7 ms·
As oceans warm, great white sharks are overheating
- ArchieScrivener 7mo ago[flagged]
- antibull 7mo ago[dead]
- 1234letshaveatw 7mo agoIt's strange they haven't considered diving an extra couple of inches to compensate (if it is even required)
- sailingparrot 7mo agoWarmer water also means less oxygen, thus fish have to swim closer to the surface to get enough oxygen.
- kevinwang 7mo agofor hn comment-only readers: paper link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2981 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2981 --- Editor Summary: Body size and metabolic rate are intertwined, a factor that is especially important to understand with regard to animals that live in aquatic environments, where heat loss is related to water temperature. Payne et al. developed a method to estimate routine metabolic rate based on measures from tagged fish, and combined the estimates with published respirometry rates to create a dataset spanning the entire body size range of extant fishes. Using these data, the authors found a scaling imbalance between heat production and loss that affects especially large, mesothermic fishes in warm waters. This imbalance both explains the distribution of these fish in cooler waters and suggests a special sensitivity to warming waters. —Sacha Vignieri --- Abstract: Body size and temperature set metabolic rates and the pace of life, yet our understanding of the energetics of large fishes is uncertain, especially of warm-bodied mesotherms, which can heavily influence marine food webs. We developed an approach to estimate metabolic heat production in fishes, revealing how routine energy expenditure scales with size and temperature from 1-milligram larvae up to 3-tonne megaplanktivorous sharks. We found that mesotherms use approximately four times more energy than ectotherms use and identified a scaling mismatch in which rates of heat production increase faster than heat loss as body size increases, with larger fish becoming increasingly warm bodied. This scaling imbalance creates an overheating predicament for large mesotherms, helping to explain their cooler biogeographies. Contemporary mesotherms face high fuel demands and overheating risks, which is a concern given their disproportionate demise during prior climate shifts.
- vivzkestrel 7mo ago- stupid question - if everyone on the entire planet went 100% vegan from tomorrow, will carbon emissions really go down by 60%?
- micromacrofoot 7mo agomaybe, but only because a lot of people would starve... that's a demand change our food supply isn't currently structured to handle long term with a proper transition, probably not 60% but likely some lower double-digit percentage (maybe closer to 20?)
- wongarsu 7mo agoWe grow a lot of human-edible food for the sole purpose to feed it to livestock, who then spend most of those calories on existing and put a small portion into body mass that we eventually eat. Sure, that stuff isn't of the same quality as food grown for human consumption, but putting livestock on a diet and diverting some of their food to human consumption would more than cover any shortfall from the missing meat
- scottyah 7mo agoYes, only the rich should be allowed to eat the basic food group of natural meat.
- triceratops 7mo agoThat's how it worked for most of human history in most agricultural societies. It's a traditional value.
- micromacrofoot 7mo agoamericans eat more meat than most other countries today, and most humans throughout history
- micromacrofoot 7mo ago
- ARandomerDude 7mo ago[flagged]
- michaelbuckbee 7mo agoFrom the article: "Polar bears are still sadly expected to go extinct this century, with two-thirds of the population gone by 2050,"
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- graemep 7mo agoYou are exaggerating. It is not "adapting nicely" it is "adapting and may not become extinct" I think it is an interesting point, but its not all OK.
- mempko 7mo agoIt's called evolution. Unfortunately the rate at which we are changing the climate is causing a mass extinction and die-off event. In the article it says "does not mean that polar bears are at any less risk of extinction". Doesn't sound like 'adapting nicely' to me.
- 21asdffdsa12 7mo agoIm actually a Cambrian explosion of anti-human defenses. Allergens, toxins, whatever kills them and drives them indoors, life will adapt and shepherd. Nature is no virgin goddess ravaged by evil industrial mankind - nature can be hard and fast - almost as if life depends on it.
- FactolSarin 7mo agoLiterally the article parent linked says they're still expected to go extinct but there is a "glimmer of hope." And that's supposed to be adapting nicely?
- HelloMcFly 7mo agoI want to ignore these articles as it is so painful to watch the beautiful clockwork of the natural world unravel. I hate facing the suffering, diminishment, and extinction of so much in the name of profiteering and ever-increasing growth. But this is the world now, there will only be more stories like this, and so I'm not turning away from it any further. The world becomes less beautiful, less rich, less full every year. I do volunteer, donate, and advocate and I won't use my extreme pessimism as an excuse not to engage. But in private, I mourn what is coming with little hope for substantial reduction in harm. If anything, those with power seem upset that we're not doing more to fasttrack catastrophe - if it's going to happen, may as well be the one to profit from it as much as possible before you're dead, the thinking seems to go.
- soco 7mo agoSometimes those stories try too much to impress. I recorded a documentary series "How to kill a puppy and get rich" about street dogs in Romania and the business around them, and I had to stop it after 10 seconds, not exaggerating. Folks, I want to know the mafia and story, but I can't stand to see and hear that torture...
- roldie 7mo agoYou have articulated my feelings, behavior, and outlook almost exactly. I feel so hopeless every time I read an article like this. I've joined climate activist groups and meetups, and I've donated to orgs and political candidates. But I just feel like there's so much more damage to be done before we get to substantial improvements, it's so disheartening
- qsera 7mo ago>natural world unravel Natural world would be mostly fine one way or other, human beings might not survive though...
- Scarblac 7mo agoNo, we're very resilient bastards, we're going to let the huge majority of species go extinct before we go ourselves. We're already in a mass extinction event and we're just getting started.
- bilsbie 7mo agoHow come the sharks don’t migrate toward colder water?
- ihumanable 7mo ago> Several large tuna species and sharks, known as “mesothermic” species for the way their bodies run hot, require more fuel to maintain their temperature and are thus confronting a “double jeopardy” of warming oceans and declining food, mainly from overfishing. As water temperatures climb, these species will be forced to relocate to cooler waters. They are moving to cooler waters but the cooler waters won't have the food supplies they need. So it's either stay where the food is and overheat or go to cooler water and starve.
- realsharkymark 7mo agoWhites do dive deep as they age, and feed on giant squid and elephant seals that dive deep as well.
- bilsbie 7mo ago[flagged]
- JMKH42 7mo ago[flagged]
- bilsbie 7mo agoWhat about it is nonsense? You don’t think there’s any bias due to securing funding?
- tokai 7mo agoThat you spew bullshit about something you clearly don't know anything about. You can look up the basis funding is given on. HFSP needs novel basic research methods and international collaboration. The other funding is from Irish groups that fund Irish researchers. Besides those requirements seniority of the researchers involved is one of the most important factors, thats were any bias in funding actually lies. HFSP even states that preliminary results are not needed for applicants.
- virgildotcodes 7mo agoDo you think your conclusions might be ideologically driven rather than driven by evidence in this case? Do you think the financial incentives for broke ass scientists trying to secure rapidly dwindling scientific grants are greater than those behind the global fossil fuel industry and other industries (virtually all) that have a detrimental effect on the environment? Really man? You think the cabal is the postdocs living on $60k a year and not the multinational corporations with a history of things like tobacco companies funding studies that prove smoking isn't bad for you and exxon funding scientists and research trying to disprove climate change? Completely detach yourself from your belief system and political ideology, step back, and look at the facts on the ground objectively, where money and power rests, how it flows, without any concern for protecting your pre-existing belief system. Where does sense, an understanding of incentives, and probability lead you?
- deleted 7mo ago
- Avicebron 7mo agoI wonder what would happen if we started measuring the carbon emissions for multinational supply chains..
- bilsbie 7mo agoMy main skepticism (Shark lover here btw!) Is that sharks are an ancient species and they’ve survived way warmer oceans even relatively recently. For example the Medieval Warm Period Sargasso Sea surface temperatures were 1°C warmer than 400 years ago, and Pacific Ocean water temperatures were 0.65°C warmer than the decades before.
- acuozzo 7mo agoWere there any periods in which the rate of change in warming was the same or greater?
- bilsbie 7mo agoI think there’s debate on the current numbers but I’ve heard sea surface temperatures are currently about 0.5°C above the 1981-2010 average.
- moffkalast 7mo agoDuring mass extinction events.
- ijustlovemath 7mo agoDuring the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the rate of change of CO2 concentration was 1/4 what we're at today
- simonsarris 7mo agoYounger Dryas, definitely. It very likely abruptly stopped progress in human agriculture, before allowing it to abruptly restart again. Makes the Medieval warm period and little ice age look like a joke. Two massive shifts that punctuate the timeline of early human prehistory. > The Younger Dryas (YD, Greenland Stadial GS-1) was a period in Earth's geologic history that occurred circa 12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present (BP). It is primarily known for the sudden or "abrupt" cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, when the North Atlantic Ocean cooled and annual air temperatures decreased by ~3 °C (5 °F) over North America, 2–6 °C (4–11 °F) in Europe and up to 10 °C (18 °F) in Greenland, in a few decades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
- realsharkymark 7mo agoWhites migrate long distances including deep waters when they age
- sebmellen 7mo agoTime to make sunsets. https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com. I don’t see a way out except for stratospheric aerosol injection.
- someuser54541 7mo agoThis might be the worst idea I've ever seen. I'm glad they are so interested in reducing the effects of global warming - that's fantastic - but they are literally purposefully releasing a toxic, major air pollutant into the air to create in their own words "clouds of dust" for the purposes of reflecting sunlight. Sure, there might be a slight cooling effect but who in their right mind could possibly think this is a good idea?! I understand they are deploying to the stratosphere and not the troposphere but I can't imagine there aren't any negative second-order effects. As someone who lives in a city with a major PM2.5 problem that effects the millions here on the daily (near an active stratovolcano no less!), reading about what they are doing was somewhat infuriating.
- sebmellen 7mo agohttps://www.cremieux.xyz/p/from-pollution-to-solution https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/from-pollution-to-solution I understand your concern but I don’t believe the impact is as severe as you think.
- someuser54541 7mo agoI appreciate the link, however it should be noted that piece was written by the co-founder of that same company. They do seem to be evidence driven but let's not pretend there's not some degree of bias towards the solutions his company is proposing. Additionally, that article focuses almost solely on the chances of producing acid rain, which actually is another issue and not the one I was first concerned with. That piece talks about "redistributing" SO2 from the troposphere to the stratosphere which is a neat concept but a.) that's purely theoretical, and b.) that's not what they are doing or trying to do anyway. It could be argued that air pollution has a greater and more devastating effect on the everyday lives of people alive today then global warming does now or will in the foreseeable future. In my city it was estimated that more than 1 in every ~16 deaths is related to air pollution, and the air here isn't nearly as bad as it is in other cities. Worldwide, UNICEF estimates nearly 2,000 deaths under 5 years of age per day from air pollution [0]. Annual deaths worldwide are estimated at 8+ million yearly across all age groups. Making that problem worse by any measure in the hope of producing a cooling effect that is a fraction of a fraction of a degree is not worth it at all and at least in my opinion is a net-negative. [0]: https://ceh.unicef.org/spotlight-risk/air-pollution https://ceh.unicef.org/spotlight-risk/air-pollution
- user3939382 7mo agoIt’s a white noise so hard to notice, but our behavior is fundamentally driven by the design of our nervous system. Thus the more immediate the consequence, the better we link our behavior and can adjust. Since this is true at an individual level, the dynamic emerges from societies and populations as well, even large ones. For example, something is red, you touch it, get burned. You won’t touch it again. Environmental harm unfortunately is precisely the opposite. Consequences arise on a very long arc, in some cases beyond even our lifetimes. We register problems like this only intellectually, and even that becomes clouded with politics. So the problem is kind of inevitable unfortunately.
- Lapsa 7mo agoreminder - there's tech out there capable of reading your mind remotely
- freediddy 7mo agoNo they aren't. They will move to different locations like they always have been for the past 400 million years. Sharks are older than trees, they can adapt to climate change better than anything alive right now.
- sailingparrot 7mo agoWhat an inane comment that shows how unqualified you are to talk about this. Shark is a group, great white shark is a species. The fact that the group has been alive for 400M years has no bearing on whether the currently alive species can actually adapt and survive. Some very likely will, the great white might not, that’s what the article is about.
- freediddy 7mo agoAnother alarmist who believes "this time it's different!" with no knowledge about how climate has changed over the past 400 million years. You probably thought when Big Basin burned that it would never recover, meanwhile it started to recover in months. People who doubt nature's resilience are ALWAYS wrong.
- tracker1 7mo agoAs sad as these things are... one needs to also accept, that as capable as we are of changing our environments, from transportation, to air conditioning, we do not control all the things. We have and continue to over-fish in a lot of places, and I have deep concerns over farmed fish and the impact of less than natural foods on our own health. A lot of the changes to the waters is well outside human control... there's a huge balance of factors at play from the earth, moon and sun. We don't control these things... and to what impact we can/do, I'm not sure that anything we might do may not have unintended consequences that are materially worse. We can definitely do some things, but the level of internalized and externalized guilt that people in and outside these discussions seem to carry and put on others isn't at all healthy in and of itself.
- Timon3 7mo agoOf course this is inside human control - we are directly responsible for what's happening! Unless you're one of the people who are willingly putting their head in the sand, I don't understand how it makes sense to act like this is still in question.
- tracker1 7mo agoOkay, you're responsible... why haven't you stopped it?
- Timon3 7mo agoI'm not sure if you thought this would come across as clever, or whatever else - but feel free to try again with an actual response to my point.
- tracker1 7mo agoWhy should I, you completely missed mine... in that "guilt" is not appropriate or healthy here... you are not personally, directly responsible. That isn't to say that nothing can be done, but guilt serves nobody. We seem to have a couple generations with literally toxic levels of guilt in so many ways that is completely unhealthy.
- j3th9n 7mo agoSo much bullshit, no wonder people are fed up with this whole “climate crisis” narrative.