As oceans warm, great white sharks are overheating
e360.yale.edu
e360.yale.edu
paper link: 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.
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.
> 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
There are ~500 living species of shark and likely tens of thousands extinct in their lineage.
We are perpetrating a mass extinction event that incorporates not just temperatures, but ocean acidification and trophic cascade for fisheries. In mass extinctions, enough things about the ecosystem change that specialists often go extinct. Great White Sharks are a specialist species in their extreme size; Most size specialists are in a precarious local maxima that disappears too quickly to adapt if conditions change drastically.
(that chart was made in 2016, given that we were at +1.5C last year we're outdone even the most pessimistic scenario presented on that graph by quite a bit, the line is now almost horizontal)
Reading a thermometer is not really an advanced skill.
But sharks have been around for 400 million years, longer than trees have existed. The amount of change they have endured is far greater than that, and sharks are likely the most adept at climate change.
For a shark lover, you should know that shark is not a species, but a taxonomy group.
From there, everything else you assume is incorrect (ie: some species of sharks have definitely gone extinct)
Which is really heartening to me, because decreasing the temperature of the ocean seems daunting, but not dragging giant nets through the ocean nonstop seems pretty straightforward.
- if everyone on the entire planet went 100% vegan from tomorrow, will carbon emissions really go down by 60%?
long term with a proper transition, probably not 60% but likely some lower double-digit percentage (maybe closer to 20?)
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
If patrons were shown the real price, we'd switch.
But we're being lied to.
Food is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. I agree that it’s not realistic to assume this will be solved individually, more pressure needs to be put on these large corporations from governments, but the quickest way you or I can make our own (individually small, collectively large) impact is by cutting out meat from our diet (specifically beef[2]). We are end-consumers of those 100 largest corporations one way or another.
(Not a vegetarian/vegan btw. I’m not trying to shame, I’m certainly not perfect! I just wanted to share the info that it’s not someone else’s problem. We’re all in this together)
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions [2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints?Commodi...
We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
For full clarity, it's also not the 100 biggest corporations that produce most emissions, but the 100 biggest companies. A massive amount of the global emissions are done by state-owned companies.
Unfortunately the United States is currently ruled by a death cult that sees any further push to renewables as capitulation to China and is dedicated to burning fossil fuels until they are fully gone.
See, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sbvp4ULD6GI
And while this part is less explicitly stated, I'm convinced they aren't ignorant of the devastating results of this policy, they just intend to profit off it rather than mitigate the harms, thus the stated interest in taking Greenland, Canada, etc.
They know things are going to get really bad, but they also know their own wealth will at least in the short term shield them from much personal exposure to the harm that will increasingly immiserate everyone else.
On the other side, not all climates can produce all the plants required for a balanced vegan diet. Here in Canada, nothing grows for 6 months and what does grow is relatively limited.
The lowest energy system would likely include a reduction in animal products but not a complete elimination, while keeping transportation to a minimum.
Also, just like with energy generation, there's the game theory aspect. If you reduce emissions, will everyone cooperate? What if you suffer only to have someone else increase their emissions anyway? We see this here... We limit our fisheries to try preserve ocean fish, only for Chinese vessels to sit on the edge of our borders hoovering up all the aquatic life...
- Cattle release methane
- Forests are burnt to make room for crops/grazing
- Fertilizer for crops for cattle produces nitrous oxide
I do not claim this adds up to 60%, but to suggest it is zero is incorrect.
I don’t see a way out except for stratospheric aerosol injection.
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.
I understand your concern but I don’t believe the impact is as severe as you think.
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.
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.
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.
Natural world would be mostly fine one way or other, human beings might not survive though...
Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
I've thought that it might be an idea for more states to require at least half of all beef and chicken to be imported into the state in at least half-carcass form. This would incentivize local farming, and local processing, reducing the more centralized processing and the environmental impacts could be further reduced in a lot of ways. That's just for meat.
Forcing insurance company accounting to average to single-payer modals and limit coverage combinations to no more than 3 choices across the nation could help with another part. Refactoring all federally funded insurance (medicare/medicaid/va/federal-employees) into a non-profit insurance corp that does likewise and any private company can also buy policies from would help to. Finally, establish "part time" work as no more than 10 hours a week averaged per 4 week window. Then require all employers to provide medical insurance for all workers that meets what the npo insurance provides.
The recent changes to USDA food guidelines are a step in the right direction, mostly... but there's still room to improve. Education in and of itself should improve dramatically. For that matter, actually having schools "make" most of their food instead of relying on premade/packaged goods would be a massive step in a right direction. Have every student participate in meal preparation at least a few hours a week as part of school work would help a lot.
I'd like to see some incentivization for more companies returning to a dividends model that includes employee profit sharing as part of said formula. I think this would do a LOT to shore up the middle class again.
Sorry, just went off on a total tangent... hitting reply anyway, but don't take anything too serious/deep... these thoughts are kind of always lingering in the back of my mind... I've just never been in a position to actually act on any of them politically.
But, even starting to think about each of them, I can't escape the frame of the current socio-economic structure, where short-term profits currently trump all, and influence of the aforementioned "0.01%" (or whatever we call it) is direct, heavy and effective, and all of that brought us here to a large extent in the first place.
In such a reality of ours, these kinds of initiatives don't go far - and even if surfaced in the media, there is a significant portion of population who would be very strongly against them, due to how opinions have been shaped and polarised over past decades.
It does seem almost impossible from current perspective.
Fuel is trickier and requires investments and a transition period, but a beef tax would be trivial, and there are infinite substitute goods available.
It's a kindergartners view on troubleshooting an unfathomably complex issue.
"Well just raise taxes and fix that!"
Here in the us, we could squeeze the rich and feed the whole world for many years. But we simply don't indicate basic survival instincts.
> Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
Is the idea to increase the VAT or something? The taxes on consumption?
Okay, so how would this work? You increase these taxes so that the bad consumers don’t travel for pleasure (just companies for business). Eventually people just buy what they need, like food which is presumably decently locally sourced, enough clothes to not freeze or be indecent. You’re still left with gas for commuting to job because people live an hour from work not out of choice but because of real estate prices. And what are in the stores are Made in China or Vietnam because that’s how the global market works; cheap shipping from cheap countries.
But these taxes would organically change all of that?
The usual narrative conveniently focuses on how Joe Beergut is causing problems by driving to work. And that this is how taxation should work; individual income, individual consumption, individual taxes. The more and more “libertarian”, the more the narrative slide towards taxes on income, taxes on consumption, and eventually just a flat tax because that is “fair”. But that seems to leave the big blindspot of corporations and individuals that might own fleets of trucks that of course tax the road infrastructure—no taxes for them?
But what headway could be made if the externalities were all caused by Joe Beergut. Libertarians and the environmental narrative might agree.
I sometimes think about a post-industrial fantasy world where technology still exists, though minimally, and carefully applied to solve real problems humanity faces instead of selling FOMO or millions of "shiny things" that wind up in land fills so you can sell the new FOMO/shinything so some numbers on a spread sheet goes up.
I simply cannot decide to avoid all the technology of my field because whoever designed the electrical infrastructure didn’t do it responsibly. Or because the handling of ewaste hasn’t been dealt with. Or because everyone sourced materials in unethical ways.
My responsibility for most of that kinda ends at my voting behavior or trying to make reasonable personal decisions that are well within my small sphere of influence. A problem domain that I can handle.
Anyone who watched The Good Place knows what I mean. It’s not absolution for my own behavior, it’s just not holding myself accountable for everything that everyone else does… badly.
Otherwise there’s just no sword to fall on that’s big enough to feel at peace with the world. (Think of the snails!)
I'm not going to point to a TV show about alcoholism to substantiate that. You don't need me to. It is also why manslaughter, though a lesser crime than murder, remains a crime.
“Don’t get shitty drunk and then drive” fits just fine.
“Be a technology person who doesn’t use technology because our power isn’t green.” potentially falls on the far side of that line of personal responsibility.
The concept holds, in either case. It’s the only reasonable approach, imo.
All that said: you might enjoy the book Robot & Monk by Becky Chambers, if you're one to read fiction. It kind of depicts what you're describing as your fantasy.
We got a solar array 10 years ago now. It’s small, but between 1000 to 3500 watts depending on the weather. It brings me some joy.
“Ones and zeros” by Jack Johnson is brutal lyrically. “A lot of traffic on the streets, so who's really doing all the drilling?”
It’s an unknown future and I’m glad that there are a lot thoughtful comments in this thread by people who care.
While Europe cycles, the US builds bigger and bigger cars requiring more and more fuel to push just to prop up its unimaginative auto industry. While an American drives, Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump level cities of concrete that will need to be repoured one day, combined with all the wasted energy put into making the people who die in those attacks.
One cannot be responsible for this, for all these other people. There's no guilt, just existential angst as we watch ourselves doomspiral. Whenever climate change is discussed internationally the developed world point at current carbon emissions while the developing world points at historic carbon emissions which means no agreement can be made. Those that are made are just torn up at the earliest opportunity by political opponents seeking short term gains. Who could possibly be responsible for all of this?
The only hope is that this investments made through energy use will propel humanity to the point where it can survive the world it has ruined.
Unless you can change the many, including those most intransigent, you have to respect that just changing yourself, is something you only do for yourself. I don't see how its "moral cowardice" for me to own a car so I can ferry around my 84 year old father, so he doesn't have to drive, or to flush my toilet after every time I piss.
If we're to talk about what you're ashamed of, why bring up the least blameworthy examples you can find? Do you want to be shriven, or enabled?
I think the average American or even maybe Chinese citizen has a much higher footprint than me these days. I could do better, but to do so would impact my life negatively, win me nothing but smug self-indulgence and change nothing in terms of the long term outcomes of this planet.
So yea, what guilt, what "moral cowardice"? I wouldn't sneer at someone with a higher footprint than me (outside of maybe SUV owners because srsly wtf is that shit) because its collectively where we're culpable, not individually.
Its 2026 and like 30% or more of the citizens of the global super power don't believe in global warming. We're fucked and nothing I do or you do is going to stop that outcome. We probably should start seriously thinking about geo-engineering instead of worrying about moral cowardice.
None of this is to say don't mourn or long for any of this, but the show doesnt end, the charecters just change.
To repeat myself in another comment: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works? In the same way, how long will it take the earth to return to such complexity and diversity of life? Many, many millenia.
But to also say something unpopular, humans are part of the natural world. So these human driven changes to nature are just 'nature changing nature'. I understand that we are potentially causing mass extinctions, but this needs to be seen as natural unless you take for granted that humans are inherently 'special' which leads to speciesism. So, this might just be the way planets with intelligent species evolve, they outcompete the others and exploit natural resources to their benefit. It might just be a biological/evolutionary law.
Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this. Bacteria outnumber all other class of organisms IIRC, and they are shown to survive in truly challenging conditions.
It is true humans are part of nature, but we are unique in our capacity for causal understanding and foresight. We are the only species that can understand the long-term consequences of our actions and actively choose to change course. If our ability to exploit is natural, our ability to act with foresight and restraint is equally natural. Framing the present-day destruction as a natural consequence of some "evolutionary law" to me is an "appeal to nature" fallacy that can be used to absolve both individual and collective responsibility.
Yes, this is perhaps a way (it seems far too presumptive to say "the way") planets with intelligent species evolve. We are perhaps entering the Great Filter, or one of them.
> Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this
Literally true, but I'd argue a semantic deflection. It doesn't engage with the core idea of the destruction of complex ecosystems that we are witnessing and commenting on.
That said and to the point: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works?
How nice. Us adults who have ruined the planet[1][2] and now we are lecturing the youngins about how to deal with this suckage.
With a bizarrely cherry narration. Did you know things are about to suck for you? Just your usual shameless state TV programming.
But we, with our particular national programming, are just supposed to act like we were just spoiled brats that now have to live without dessert post-dinner. The “dessert generation” indeed.
[1] Um akshually, we haven’t ruined the planet—the planet is just minerals! It doesn’t care. We are just ruining the foundation for our own comfortable exi— yeah no kidding.
[2] Like with Norwegian oil/gas extraction
There will be a shark in someones mind in a 100 years time - if its not a real one, let it be the one you shared with your mind, here and now.
I think it is ok to not engage. The idea that you can impact the world is largely an artifact of modernity. In reality, capital is more than happy to let you take the blame for its own suicidal tendencies.
I understand what you're saying. I appreciate the thought behind it. But in the end, I do not agree. I cannot be certain where my actions will and won't ultimately help accrue to impact; the pebble knows not the impact that its ripples will have. If you care about something, I think you should be involved.
You're free to overthrow your government and instate humanitarian policies, but a pebble is not inclined to roll uphill.
And, if nothing else, many of the efforts you can contribute to can have a clear and demonstrable impact at a more local level, or for a more limited time, even if it doesn't solve or mitigate the larger issue in the long run. Is it a waste of time for me to get involved in river clean-ups, or to work with a crew to re-wild an abandoned golf course, or remove asur honeysuckle from nearby native forests? Maybe you'd say "yes" because we'll have to keep doing it again, but that's the work with most things that matter.
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.
We seem to have a couple generations with literally toxic levels of guilt in so many ways that is completely unhealthy.
All of these things are firmly within our control.
You're in control after all.
edit: sarcasm aside... my entire point is that the guilt itself isn't healthy and does no good for anyone. Yes, there are things that can probably be done, but alarmism, blame and guilt cycles do nothing to help anyone.
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.
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.
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.