an experience.
Sure it is. He wrote plenty of comedies and dramas and
historically-dubious historicals for the entertainment of women,
children, and men of a weak constitution... When he said "tragedy", he
was serious. The tragedies speak best to me, but I'm like that. I
would prefer that people who don't like tragedies didn't try tacking on
those fucking awful happy endings, but realistically, there's a lot of
weak people out there, a lot of corrupt individuals who will perpetrate
a happy ending in order to make a buck, and yet it is illegal to beat
these people senseless! There ain't no justice.
It's peculiar that it took a Japanese director to make the only good
film version of _King Lear_ so far. I'm hopeful that Brannagh will take
it on eventually, though, since he actually *got* _Hamlet_ and _Henry
V_. His take on _Macbeth_ would be good, too.
> Elsewhere in history - Charles Lamb, I think? - the argument is
> put that Shakespeare is best appreciated on the printed page, not
> on the stage. Actually, it hasn't been four hundred years of
> unqualified love for him from English-speaking critics and
> audiences; like the British Parliament's Gothic architecture and
> strange traditions, and Scottish tartans, it's a question of more
> recent advocacy and revival.
Well, more in between the two. Shakespeare's popularity has clearly
risen and fallen repeatedly, but his works stayed in print and
production for all this time, basically every English speaker uses
phrases he created, and he's almost the reference document for proper
English. That doesn't happen from a faddish revival.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Spontaneous deliquescence is now a protected condition under the Americans with
Disabilities Act." -John J. Reilly, "Cthuluism and the Cold War"