Pride

Tonight, at bedtime, after all the fuss and all the wringing of hands and stomping of feet, I experienced the proudest moment, to-date, of my fatherhood.

My son (six and 3/4 years old) was finally in bed when he called his mom for something and since I was there I opened the door. He wanted one of his pillows, which was down stairs.

He was sitting on his bed, next to the window, with the blinds open, in the fading light, marking his place in the Harry Potter 1 book, and wanted the pillow to prop himself up just a bit more so he could read until the light had died completely.

I learned to read before we had any electricity at home and put myself to bed reading with a kerosene lantern (or a dieing flashlight when everyone else wanted to sleep) and have the sharpest vision (20/15 on the Snellen scale) of anyone I know. Yes, I know that a "statistic" of one is completely unscientific, but I have no concerns for his eyesight.

I gave up on the HP books after the third one because the story was boring and repetitive. I hear that it gets better later, but...meh. I have so many other things to read and I'm just not that interested. However, just about anything dear son wants to read is fine with me. He wants to read HP1, he reads HP1. He wants to read it in the faintest light, he reads it in the faintest light.

Travel to Australia

This is not a science post. I am decompressing figuratively and literally (my spine is probably several millimeters shorter than before my over-seas trip). Right now, it's a complaint post. Perhaps in a few paragraphs it'll become better. Certainly in a few days I'll post something worth reading, with pictures.

Let me preface these whines by saying that I had an absolutely wonderful time.

I've been awake going on 28 hours with only a few hours sleep before then. I have done longer stretches of wakefulness, often enjoying them, but those 28 hours were not doing something enjoyable, they were spent stuck in a box with... well, read the rest. I really did have a great time. I just like to whine first then talk about the fun stuff later.

1) people who wear perfume suck more than people who smoke, and in my book smokers are the ultimate in antisocial. Why? Because:
A) It isn't killing them, so they'll continue to do it until they're dead, and they'll wear more and more as the years drag on.
B) It is legal in airplanes, restaurants, etc.
C) It stinks as much as and sometime more than cigarette smoke.
D) Petuli wearers: I'm a self-described hippy, but I could easily convince myself that the life-sentence would be worth washing that stench from your body with nitric acid followed by a copper bath (google it). Especially when that crap is worn inside a closed space, and especially after being awake for more than an entire day. You stink. A lot.
E) Perfume DOES NOT EVER smell good or attractive or sexy or any other such crap. Just disgusting. And the same goes for the perfume men wear. They all smell like a chemical factory, not a human being.
F) Those of us who are allergic don't get relief except through a drug like benadryl.

2) Airport Customs hallways must be designed for bleakness. If you have never seen the movie Joe Vs. The Volcano, go see it. Think of the opening office scene(s), but magnified in bleakness and then compressed into tighter, more airless hallways. I have yet to encounter a pleasant customs area. "Welcome to our Wonderful Country. DO NOT ENJOY IT. Also, Do not bring in nuts; we hate nuts." And there are always perfume wearers.

3) Airplane seats that are leather or faux leather or fake leather or nagahide are not plush, they're not high society, they're not chic, they're not special, they're just uncomfortable. I slip, I slide, and I cannot find a comfortable position. I refuse to lean my seat back if someone is behind me because I always feel like applying the nitric acid-copper bath (see above) to people who do it to me.

4) Americans cannot make a salad. The worst purchased salad I had in Australia was leagues above the best salad I've purchased in the USA. Seriously. Well, okay, that's not entirely true, but it is certainly true that the worst Aussie salad (being just "rocket" and tomatoes) was much, much, much better than the shit people call salad at most take-outs and many sit-down restaurants here in the US. Iceberg? Doesn't exist in the rest of the world. We apparently invented that to complete our descent into tastelessness.

5) Traveling with a young child and not losing it (the mind or the child) is amazingly difficult. I've done it domestically a lot, but I truly feel for those fools who go overseas with more than one. Seriously, how in the world can you keep track of more than one? Maybe that's the trick: if you bring more than one, you can afford to lose one or two.... Hmmm...

6) People in other countries are much nicer to travelers than are people in the US. I have heard of the southern hospitality but haven't actually experienced it when I've traveled to that side of my country. In Aus, people were either genuinely happy to have you staying/eating/visiting/whatevering with them or they were the best actors I've ever seen. The same goes for Switzerland. I'm willing to bet that I've just been lucky, but I'm a pessimist.

7) Big cities are pretty much all alike. There are a few places worth visiting, those places usually charge some sort of entrance fee, and the locals don't want the tourists to find out about their favorites, which are free. The public transportation system always has its own convoluted logic but usually works once it is understood. Finally, the very best places to go are out of the city, but they're a pain to get to from the city. Don't get me wrong, Sydney has some very interesting sites to visit, but next time we're going to the small towns or where there are no towns at all.

8) Skivvy dipping in the Tasman Sea in the middle of southern winter is quite an experience. It's cold out there.

View Larger Map

9) Seeing little penguins coming out of the Tasman sea onto the beach at night to nest is pretty cool.

10) Platypus(es) are smaller than I thought they would be, but they're pretty cool to see.

11) Oh, right, I'm supposed to be whinging.

12) Tasmanian locals are insane drivers. First of all, I am certain that there is not a straight 10 km stretch of road anywhere in Tasmania. Their "highways" are two-direction country roads without shoulders to us. They have maximum speeds of 100 km/hr (62 mph), which I usually stayed well under by at least 20%. The locals drove faster by at least 20%. They also don't know which side of the road they're supposed to on. Seriously. I only had one or two times in parking lots where I found I was on the wrong side of the road (because there weren't any stripes so I couldn't keep a stripe to my left), but on the main roads, I would have locals come around a corner entirely in my lane, take their sweet time (at 120 km/hr; ~75 mph) getting back into their lane, and look at me like I was at fault. Also, they pass on wet, blind turns.

13) In the southern hemisphere, the sun is always in the wrong place. I knew this would be the case, but it still screwed me up. Orienteering or rogaining in winter down there would be a nightmare for me. I really, really, need to get a good compass if I plan to go back for some hiking.

That's all for now. I'm home. I'm glad I went, and I'm glad to be home.

Why do I get cold when I get out of the pool?

Sonny boy is taking swimming lessons again. His lips turn purple when he gets out of the pool, and he is sometimes unable to stop shivering. So, yesterday, he asked me "why do I get cold when I get out of the pool?"

Good question.

First of all, as you all know that water on your skin is evaporated away into the dry air. For water to change phase from liquid to gas requires input of energy (this is called the latent heat of vaporization). If your body is covered in water and the vapor pressure of water in the atmosphere is low enough, the water will want to evaporate. The evaporation requires heat input. The film of water on your body draws that heat from...your body, primarily. The air is, of course, another source, but most of the heat required to change the water to gas comes from your body.

Water has a latent of vaporization of 2441 kJ/kg at 25 degrees Celsius (by the way, centigrade is a meaningless term. There are no degrees centigrade.).

Let's say that a 6-year-old with a height of about 137 cm (4.5 feet for you weirdos) and a weight of about 25 kg (55 pounds...) has a volume of about 25 liters (average human density is about 1010 kg/m^3). Now, as all good physicists do, let's approximate this 6-year-old as a sphere with a volume of 25 liters. That gives us a surface area of .4 m^2 and a radius of 18 cm. Let's assume that there is a 1 mm layer of water on this spherical child. That's a volume of 409 milliliters or .409 kg.

It takes approximately 1000 joules to cause the phase change of this water. A completely unmeasured guess at how quickly Sonny lost heat is that he was shivering within a few seconds of exiting the pool. He had more than 1 mm of water on him, most of which was dried off with a towel. So, let's say he lost about 1000 joules in about 30 seconds. That's about 120kJ joules per hour.

This article talks about heat loss in sedentary people at various temperatures. The average heat loss due to evaporation was about 62 kJ/m^2/hour. Corrected for Son's surface area of 0.4 m^2, we get 300 kJ/m^2/hour, or about five times the sedentary rate of cooling.

You are more likely to lose body temperature (due to evaporation) in a warm, dry place such as AZ than in a cool, wet place like WA. The relative humidity in Flagstaff, AZ in June in the morning is 54% and 21% in the afternoon, but is 83% and 53%, respectively in Seattle. This is why it's easier to get heat exhaustion from 80 degree temperatures in Atlanta (84% and 56% in June) than from 110 degrees in Tucson, AZ (32% and 13% in June); your sweat isn't as effective at removing heat from your body because it's more difficult for it to evaporate.

Wind will cause what's called "forced convection" in which heat is whisked away by the movement of the air around your body (it's more complicated, but that's for another day, perhaps).

So, is there any way to stop kiddo from having purple lips and looking like a goth at 6? Not really. If the pool area had higher humidity, that would slow the evaporation, but people would probably complain about it. Similarly for keeping the pool area warmer (this would allow more heat to come from the air rather than the body). The best way is to dry the kid off as quickly as possible.

Why do dalmations have spots?

This was from Son's Highlight's magazine, but it's an interesting question to me because it involves evolution, though not exactly as Darwin imagined it nor exactly as it works over eons to produce humans from mice. As you read this, remember that I am not a biologist.

Basically, because people like the genetic mutation that make some dalmations spotted, people breed spotted dalmations more than dalmations with splotches. Aside: Of course, such inbreeding eventually leads to excessive genetic problems. In the case of dalmations, "purebreds" are very likely to experience the dog equivalent of kidney stones.

So, what does this have to do with evolution. This is basically microevolution.

In this case, we have a particular genetic mutation (spots vs. splotchs) and a particular desire for spots by would-be purchasers, the "environmental stress" is effected by the breeders choosing to breed only those dogs with desirable spot patterns. Over time, in the population of dalmations that are bred in this way, there will be fewer and fewer dalmations born with splotchs rather than spots.

This is a very simplified example of evolution, with a million problems. Get over it. Evolution is fact.

I've been somewhat combative in my recent posts, including this one. I should (and do) apologize to you few loyal readers.

Paper Money

This is a rant.

The conversation went something like this:

Son: "Dad, we should stop buying things because they cut down trees to make money."

Dad (thinking): "Damn straight. We should stop buying things for that and many, many other reasons."

Dad (saying): "Well, we usually spend money through computers, so we don't use very much paper money. But, you're right, we should not buy as much as we do."

The point is that my six-year-old son is more concerned about the future of his planet that the morons who are ruining it. And, while I usually directly relate childishness with big businesses and their cronies in DC, this time it seems even a child has more forethought. "Go shopping" indeed.

So, now that we allowed eight years of obstructionism by the big energy lobby and short-sightedness by the rest of the Senate during Clinton's administration and eight years of head-in-the-sand myopia by the Bush administration, we've got less than ten years to decrease our CO2 production by 80%. Ten years, and we haven't even begun to agree on its necessity.

"I'm sorry, son. We thought it was more important that people be able to continue shopping like they always have."

I want to end this post on a higher note, so I'm linking to a blogger who is doing her little bit by writing to her congresscritters.

Livestock as Industry: No Way To Make it Work

I've been reading a lot about various global climate change causes and implications recently because I've been asked to talk to a local high school chemistry class about energy and sustainability. Most of what I want to talk about I can't because of time limitations. I'm going to rant here instead.

In looking at dust storm activity in the US Southwest, I came across this paper (PDF).

It discusses the impacts of multi-decadal grazing on soil properties in southeast Utah. Basically, the point is that over-grazing does a few things to the soil:

1. It destroys the cyanobacteria, lichens, and mosses in the upper part of the soil. This causes loss of nitrogen in the soil. As you all know, nitrogen fixing is necessary for the generation of proteins and DNA, and is therefore necessary for life. When the nitrogen fixing stops, the soil loses its life-sustaining capabilities. Nitrogen levels in the grazed soils vs. the ungrazed soils was 60-70% less.
   
2. Carbon, another essential ingredient for life is decreased by 60-70% as well.
3. The loss of life on these soils allows wind erosion to increase dramatically, which reduces the amount of Mg, Na, P, and Mn by 14-51% (different for the different elements).
4. Silts are decreased by 38-43%.

Basically, nutrients of all kinds are lost from these grazed lands. It's been 30 years since the last cow was grazed there, and the lands have not recovered; cyanobacteria takes at least 100 years to recover.

What does this mean for climate change? Well, for one, the loss of nutrients to erosion makes the drylands of Utah more sensitive to small variations in moisture variability. What was once considered a dry spell will be a drought. Higher sensitivity to rainfall will also quickly cause decreases in plant life. Plants, bacteria, mosses, lichen, etc. are what keep the nutrients available to...feed life. A decrease in one causes a positive feedback loop that eventually causes a loss of both.

What happens once the plant life is mostly gone? Winds remove the nutrients. You get massive dust storms as seen here. So, what? It's just a little wind, it's not like that has ever hurt anyone.









































So what happens is you get this:

Aww... The poor skiiers have to ski on dirty snow. So, what?

Dirty snow is darker snow. Darker snow absorbs more sunlight and melts earlier. Early melting of snow can have many affects, but most importantly, it changes the timing of when meltwater is available to downstream plants and animals. If the plants are not yet ready to receive the water, they'll die off.

Here's a great article on how changing climate and specifically changing of timing in the climate affects creatures in differing ways. Go read it now. I'll wait. Seriously. Go!



Basically, it turns out that some plants and animals time their various activities based on temperature while others time their activities on available sunlight. So, some creatures/plants will peak earlier than they used to while their migratory predators show up late to the party because their sunlight- or other time-based clocks are out of sync with the climate.

Early meltwater running (and necessarily less on-time meltwater) will dramatically affect the creatures that depend on it and the creatures that depend on them, and the creatures that depend on... ad nauseum.

So, can't they just evolve to deal with it? Sure, if they have several tens of thousands of years.

This is the entire problem with human-induced climate change. Things are changing too quickly for most life to adapt. Sure, eventually it'll figure itself out, with likely only a few surviving species and a few new, unrecognizable species, but it's going to be a bleak, bleak place if we don't get our heads out of our asses soon.

2 degrees C of warming is going to push us to the tipping point with no room for error after that; we have less than a decade to figure that out and to do something about it.

What does all of this have to do with livestock? They're unsustainable. The only way eating beef makes sense is if you own 80 or 100 acres of grassland (that's nowhere in the southwest--those are not grasslands, they're drylands.) and have a single cow and calf. Then, it still doesn't make sense to eat the cow when you can get dairy from it. Eating beef from large (in number of head) ranches doesn't make sense at all, whether they're grassfed or cornfed. Grazing livestock (beef) in the way we've been doing for the last 100 years or so is simply not sustainable and it is killing the drylands of the mid- and southwest.

How far can a Dandelion Spore Travel?

When I arrived home from work, my son was raiding the dandelions in the back yard. He was doing what we all did at six: blowing the spores off and making a wish when he cleared the stem. Of course I joined him. After watching the spores float around the yard, he asked me how far can one of them go.

Happily, the intertubes were not too clogged that evening and I managed to find a few research articles on this very subject (yay, Google Scholar!). I have the sneaking suspicion that the scientists who do this work are just looking for excuses to lay on the grass making wishes with their children. Here's a likely manuscript title (Tackenberg et al): "Dandelion Seed Dispersal: The Horizontal Wind Speed Does Not Matter for Long-Distance Dispersal - it is Updraft!" The conclusion in this paper is that for a dandelion seed to go 100 meters or more (long distance by their definition), updraft is the dominant factor. In slight contrast, some (PDF, Stephenson et al.) other (Greene) authors report that the wind speed required to remove similar seeds from the stalk is an important factor. The Stephenson article also considers 100 meters to be a long distance for seeds to travel, so while I suspect that some 4- or 5-sigma seeds can travel into the upper troposphere and thus very long distances it seems that most seeds of this type only travel 100 meters or so.

I had expected that the seeds would make it further than that.