Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It's So Cold Outside That Sharks Are Actually Freezing to Death (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the hitting-the-rock-bottom dept.

An anonymous reader writes: As climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperatures -- a phenomenon President Trump seems a little confused about -- cities up and down the East Coast are facing record-breaking snowfall and subzero temperatures. But while city dwellers might be able to hide indoors and crank up the heat, some animals aren't so lucky. According to the Cape Cod-based Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, it's gotten so cold that sharks in the area have been washing up on the shore and essentially freezing to death. This week, the organization responded to three thresher sharks that likely suffered "cold shock" in the surrounding waters. Organisms suffer cold shock when they're exposed to extreme dips in temperature and can sometimes experience muscle spasms or cardiac arrest. Scientists believe the sharks swimming off the coast of Cape Cod -- where temperatures have dropped to 6 degrees -- suffered cold shock in the water, and then wound up getting stranded on the shore, where they likely suffocated. "If you've got cold air, that'll freeze their gills up very quickly," Greg Skomal, a marine scientist, told the New York Times. "Those gill filaments are very sensitive and it wouldn't take long for the shark to die."

18 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Usual propaganda shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "As climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperatures"

    If you disagree with the assertion that it won't snow anymore because of GLOBAL WARMING you are anti-science.

    If you disagree with the assertion that it will be cold because of GLOBLAL WAR-- I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE you are anti-science.

    Basically: Literally any observed phenomenon means OMG GLOBAL WAR-- I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE is real and you are anti-science for even pretending that facts can contradict this religious -- I mean "scientific" -- dogma.

  2. And? by orlanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You would think there would be a mention of lasers somewhere in the post. It is Slashdot after all. Sharks, ice, and ... Come ON, it writes itself... how we have fallen.

  3. Not a climate change article by unixcorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the first paragraph of the article - right up to where it berated our President and then I stopped. If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts. We have plenty of time to do politics here or at the bar or wherever. Also, are these temperatures really record breaking or is that just more hype?

    1. Re:Not a climate change article by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts."

      This is the problem. You have armchair climatologists ridiculing the president or anyone who dares to deny climate change based on regional weather patterns, while at the same time these pseudo intellectuals likely don't know the first fact about how climate change can cause more severe weather patterns. My guess is most of them couldn't begin to explain why winters can continue to be cold, and even colder than in years past, while global warming continues to increase.

      But, sarcasm is the cheapest form of intellectualism. It requires no real knowledge while attempting to shame those with whom you disagree.

      Stick to the facts. If you disagree with someone, make a solid argument to prove your point.

    2. Re:Not a climate change article by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the problem is, most "climate change denial" is politically based. Everyone knows that climate change is real, certain people just choose to pretend it isn't real because it fits their politics to do so (and yes, some people deliberately exaggerate it greatly because it fits their politics).

      It would be nice if the issue were not politicized and we just dealt with facts., but there is a lot of attack on the science from some of a certain political persuasion, that an issue that SHOULD BE non-political, has become VERY political unfortunately. You can't detangle politics from climate change now, some people are too invested in it being political.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Not a climate change article by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts."

      This is the problem. You have armchair climatologists ridiculing the president or anyone who dares to deny climate change based on regional weather patterns.

      You also have armchair climatologists ridiculing actual climatologists.

      Not that either way is good, mind you.

    4. Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't "berating the president" - it's that such a stupid, irrelevant editorial gets shoehorned into a categorically unrelated topic.

      Honestly, what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"? Is it Donald Trump ? Congratulations. You have an autistic fixation and your associative thinking is so broken that all thoughts invariably lead to your stupid, frustrated partisan faggot feelings.

    5. Re:Not a climate change article by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You phrased it better than I did. It was pretty awkward and shows how much free real estate he has in some people's minds.

    6. Re:Not a climate change article by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Historic averages for Boston. No it is not record lows, but maybe close. The only facts in this article is three sharks froze to death after beaching themselves for still as yet undetermined reasons. All the rest is speculation, they couldn't even be bothered to specify if it was 6 Fahrenheit or Celsius, or what the water temps are vs normal.

      The rest reads like a social media blog, news reporting is a lost art.

    7. Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      - "deplorable" designed _half_ of Trump's electorate that was racist and fascist, I guess you are proud of being racist.
      - so you willingly admit that you (and other "deplorables") are defending positions (that will affect our children) out of pure spite, congrats, I guess you are truly deplorable.

    8. Re:Not a climate change article by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nobody denies climate change

      Plenty do.

      Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.

  4. Re: I bet the friggin sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Global Warming doesn't exclude anything.

    Nice theory (wait...hypothesis since you have no confirmed experiments) you have there. ANYTHING that happens is accounted for.

    OH, but then there is that pesky Falsification thing that Science demands.

    Well, maybe you can write a computer simulation and just skip over that part.

  5. Re:Same Ol' Argument... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cold is Weather, Hot is Climate.

    Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.

    Temperature trends that last for a week are weather.

  6. Flamebait Summary by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -- a phenomenon President Trump seems a little confused about --

    FFS, I'm no Trump defender, but tossing in random, snarky asides in the summary immediately lowers the quality of the discussion.

  7. Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 : low=5; high=7; avg=6; std dev=0.866; 95% conf=[5.434, 6.566]
    4 6 8 6 6 7 5 6 7 : low=4; high=8; avg=6.1; std dev=1.167; 95% conf=[5.349, 6.873]
    3 6 9 6 6 8 6 6 7 : low=3; high=9; avg=6.3; std dev=1.658; 95% conf=[5.250, 7.417]
    2 6 10 6 6 8 6 7 8 : low=2; high=10; avg=6.5; std dev=2.186; 95% conf=[5.127, 7.984]

    [5.434, 6.566] is a subset of [5.349, 6.873] is a subset of [5.250, 7.417] is a subset of [5.127, 7.984]
    We cannot say with reasonable certainty that the final set is greater. Yes, math can be hard and statistics are math.

  8. Re:Same Ol' Argument... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, it is dew point, not 'due point'. Second, climate is weather trends over decades. One weather event that is outside of the norm, regardless of how many standard deviations, is not climate. It might become a data point that in time can point to a change in overall climate, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

  9. History by huckamania · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you don't know history, then STFU. History proves that science is cabalistic and prone to bias. That's why science is hard and also why eminent scientists like Freeman Dyson are not part of your stupidly concocted 97%.

  10. Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    New England is not the entire planet.

    I strongly disagree with your assertion. I've lived in New England for nearly 40 years, so I should know.