<p>Would the number of fish in a lake, along with how large they are, and how much they move, have a greater effect on the temperature of the lake than the angle of the sun's light hitting the surface of the lake?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T21:38:36.483Z
are you implying that the movement of the fish create enough kinetic energy to warm the water?  if that were the case... rivers would be very warm because the water is always moving.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T21:47:07.863Z
the angle of the sun's light hitting the surface of the lake
arkaia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T21:55:53.627Z
I am implying that the fish are moving, and warming up the lake that way, but also that the heat being radiated from the fishes bodies would heat it up
TECTEC3 Studios
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T22:00:28.737Z
I'd have to guess that in order for the lake's fish population to contribute more than solar input, there wouldn't be enough dissolved oxygen to support that many fish.
BillDOe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T22:44:26.760Z
fish are not warm blooded... so the heat of their bodies depends on the temperature of the water... not vice versa
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-12T23:27:08.353Z
The kinetic energy from the fishes all comes from the food it's eating, so if you can estimate the total calories intake, you have an upper constraint for the hypothetical contribution. If no food is added (by rivers or humans etc) the kinetic energy must be a fraction of the energy transformation of the photosynthesis and thereby less. Nice question, however!
user2821
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-13T09:23:49.533Z
This question seems fundamentally unanswerable to me. "Number, size, and activity level of fish" and "angle of light" aren't comparable quantities. You can't determine a "greater effect" without a well-defined way of comparing the input variables. Even if you defined some formula for comparison, the answer would depend hugely on other properties of any specific lake (size, location, inflow temperature, air temperature, albedo, other biota, etc.).
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-13T16:58:29.063Z
Related: [Swimming fish could be key to generating electricity for UK homes](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5082676/Swimming-fish-could-be-key-to-generating-electricity-for-UK-homes.html). Note well: This article was published on 1 April, 2009.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-13T16:59:36.953Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question is very misguided.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-13T19:43:43.627Z
This isn't comparing apples and oranges, its more like apples and socks. That being said, I think it can be an interesting and useful thought experiment to compare two things so disparate, since both could ultimately be measured in an output of Joules added to the lake. Unfortunately, the answer is going to be the sun, by a great many orders of magnitude, so its not really worth trying to finish the thought experiment here.
kingledion
<insolation>
Which has a greater effect on the temperature of a lake: the number of fish, or the angle of the rays of light hitting the surface of the lake
TECTEC3 Studios
# Which has a greater effect on the temperature of a lake: the number of fish, or the angle of the rays of light hitting the surface of the lake

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-12)

Would the number of fish in a lake, along with how large they are, and how much they move, have a greater effect on the temperature of the lake than the angle of the sun's light hitting the surface of the lake?

**Tags:** insolation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: are you implying that the movement of the fish create enough kinetic energy to warm the water?  if that were the case... rivers would be very warm because the water is always moving.  
> **username_2**: the angle of the sun's light hitting the surface of the lake  
> **username_0**: I am implying that the fish are moving, and warming up the lake that way, but also that the heat being radiated from the fishes bodies would heat it up  
> **username_3**: I'd have to guess that in order for the lake's fish population to contribute more than solar input, there wouldn't be enough dissolved oxygen to support that many fish.  
> **username_1**: fish are not warm blooded... so the heat of their bodies depends on the temperature of the water... not vice versa  
> **username_4**: The kinetic energy from the fishes all comes from the food it's eating, so if you can estimate the total calories intake, you have an upper constraint for the hypothetical contribution. If no food is added (by rivers or humans etc) the kinetic energy must be a fraction of the energy transformation of the photosynthesis and thereby less. Nice question, however!  
> **username_5**: This question seems fundamentally unanswerable to me. "Number, size, and activity level of fish" and "angle of light" aren't comparable quantities. You can't determine a "greater effect" without a well-defined way of comparing the input variables. Even if you defined some formula for comparison, the answer would depend hugely on other properties of any specific lake (size, location, inflow temperature, air temperature, albedo, other biota, etc.).  
> **username_6**: Related: [Swimming fish could be key to generating electricity for UK homes](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5082676/Swimming-fish-could-be-key-to-generating-electricity-for-UK-homes.html). Note well: This article was published on 1 April, 2009.  
> **username_6**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question is very misguided.  
> **username_7**: This isn't comparing apples and oranges, its more like apples and socks. That being said, I think it can be an interesting and useful thought experiment to compare two things so disparate, since both could ultimately be measured in an output of Joules added to the lake. Unfortunately, the answer is going to be the sun, by a great many orders of magnitude, so its not really worth trying to finish the thought experiment here.  

---

## 0 answers

