The rains are here

It rained yesterday, rained buckets and buckets, reminding us that the monsoons are nearly upon us here in Chennai.

I spent most of the rain indoors, during both the precipitate beginning, almost without prologue, and the unhurried end, late at night. In the middle, I had to go for a drive through the rain-soaked streets, through the city and through the rain.

I always enjoy the rain. Everyone welcomes it; no one has any rancor towards it, not even the motorcyclists caught in the gale sheltering huddled in petrol bunks and under flyovers. On the shell of my car the raindrops dissolve into white noise, which is strangely soothing and peaceful. Umbrellas are of little use in the downpour, and the roads fill up with puddles and potholes.

A slice of life in the city during the rain. Driving past the Theosophical society, we saw a pair of young lovers (who else could they be?) who had parked a motorcycle near the footpath and were hugging each other oblivious of the wetness, the young man with a rakish little beard, the woman in a hijab – all the more surprising – her face lit up in a smile. They were laughing the careless laughter of the youth in love, snatching a moment of privacy behind the curtain of the rain.

Farther down, a group of young boys – three, perhaps four, none older than fifteen. Happy, delirious, rain-drenched. They were stepping through the puddles, jumping in the pools, their raucous laughter completely and hopelessly drowned out by the downpour. One of them had his shirt off, dancing with unaffected joy, swinging his arms and legs with graceful effortlessness silhouetted by street-lamps, no doubt in celebration of something more momentous than the weather.

Returning, a group of four – two men, two women – their body language indicating, perhaps, two stranger couples – sharing an umbrella as they dashed towards a bus stand.

A car, the driver obviously in a hurry to reach somewhere, but nonetheless driving in fits and starts, slowing down for each pedestrian he passed by, and speeding up immediately after, seeking perhaps to avoid drenching them with puddle-water.

Flower-sellers valiantly stowing away their goods, working rapidly under polythene sheets. They never work alone, some shops manned by no one, others manned by three or four, almost always women, one holding up the plastic sheet, another packing up, unlikely, even in that proximity, that they can make themselves heard.

We spare a thought for the destitute, the pavement dwellers and the beggars, but they too have their well-wishers, their good samaritans, and everyone eventually finds a shelter.

There is an urgency in everyone, but this is a different urgency, this urgency of the Sunday evening thunderstorm, so different from the hurry of the weekday where everyone rushes but with the faint knowledge that it is all a sham; but this is real; there are houses to go to, merchandise to protect, the storm will pass in a few hours but now we have only a few minutes to find dryness somewhere.

And what, too, is more delectable than the dryness in the thunderstorm? watching the rain flood a little balcony, on the trees beyond, following so shortly after the full moon, from the dimly lit interior of a warm unmoist house?

When the rains begin, they bring out the best in this city of ours.

I don’t believe in evolution

I don’t understand how evolution works. And I am not sure if I believe in evolution at all.

Perhaps I should go and read a good book about it, which I haven’t had the good fortune to do for all these years. But as things stand, my layman interpretation of evolution leaves large holes which are slowly overwhelming my schoolboy belief in evolution itself.

The big question I have is about the dynamics of evolution. Sure, I get the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ – it’s obvious that if there are a group of a thousand creatures, ostensibly of the same species but in which one group had a higher chance of success, that group would eventually dominate (and perhaps exterminate) the other group.

The hookey parts of evolution come up when people start talking about ‘random mutations’ causing adaptations. This is wholly unbelievable to me.

I heard an example many years back – in my school days – and I do not know if it is factually correct, but it nonetheless is a good example of fallacious reasoning about evolution. Apparently, a tribe living in the Amazon rain-forests carried wood through large tracts of jungle as part of their livelihood. In some convoluted fashion (which I cannot remember), this wood-carrying ability was critical in their ability to eke out a living in their hunter-gatherer way of life. The way this tribe would carry timber was to balance logs on their shoulders, resting them just below the neck.

As the story goes, when this tribe was studied by anthropologists, it was found that they had abnormally thicker skin in the shoulder area, which was much more resistant to chafing or injury. This was held up (for me) as a classic story of evolutionary adaptation. The hypothesis was that a group of people in this tribe had thicker skin (for random reasons), and this created a higher chance of survival, therefore the trait for this was propagated through the entire community over a few generations.

(I am reminded of a racist joke that one of my friends told me some years back about why some Africans are so tall – because they have to jump for food aid packets dropped from airplanes, the taller ones have the evolutionary advantage.)

A more credible example is the high prevalence of sickle-cell anemia among people living in those parts of Africa that  have a high risk of malaria; while sickle-celled RBCs have health risks, these are more than offset by the benefit of having a lower chance of contracting (and dying from) malaria, so it confers an evolutionary advantage. And according to evolutionists, while the first sickle-cell person was a random mutation, this conferred such an evolutionary advantage that a majority of the population eventually acquired this characteristic.

My concern with this theory is the extrapolation from ‘increased chance of survival in one organism’ to ‘widespread prevalence in the species’. I think this would be true only in the most extreme cases, where the conferred ability is so dramatic that it somehow creates a ‘superman’. In the timber-carriers example, imagine that one individual suddenly and randomly was born with thicker shoulder skin. Yes, this confers an increased chance of life and procreation – but how much increase? Considering that there are probably a million other factors that affected this individual’s longevity and fertility, I would say the increase is likely to be less than 1%. It would be a miracle, more or less, for this 1% to pay off in the form of enough discrimination in life and reproduction that it becomes widespread among the entire species.

So the chance that an adaptation is propagated because of a single mutated individual is low.

Another objection is the precise nature of gene mutations that cause such a specific ‘enhancement’ to occur. Is it a single gene that governs sickle-cell production in a human being? It seems a bit unlikely. And if the mutation hit more than 1 gene, what is the likelihood that the only effect of the mutation is a single, specific enhancement? It seems far more possible that, instead, the mutation would cause a disability – the inability of the individual to perform certain acts – rather than an enhancement. So this whole random mutation concept has a stink of improbability around it.

What if mutation took ‘multiple paths’? That is, instead of originating in a single individual, it originated as a mutation in, say, 1% of the population over 1 generation. Then the chances of the 1% advantage in 1% of the population eventually translating into improved ability to live and multiply is much higher. The risk is lower, the chances work out.

But for this to happen, there is an important missing link. And that’s the causal link between the environment and the mutation.

The theory of evolution would be much more compelling if there was a mechanism by which the livelihood of a wood-carrier somehow worked its way into that individual’s DNA over a period of time. For example, if repeated (non-fatal) malaria attacks somehow caused the mutation rather than the other way round (viz. that the mutation caused the malaria attacks to be non-fatal). In other words, the human body (or more generally, any living being) has a feedback cycle by which an environmental factor – such as lighting, or stress, or cell death – finds its way into the DNA as a sort of ‘micro-mutation’. The body would either keep or reject this micro-mutation through a process of internal Darwinian survival, until eventually this mutation was transmitted to the next generation. The key here is that since the mutation is not random, it happens in multiple organisms within the species simultaneously (albeit randomly) and therefore dramatically increases the survival differential between the haves and the have-nots (so the speak).

I have long been fascinated by this possibility for a very selfish reason – because if such a feedback cycle exists, it represents the holy grail of Engineering. That is what we should mimic as engineers – a design process that somehow triggers mutations in existing organisms, causing them to ‘develop’ better solutions to the problems that their environments throw at them.

More on this in a later post. But I am very eager for reading material – if anyone has a reading list for evolution, please send it to me!

Warm rain (redux)

This I had to post: one of my buddies – Droopy – saw my post on Warm rain, and sent me a mail that one of his friends sent him. This one about warm rain in Mecca, on June 5th.

Droopy’s friends are oceanographers and climate scientists, so it isn’t surprising that the mail he forwarded was full of explanation for the warmth of the rain.

First, the news article that reported this:

June 7, 2012 – SAUDI ARABIA - Pilgrims to the holy city of Mekkah (Mecca), Saudi Arabia must have been astonished on Tuesday afternoon, when the weather transformed from widespread dust with a temperature of 113°F (45°C) to a thunderstorm with rain. Remarkably, the air temperature during the thunderstorm was a sizzling 109°F (43°C), and the relative humidity a scant 18%. It is exceedingly rare to get rain when the temperature rises above 100°F, since those kind of temperatures usually require a high pressure system with sinking air that discourages rainfall. However, on June 4, a sea breeze formed along the shores of the Red Sea, and pushed inland 45 miles (71 km) to Mekkah by mid-afternoon. Moist air flowing eastwards from the Red Sea hit the boundary of the sea breeze and was forced upwards, creating rain-bearing thunderstorms. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the highest known temperature that rain has fallen at, anywhere in the world. He knows of one other case where rain occurred at 109°F (43°C): in Marrakech, Morocco on July 10, 2010. A thunderstorm that began at 5 pm local time brought rain at a remarkably low humidity of 14%, cooling the temperature down to 91°F within an hour. Thunderstorms often produce big drops of cold rain, since these raindrops form several thousand meters high in the atmosphere, where temperatures are much cooler than near the surface. Some drops even get their start as snow or ice particles, which melt on the way to the surface. Additional cooling of the drops occurs due to evaporation on the way down. However, in the case of the June 4, 2012 Mekkah storm, I think the rain was probably more like a hot shower. Thus, the thunderstorms’ raindrops would have been subjected to 100 seconds of some very hot air on the way to the surface, likely warming them above 100°F by the time they hit the ground. With the air temperature a sizzling 109°F (43°C) at the time of the June 4 thunderstorm in Mekkah, the raindrops could easily have been heated to a temperature of over 105°F (41°C) by the time they reached the surface! On Saturday, June 2, the temperature in Mekkah hit 51.4°C (124.5°F), a new record for the city, and just 1.1°F (0.6°C) below the all-time hottest temperature record for Saudi Arabia (125.6°F, or 52°C, recorded at Jeddah on June 22, 2010.) I expect that 20 – 40 years from now, we’ll begin seeing occasional cases where rain falls at a temperature above 117°F (47°C) in the desert regions of North Africa and the Middle East.

The following email was written by Lance Bosart, my friend’s friend:

Life has been a bit tough in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, of late. First they had the hell (51.4 C) on 2 June 2012, a new record for the city, and then they had the “hot” water three days later (5 June) in the form of a thunderstorm (try not to cringe too much at some of the purported physical explanations such as “high” surface pressure over an intensely heated desert). Motivated by the story, I pulled up the metar observations (appended below) for Mecca (OEMK) and Jedda (OEJN). OEJN is located on the coast of the Red Sea and OEMK is situated ~70 km inland.

I had to look up metar. It’s apparently a format for reporting weather information. More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METAR. But to continue:

The OEJN metar observations show typically hot and humid conditions with a climatological expected WNW wind down the Red Sea. Inland at OEMK, a temperature/dew point of 47/12 C was reported at 1100 UTC 5 June with a wind from 2204 (the wind was calm in previous hours. At 1200 and 1300 UTC, the temperature/dew point was 45/17 C with continued light WSW of 4-5 kt. The observed 5 C increase in dew point is suggestive that modified coastal moisture reached far inland. The attached SLP, 1000-500 hPa thickness, and precipitable water (PW) analysis (courtesy of Heather Archambault) shows PW values between 22-30 mm over the Red Sea and thickness values near 588 dam over most of Saudi Arabia.

I assume ‘dam’ means decameter. But I may be mistaken. SLP is sea-level pressure. Here is the SLP diagram:

Lance continues:

A 1200 UTC 5 June, an attached sounding taken from Al-Madinah (40430), Saudi Arabia, (located between Jedda and Mecca), courtesy of the University of Wyoming, shows a surface-based mixed layer extending to 550 hPa and an airmass devoid of CAPE and shear. Of interest is the shallow layer of midlevel moisture between 550-500 hPa. If a surface-based air parcel could reach 500 hPa then a high-based thunderstorm could be possible. Modifying the Al-Madinah sounding to reflect the observed surface dew point increase of 5 C to 17 C at Mecca, shows that mid-level CAPE would be present. At issue, is whether the the observed surface moistening and (presumed) weak convergence with the implied sea-breeze passage at Mecca was sufficient to allow air parcels to reach their LFC? Given the reported thunderstorm and rain, and the “cooling” and drying to 40/12 C in the 1400 and 1500 UTC meter observations, the question arises as to how much rain must have fallen to allow the observed cooling. The absence of any reported strong winds during the time a thunderstorm and rain was reported suggests that the rain was scant and likely evaporated well above the surface. I don’t have a good explanation as to why the surface dew point decreased back to 12 C under these conditions.

This is, unfortunately, a bit dense for me. I tried googling CAPE and I think it stands for ‘convective available potential energy’. But I couldn’t really understand what it means in this context. CAPE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy

Similarly, I don’t really understand what a ‘high-based thunderstorm’ means. LFC means ‘level of free convection’. Again, all I can do is to point you to the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_free_convection

So if I understand this right – and most probably I don’t – sea breeze met moist air in an area of high pressure, and this caused the dew point (at which water vapor becomes rain) to become rather high, causing rain.

This is real science, folks! If anyone can explain it to me, I would be really grateful.

Here is another curve that Lance attached. It is called a Skew-T plot, and it maps pressure to specific volume. It’s a thermodynamic thing – I know nothing more.

 

Warm rain

Wherever I end up in this wide world, if I ever need a reason to come back to Chennai every year it’s this: warm rain.

We saw the first rains of the summer today. It was a 15-minute shower, a drizzle really, but it marks the official end of peak summer. The rain caught me just as I was beginning a run in the IIT stadium. There is nothing quite as nice as being in the Institute when the rains start. The drops pound the earth, and the scent of summer heat slowly sizzles up and evaporates. And the rain is warm. It’s like standing in a warm shower, the rain perfectly the temperature of the human body, feeling the liquidness without feeling the cold. Warm rain – it’s worth waiting all May for.

Talking of rain, I read an interesting article yesterday about mosquitoes and rain. Apparently, even a single raindrop weighs as much as 50 mosquitoes. Nonetheless, mosquitoes have a gala time flying in the rain. When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it’s the equivalent of a car falling on top of a human being. How, then? The mosquito survives because it moves with the raindrop – the impact force is low, because it doesn’t change the momentum of the raindrop. After several bodylengths of movement, it slowly disengages by kicking its long legs out.

Falling with the rain: if there’s a metaphor that ought to describe success in life, that’s probably it.

Here’s the article: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article3497506.ece

I also read somewhere else that for bats, its twice as hard to fly in the rain as it is to fly in dry weather. So if you like the rain, it’s better to be a mosquito than a bat.

The only thing better than being in hot Chennai when the rain starts is to be in Kerala when the monsoons start. Though I used to go to Kerala nearly every summer as a kid, I’ve only been there for the start of the monsoons twice, maybe thrice. The experience is completely overwhelming. The rain pours down like a waterfall, and you can only see maybe 3 feet in front of you. The greenery makes the whole monsoon come alive. I remember talking longingly about the Kerala rains with Rap, and agreeing with him that there’s nothing in the world quite like sitting on a porch in a large house in Kerala, reading a great book, eating jackfruit chips, and watching the rain outside.

But the Chennai rain – there’s nothing quite like it, either. No wonder that much lyrical Tamil poetry has been written about the monsoons and the red, clayey soil of this State…

What could be my mother be
to yours? What kin is my father
to yours anyway? And how
did I ever meet you?
But in love our hearts are
mingled beyond parting:
as red earth and pouring rain.

The poet is known only as Sembula Peyaneerar – “he of the red earth and pouring rain”.

PS: The Tamil version –

யாயும் ஞாயும் யாரா கியரோ
எந்தையும் நுந்தையும் எம்முறைக் கேளிர்
யானும் நீயும் எவ்வழி யறிதும்
செம்புலப் பெயனீர் போல
அன்புடை நெஞ்சம் தாங்கலந் தனவே.

A great discovery in pre-history

If you ask ten people what they think the greatest discovery of pre-history is, chances are nine of ten will say fire.

But the discovery that fascinates me the most is the discovery of the link between sex and pregnancy.

Think about it – it’s a difficult deduction to make. The ‘outward’ signs of pregnancy don’t start until a few weeks from the date of intercourse. And I imagine that in a number of cases, there must have been a lot of activity happening between the moment of conception and the moment when the pregnancy became obvious. So – who was that genius who first made the connection between a fleeting incident that happened in the dark several months ago, and the baby that was born?

Until recently, this was just a nagging question at the back of my mind which I would blurt out an inappropriate moments of drunkenness at large parties, and immediately get weird looks from the rest of the crowd. But recently, I found that there was actually serious research that was being done to answer this question. And it’s very interesting, really.

When I pondered the question, there were two possible ways in which I thought this discovery may have been made. The first possibility was that old people, who had seen several children being born (or who had several children) may have made the correlation. But this seemed unlikely, given that the sexual act back in the day was probably not endowed with the ceremony that precedes it today. So there was most likely no ‘comparing of notes’ between old women and a discovery suddenly made.

I think the second possibility is more likely – that mankind knew for sure that sex equals babies when people started the practice of keeping domesticated animals. The gestation cycle for many animals is much smaller than it is for humans. I figure, the first big discovery was the discovery that a man is needed for pregnancy. The next big discovery was that sexual intercourse is needed. And it was possibly much later that the actual mathematics of it – the gestation period – was discovered.

That’s an interesting hypothesis, because it means that the discovery was made only after the discovery of agriculture and animal husbandry. That would put it in the early neolithic – about 10,000 years back. Which is comparatively recent, by archaeological standards. Also interesting is the fact that there is a major difference between human and animal reproduction, namely the lack of ‘estrus’. I came to know this interesting word from my buddy Joe, who wanted me to build a machine for him that would detect when a cow would go into heat – or technically, enter estrus – so that she could be inseminated during that small window. Human females don’t (I think) enter heat – most domesticated animals do. So it took a level of abstraction for the early thinkers to discard the complication of estrus before realizing that in the case of humans, it’s much simpler.

For some reason, intuition tells me it was likely a woman who first made the big discovery. We always talk of the man who discovered fire; now we should also give an equal place in our pantheon of scientists to the woman who discovered baby-making.

 

On birding

We’re planning a trip to Hesaraghatta tomorrow, and I was thinking about why I like bird-watching.

I started birding only in 2009, and even since that time, I have been, at best, a very low-intensity birder. Most of my birdwatching trips are morning drives to places which are not more than 50km away, so I’m not an expert by any means. I can, however, tell a black-capped kingfisher, a common kingfisher and a brown-winged kingfisher from each other, for what it’s worth.

The thrill of bird-watching is the thrill of recognition. Yes, most birdwatching sites are peaceful and beautiful. Yes, most birding takes place during dawn or dusk, where the weather and noise levels are typically at their best. And yes, a nature lover likes any form of nature – birds included. But bird-watching is a bit more than all of that. The first time you see a new bird, and someone points it out to you, it is a moment of introduction. And when you see a bird of that same species once again, it is a moment of realizing that this isn’t just another nameless creature in the sky; you actually know what its name is, and you remember the other times you saw it in the wild.

The first time I took any interest at all in birding was when I spent a week in the Sunderbans, in 2009. There, we had an amazing guide – his name was Sujith Kumar Raptan – could tell a brown-winged from a black-capped from the call alone. In those 5 days, navigating those muddy waters in a boat misnamed “River Queen”, he pointed out about 40 different species of birds to us - everything from pond heron to lesser adjutant stork. In the beginning, they were only names; when he started repeating himself, that’s when I started showing interest; when I started identifying them on my own, I realized it was a hobby that could last a lifetime.

Soon after my return from the Sunderbans, I invested in two pieces of field equipment to further my quest. The first – a pair of binoculars. In retrospect, I am proud of my choice: the Nikon Monarch 8×42, which has proven to be an incredibly durable and accurate investment. The second - Salim Ali’s book of Indian birds. Though my more knowledgeable friends claim Salim Ali’s book isn’t the best in the market, it’s the best known. And even in the encyclopaedic tone that the book is written in, I can still find nuggets – like his opening sentence, “Even those people who know nothing about birds save that some of them are good to eat, know this, that they can fly.”

Also memorable is a quote of Salim Ali’s that is inscribed at the entrance of the lovely Ranganthittu bird sanctuary, about 4 hours drive from Bangalore. He says: “Man does not live by bread alone. Just look at the people who have no hobbies and spend all their time solely in earning a living. After fifty when they retire from official chair-warming, they don’t know what to do with all the time in their hands and just spend it watching the clock! If they cultivated a hobby like bird watching – it is very healthy because you have to be out of doors to watch birds – they would have lived longer to enjoy their pension.”

I have the good fortune of making most of my birding trips with Ravi, who is a keen wildlife photographer. Here is his blog: http://ravi-sundar.blogspot.in/

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers